User talk:Ghuron/Archives/2018

Active discussions


Hi - Can I just check why you removed this claim : from Norman Haworth (Q204600)? Thanks JerryL2017 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@JerryL2017: that was a mistake, thank you for pointing that to me. Reverted those changes, let me know if you see more problems there --Ghuron (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it prompted to go find another reference which I will also add, Thanks JerryL2017 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


Looks like that program doesn't work well for names. - Bossanoven (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop running it for names immediately. - Bossanoven (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bossanoven: quickstatement itself is not a problem, problem is my dataset with family name (P734). Give me 24 hours, I'll manually review and correct my edits --Ghuron (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi! It seems like you didn't chack the writing system (P282) of names you added, because you added massively Latin-script names to Russian people, etc. Please verify your list before adding names because right now you are adding tons and tons of errors. Please keep in mind that many existing items are not clean yet and need to be splitted between all the strings before being used massively. Please also keep in mind that GZWD created all names for the USA census, which mean we may have a Latin-script version of what is obviously a name Russian in origin but we are still missing this Russian name. It needs to be created to be put on Russian people. In no cases should the Latin-script version be used in their place. Right now some of your edits are totally wrong and you added too much in too little time for me to clean up alone. So I ask you to stop adding names until you have correctly checked your parameters and to clean up the dozens of thousands of wrong edits you made. I'll help, but I can't do that alone in your stead. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Errors spotted for now: adding the family name of the person as value for given name (P735). Adding a Latin-script name to someone who have a Cyrillic name. Adding a Cyrillic name to someone who have a Latin-script name. Adding the wrong Latin-script name. What verifications did you do before starting your QuickStatements? If we know, we can revert all the potentially problematic edits and keep the rest, but right now, it's a terrifying amount of errors. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I saw you corrected some of them! Thank you! I'm sorry, I just saw suddenly thousands of errors and I wasn't sure you were aware. But since you already corrected some of them, I trust we will both keep cleaning up and that you won't add new ones. Hopefully we will sort this mess :) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: There is nothing to be sorry about, the percentage of mistakes in batch from Jan28 was certainly too high. And the person who should fix them is me, not you  . I've manually corrected most obvious mistakes like [1], but your comment assumes that there are much more problems there. To your points:
  1. Adding the family name of the person as value for given name (P735) - I might have made a few mistakes like this when manually correcting my edits. Anyway it is less than 500 instances like that, I certainly can sort them out
  2. Latin-name vs. cyrillic-name and vice versa. I'm not sure I understand that clearly, can you point me a few examples?
  3. Adding wrong latin-script name - should be corrected by now, let me know if you see more of that
  4. I'm also not sure I understand your reverts, that is made on pages like Q28489327, can you please clarify that for me?
Thanks in advance and sorry for the mess. --Ghuron (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ghuron:. I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that you added family names items as values of P735. I meant that you added given names items as values of given name (P735) when in fact it wasn't the given name but the family name of the person. So it will violates absolutely no constraint and it still totally wrong. For example, Герман is the family name but you added the information as given name. So it's not less than 500 errors and you won't even be able to spot them that easily.
And that actually a good example because you added "Hermann" as value when it was "Герман" (even if we don't care about P735/P734). Herman (Q18187697) is not Hermann (Q25160173) is not Q18692544. We have a different item for each string and you need to link to the correct item. Here you added a Cyrillic name to a German person, which is wrong. You did the same in reverse many times (since we are missing so many Cyrillic names right now, who happen to exist in Latin-script version due to the USA census). That may be a little easier to spot if other properties are present (like, we know we should verify all Russian people who have a name in Latin script) but it will still take time and it will probably be really complicated to spot them all (since we don't always have the countries as clue).
You deleted massively P31:disambiguation pages for items for which one sitelink was in fact about a name; but other sitelinks were about disambiguation pages. Deleting the P31 did not magically clean up the entries. All these items should have been splitted in two (or more) pages, one about the disambiguation, for Wikipedias with disambiguation markers and categories, and one about the name (or several items for several names if there were several strings). We were several people working down the list splitting them up correctly. I have started to add again the P31:disambig based on the categories of the sitelinks so we can at least have that list of items to clean up again.
Basically names are complicated, items are messy, deleting the statements which help us to identify problems doesn't disappear the problem just make it harder to spot. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: got it with Q18044730 (quite ashamed), will think what I can do here.
Still not 100% sure I understand your approach about cyrillic/latin names. Did I get it right that we want to have separate items for Cyrillic and Latin surnames like Ivanov (Q16654835) and Ivanov (Q40711158) (even if its clearly the same surname)? If yes, how should we decide which one should be assigned to the specific person? Based on country of origin? Nationality? Spoken language? What about fathers/children that is going to have different P734 because of that?
Also I'm not sure I see how can we decide whenever specific item is Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) or family name (Q101352). Q28489327 (now) has one sitelink, ru:Дашичев that lists 2 persons with that surname, but you believe it is disambig. Dashichev (Q20518596) also has one sitelink, sl:Dašičev lists the same 2 names and it is NOT disambig. May be you are considering that russian page has ru:Категория:Страницы значений по алфавиту, but there seems to be consensus that "list of people with the same surname" should be included into that category. Please help me understand that   I'm sure there are more cases like that where I've made obvious mistakes, I'm just trying to learn clear rules there to be able to fix things --Ghuron (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
One string, one item. That's the approach we chose years ago at the Wikiprojects Names (which has help pages on the subject). Because a French person named Ivanov would be written Ivanov in German, a Russian people named Иванов would be named Iwanow in German. But Iwanow also exist as a French name, and people named Ivanov are certainly not named Iwanow. Basically, transliterations make a mess of things. Stéphane and Étienne are basically the same given name etymologically… Names which are clearly the same in origin are linked together using said to be the same as (P460). We add names to people as sources go. If they have an official name somewhere, we add it, if they have several official languages we add it (like Soviet people would have their Latin-script Estonian name and the russified form of their names since it was officially used). People changing country would have several names (potentially with "beginning date"), etc. Married women would have both their own family name and that of their husband in all societies where they take their husband name's upon marriage. Human names are complicated so our ontology is too. And yes, if family are changing their names, or migrated or something, then the names would change. We actually want our data to reflect that. Families should be queried by using family and/or genealogical relationship properties. Names are not always so closely linked with genealogical ties and we need to show that reality too.
For disambiguation, we respect the choices of the Wikipedia. If they have disambiguations markers (templates, categories) then it's about a disambiguation. If they have no disambig markers whatsoever and are categorized as names, then it's names. That's because if the page is tagged as disambig right now it may be only about people sharing the same name, but maybe tomorrow someone will add places to the pages without changing any of the semantic markers (they would be right to do so). So here where we need to respect the semantic markers, we follow that lead. I'm really frustrated when Wikipedia chooses not to be clear about what their article is about (English WP has so many article about both a play and the films sharing the same plot, which make Wikidata entries which are neither "play" not "film", but Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471)) and that's the same way about disambig/names on several WP. But that's a discussion that should be on the WP, asking them what they want the entry to be about. Here, we can just respect their choices afterwards. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: sorry for being quiet, has some issues IRL. After some thought I thing approach "one string -> one item" applying to surnames makes a lot of sense and generally reflects what I see in WD. BTW it also means that Ivanov is not the same as Ivanova (the question I asked some time ago at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Names#Female surnames). The only problem with this approach is that it require a lot of items for surname variations that does not exists right now. For instance, ~150 people with russian origins has now surname Grigoriev (Q21449982) and cyrillic surname "Григорьев" does not exists. We can relatively easy either revert that stuff or create "Григорьев" + "Григорьева" and change P734 for those who was born in cyrillic speaking countries to new items. What approach makes more sense?
For disambiguation, I still do not understand why "semantic marker" ru:Категория:Страницы значений по алфавиту overweight ru:Категория:Страницы, содержащие списки однофамильцев. Russian wikipedia does not have implicit notion of "set index article", so they treat "list of people with the same surname" as one of possible variations of disambiguation page. But even ru-wiki clearly distinguish it, and the latest category means that disambig will contain list of people and (optional) "see also" section, where they can list "non-people" stuff. Why couldn't we link this to "surname" item? --Ghuron (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem, I totally understand that we can have a life outside Wikidata (and as I wasn't there this week either, it would be hypocritical of me). Yes, we are missing tons of names. I think creating the missing entries (with P31, P1705 and P282), is the best way to go. We'll have to create them at some point, so it seems best to do it now.
ru:Категория:Страницы значений по алфавиту is Wikimedia human name disambiguation page (Q22808320), a specific type of disambiguation page but a disambiguation page nevertheless. I don't even understand what ru:Категория:Страницы, содержащие списки однофамильцев is exactly, it seems to contain all of the main space of Wikipedia? But most Wikipedias (not all, but the majority) will do "double categorisation" on disambiguation pages: if they are a page like "Battle of Location", it will be categorised both as a disambiguation and as a battle. So we tend to consider that the disambig marker encompass all other categories on the page, which are just here to indicate what the disambig is about. An article linked to a surname item will have no disambig marker at all (no template, no category) and will be categorized as "surname" (not as "list of people"). We have those entries too (for example: list of people with family name Hansen (Q20007604)). A list is not a name is not a disambiguation page. Not sure if that answer your question? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: Thanks for your help, I've tried to create Grigoriev (Q48538613) and sort people between it and Grigoriev (Q21449982). Does this looks ok? Can I do the same for 30-40 other cyrillic surnames as well? --Ghuron (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I completed it but that was already good to use. Maybe try to add the said to be the same as (P460) to Latin-script names, so people can help? I added labels (translitterations)/descriptions/aliases and some properties, but you don't need to do that to clean up the uses. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


Добрый день. Можно ли заблокировать и отменить все правки данного участника User:Maitsavend, так как практически не один его перевод на татарский язык не является правильным, участник сам придумывает словосочетания, слова, можно в этом убедиться открыв словарь или переводчик.--Damir (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Я не администратор и не очень в курсе тутошних традиций. Будь это в ру-вики я бы сказал что Вам для начала стоит это обсудить это с самим участником. Возможно имеет смысл поставить вопрос вот тут --Ghuron (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Спасибо.--Damir (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living People

You are receiving this message because you commented at the above RFC. There are additional proposals that have been made there that you are welcome to comment on. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

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

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Most categories are about the Prix de Rome, not about the winners. You probably need to split up that item to fix this mess. Multichill (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: thanks, does Q9240509 and Q26063522 looks better now? --Ghuron (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, much better! Multichill (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Tosatto

Please, can you delete Guy Tosatto (Q33277715). Guy Tosatto (Q41594994) is the same. Tks

Pompeu Fabra University

Hi! Your edits about educated at (P69) Pompeu Fabra University (Q24543) are incorrect. You are based on ca:Categoria:Professors de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra, which means they are professors, not students. --Q24543 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will correct later today --Ghuron (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Davidpar: I've reverted 57 edits and correct Category:Pompeu Fabra University faculty (Q8975628). Let me know if you see any other problems --Ghuron (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --Davidpar (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Employed by Cambridge

I've just noticed these edits - unfortunately, it's picking up people who were Chancellor, which is a ceremonial post and not really an academic/employed one. Would you please be able to remove it for people in the Chancellors category? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: sure. Am I right assuming that for people in en:Category:Chancellors of the University of Cambridge "Employed by Cambridge" should be removed? --Ghuron (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's best. It's an honorary post and I wouldn't describe it as an employment relationship. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: I think the only 3 wrong edits were: Arthur Balfour (Q19008), Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Q273809) and John Fisher (Q317149). John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh (Q83297) and Edgar Adrian, 1st Baron Adrian (Q231292) held academic positions there. Would you agree on that? --Ghuron (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
These look good - thanks for checking! I had worried there would be more false positives. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting this and let me know if you see any other issues --Ghuron (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

James Joyce

Hello Ghuron. I can find no support for the assertion that Joyce was on the faculty of the University of Trieste in either Ellmann's or Costello's biographies. The timing also does not work (Joyce lived in Trieste before the University was founded). I think that the Japanese category is erroneous. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

tool for edit summaries

Hello - do you use a special tool that gives you edit summaries reading "because included in the Category:.....". If so, could you tell me which tool? Thank you, Outriggr (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I'm using my own quick'n dirty python script, which I definitely can publish, but it is very specific to my task (e.g. query categories that has certain qualifies for P4224, query which articles are included in those categories, filter them slightly and add statement to each). Technically I'm just using summary for wbsetclaim --Ghuron (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. Would that python script be runnable via the labs interface for python (?) that I saw a while ago? Outriggr (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Outriggr: I'm not sure what you are referring as a "labs interface", I technically run them on [2], but previously did it on just windows10 machine. It has no dependencies with labs environment, it uses only Wikidata:SPARQL query service and written on python3. Initially I was just running queries through WDQS, format results in excel and pull them into quickstatement, but it was too time consuming. --Ghuron (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Cause and manner of death

The manner of death (P1196) for anyone who dies from a cancer of any type, which includes Alzheimer's disease, is natural causes (Q3739104). The manner of death (P1196) for Seppuku is suicide (Q10737) and its cause of death is stabbing (Q464643). Seppuku should not be listed under either manner or cause of death. Thanks for adhering to these. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bossanoven: I'm not sure I understand why Alzheimer falls into cancer category, but Seppuku and stabbing (Q464643) is clear. Will double-check my edits and correct wrong ones --Ghuron (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The manner of death for the vast majority of deaths is natural causes. The manner of death for all diseases and cancers is natural causes. The manner of death for things such as brain hemorrhage also fall under natural causes. I checked quite a lot, but not the whole lot of your edits. Seppuku was the only error I found that I did not correct myself. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bossanoven: I can see that you've also corrected duel and appreciate it, but really mistakes should be corrected by those who enter them :) --Ghuron (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think manner and cause of death are a bit too tricky for non-native English speakers when the terms are in English, so that's why I corrected them. Even most native English speakers do not understand how they apply. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bossanoven: I think I've corrected remaining P509:Q191503 and P509:Q133462. If you see any other issues with my edits - let me know and I'll correct them. --Ghuron (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. For future reference, suicide is a manner of death. None of the suicide methods, such as Seppuku, are a cause of death, but rather a suicide method. - Bossanoven (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ghuron: Suicide by hanging is a suicide method, not a cause of death. The cause of death is hanging. Please revert. - Bossanoven (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bossanoven: corrected P509: suicide by hanging (Q7883956) -> hanging (Q175111) caused by my edits. Almost 400 still remains: Special:WhatLinksHere/Q7883956 --Ghuron (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Описание правки

А каким инструментом можно добавлять такие информативные описания? --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Infovarius: Это мой самописный python-скрипт. При вызове wbsetclaim просто указывается параметр summary. Если хочешь, я могу выложить куда-нибудь, но он такой совсем самописный, там логин-пароль прямо в коде зашит   --Ghuron (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

German Empire?

Hi Ghuron, i've seen you included Luis Novas Terra as born in the German Empire and in the summary you wrote that's because he's included in 'people born in germany'. I'm here to ask you why then you included him in the German Empire since he's born in 1923. Regards.--Zeroth (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zeroth: That was certainly a mistake, I've reviewed and manually corrected all statements, that was based on Category:Births in Germany (Q7463306) --Ghuron (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Great!. Thank you.--Zeroth (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Citizenship: Egypt

Please don't add country of citizenship (P27) Egypt (Q79) for all items with Category:Egyptian people. Many people lived before the Arab Republic of Egypt existed, and therefore never had such citizenship. --Yair rand (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yair rand, Epìdosis: Thanks for letting me know, I can see a problem with P27 on people died a long ago. Will revert problematic edits today --Ghuron (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeat ..

Something seems to have gone wrong at [3]
--- Jura 09:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Categories

I've just created it, maybe you are interested. Bye, --Epìdosis 11:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Will you bot pickup "Category contains" added by other people ?

Will you bot pickup "Category contains" added by other people ? I've added a couple of them for chemical molecules? Teolemon (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Teolemon: Technically script doesn't care who specifies P4224 for category, but practically I'm focused right now on P4224:Q5 only. I can give you an example of SPARQL query that will get all items that has sitelinks, that are included in selected category using mw:MW2SPARQL, so you will be able to run your own quickstatement batch   --Ghuron (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Small cases, not many items in each. Teolemon (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
* [[Q16812164|Category:Female reproductive toxicants (Q16812164)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427776|Female reproductive toxicant (Q55427776)]]) 
* [[Q16805075|Category:Suspected female reproductive toxicants (Q16805075)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427782|Suspected female reproductive toxicant (Q55427782)]]) 
* [[Q16790359|Category:Male reproductive toxicants (Q16790359)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427774|Male reproductive toxicant(Q55427774)]]) 
* [[Q16805569|Category:Reproductive toxicants (Q16805569)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427767|Reproductive toxicant (Q55427767)]])
* [[Q7321864|Category:IARC Group 3 carcinogens (Q7321864)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427402|IARC Group 3 carcinogen(Q55427402)]]) 
* [[Q7007416|Category:IARC Group 2B carcinogens (Q7007416)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427396|IARC Group 2b carcinogen(Q55427396)]]) 
* [[Q7323268|Category:IARC Group 2A carcinogens (Q7323268)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427390|IARC Group 2a carcinogen(Q55427390)]]) 
* [[Q7321877|Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens (Q7321877)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427380|IARC Group 1 carcinogen(Q55427380)]]) 
* [[Q16075205|Category:Fetotoxicants (Q16075205)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427934|Fetotoxicant (Q55427934)]]) 
* [[Q16805083|Category:Suspected fetotoxicants (Q16805083)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427942|Suspected fetotoxicants(Q55427942)]]) 
* [[Q16816272|Category:Embryotoxicants (Q16816272)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427958|Embryotoxicant (Q55427958)]]) 
* [[Q16816733|Category:Suspected embryotoxicants (Q16816733)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427968|Suspected embryotoxicant(Q55427968)]]) 
* [[Q16817062|Category:Testicular toxicants (Q16817062)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427978|Testicular toxicant (Q55427978)]])
* [[Q16805088|Category:Suspected testicular toxicants (Q16805088)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55427984|Suspected testicular toxicant (Q55427984)]]) 
* [[Q8844580|Category:Testicular toxins (Q8844580)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55428019|testicular toxin (Q55428019)]]) 
* [[Q8834819|Category:Suspected testicular toxins (Q8834819)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55428025|Suspected testicular toxin(Q55428025)]]) 
* [[Q8791284|Category:Spermatotoxins (Q8791284)]] ‎ (‎[[Property:P4224|category contains (P4224)]]: [[Q55428035|spermatotoxin (Q55428035)]]) 
Category:Spermatotoxicants (Q16792015) ‎ (‎category contains (P4224): spermatotoxicant (Q55428046))

Category:Male-mediated teratogens (Q8602375) ‎ (‎category contains (P4224): Male-mediated teratogens(Q55428139)) 

Category:Suspected male-mediated teratogens (Q8834813) ‎ (‎category contains (P4224): Suspected male-mediated teratogens (Q55428145))
Not sure what exactly you want to do with this, may be we can add one more restriction on ?item based on ?topic
PREFIX mw: <>
SELECT ?item ?topic (SAMPLE(?site) AS ?source) {
  hint:Query hint:optimizer "None" .
  VALUES ?cat { wd:Q16812164 wd:Q16805075 wd:Q16790359 wd:Q16805569 wd:Q7321864 wd:Q7007416 wd:Q7323268 wd:Q7321877 wd:Q16075205 wd:Q16805083
                wd:Q16816272 wd:Q16816733 wd:Q16817062 wd:Q16805088 wd:Q8844580 wd:Q8834819 wd:Q8791284 wd:Q16792015 wd:Q8602375 wd:Q8834813 }
  ?cat wdt:P4224 ?topic . ?wikicat schema:about ?cat
  SERVICE <> {
    ?page mw:inCategory ?wikicat
  ?page schema:about ?item; schema:isPartOf ?url .
  ?site wdt:P31 wd:Q10876391; wdt:P856 ?url
} GROUP BY ?item ?topic
Try it! --Ghuron (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

intersected painters

Hi Ghuron, good to see you adding occupations to people. For future edits, could you use painter (Q1028181) instead of things like portrait painter (Q2180411)? See Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Intersected painters for more information. Multichill (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: you mean we should not use portrait painter (Q2180411) for P106 at all? How would I express that painter is specialized in portraits? --Ghuron (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You can use genre (P136) for that. Multichill (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: so basically you want me to make changes like this: [4] on all categories, that is used by my script (e.g. Category:American portrait painters (Q9440030)) and all people with P106:portrait painter (Q2180411), right? --Ghuron (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I would leave out the genre. A lot of people, like for example en:Childe Hassam are in multiple categories and a human should probably decide what's best. As for that category, [5] looks more correct to me. Multichill (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I hope now it should looks better. Let me know if you see any other issues --Ghuron (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't do edits like [6] and the next topic. Wikipedia data is just good enough to get us started, not to make it more specific. Multichill (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is with quality of wikipedia data, but there are to many problems with making P106 claims more specific, I'll temporary disable it and think about how I make it more useful --Ghuron (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

draft vs. drawing

Hello Ghuron, i've seen you have made some edits like this regarding the occupation of people. In that edition you're adding the drafter (Q683754) occupation to people that is included in this category of different wikipedias. The problem is that this category includes at the same time a people that draws in artistic ways and people that draws for architecture plans, etc. This distinction is not made in some languages but its done in some others (like spanish). So, by now im trying to separate that category into two different entities, and i would ask you if you could rollback the editions you made regarding this occupation and wait until its done. Regards, --Zeroth (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zeroth: Sorry for messing up, so you want me to revert my changes drawer (Q15296811)->drafter (Q683754), right? --Ghuron (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem, not your fault. Yes please, revert them until both professions are correctly separated in the corresponding categories. Thank you!--Zeroth (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zeroth: done, let me know if you see any issues --Ghuron (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Krøyer (Q365068)

I have corrected your wrong edit : the subject is a man, a danish painter, and not a genre, creative work's genre or an artist's field of work (P101). Use main subject (P921) to relate creative works to their topic. best wishes. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Villy Fink Isaksen: It is very common to specify P136 for the person. This is specifically allowed by constraints of P136. I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with my edit. --Ghuron (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The person is not "genre". Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The person can work in genre --Ghuron (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Замена рода занятий

Что-то много очень спорных замен (преподаватель -> профессор, писатель -> переводчик и др.)... Почему вообще нужно было удалять какое-то старое значение? --Infovarius (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Infovarius: идея была в том, чтобы уточнять слишком общие профессии (типа "учёный") более специфическими. Очевидно идея провалилась, при этом на Булгакове виден очевидный косяк в реализации - я вообще не должен был трогать утверждения с нормальными источниками. Короче эту тему я сворачиваю. По [7] см. ru:Википедия:Форум/Викиданные#Категоризация_членов_научного_общества --Ghuron (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Вы бы вернули хотя б писателей везде, где удалили... --Infovarius (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Обязательно --Ghuron (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

По поводу более общей категории

По поводу этого. Сейчас как раз веду работу над углублением категоризации выпускников БГУ, но я тяну сразу очень широкую сеть и если буду отвлекаться на каждый узел графа, то так и не дойду до конца. Пока я возвращаю свою правку. Если вас не устраивает, то сделайте узкую категорию самостоятельно.--Хомелка (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Calvinisme et Luthéranisme

Bonjour Ghuron, le luthéranisme n'est pas une religion, pas plus que le calvinisme. La religion est le protestantisme. Merci de votre attention. --Pierrette13 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pierrette13: replying you in English because my French is virtually zero  . To be specific, Christianity (Q5043) is religion (Q9174), Protestantism (Q23540) is Christian denomination (Q879146) and Lutheranism (Q75809) is religious denomination (Q13414953). Please see Property talk:P140#Using most specific information and proposed label change, it reflects current consensus regarding usage of that property --Ghuron (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ghuron, thank you for your answer, I'll have a look at that page, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me know if I need to change anything in my edits. Upscale Lutheranism (Q75809),Calvinism (Q101849)->Protestantism (Q23540) is trivial   --Ghuron (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I'm afraid you are using this category (Alumni of UPC University) to add "member of sport club", and this is incorrect. One can be student in a university and NOT member of its sports club, at least in Catalonia. I've reverted a couple of edits. I ping you because you mention it on your userpage :-) Best! --Kippelboy (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kippelboy: Thanks, reverted the rest of them. Let me know when you'll notice any other wrong edits --Ghuron (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Again [8] --Davidpar (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Davidpar: I thought only Category:Polytechnic University of Catalonia alumni (Q28419995) was affected, but in fact Q20874444, Category:Yonsei University faculty (Q15381129), Category:Konkuk University faculty (Q32701568), Category:Yonsei University alumni (Q7807678), Category:Konkuk University alumni (Q8575648), Category:People educated at Ruthin School (Q8724447), Category:Greensboro College alumni (Q30818947) and Q32670778 were affected as well. Rolled back my changes there and hope issue will not appear again --Ghuron (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop!

Please stop adding title king using the Q54059 category from south Azerbaijani wiki. It adds a lot of nonsence, like princes and princesses, emperors etc. --Silesianus (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Silesianus: Reverted all corresponding statements, stopped using South Azerbaijani Wikipedia (Q20789766) as a source due to low quality of category data. Let me know if you see any remaining pieces of nonsense --Ghuron (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Noble title in Ancient Rome

Hi, Ghuron. In Ancient Rome, there were no noble titles of any kind. Please remove all that you have added. Thank you.

Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Romulanus: yes, you are right, will do --Ghuron (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Where did you find Thomas Bourne (Q38008012) listed in Category:Male writers? Your edit says you did, but the Wikisource page has no such category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: this person is added into s:en:Category:Male authors which is linked to Category:Male writers (Q9717811). I guess wikisource categories should be extracted into separate entity --Ghuron (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference in meaning here. A "writer" is a person who creates literature; but on Wikisource, an Author is a person who has produced any kind of published work: including a letter, an edict, a speech, a translation, a scholarly article. If a scientist publishes a paper on science, then they are an author, but "writer" is the wrong term for them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I am reading you answer as "yes, wikisource categories should be extracted from Category:Male writers (Q9717811)" -> Category:Male authors (Q55984132) --Ghuron (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

отношение к религии

Не могли бы вы отменить автоматическую простановку параметра отношение к религии → шиизм из категорий в статьях. Во многих статьях не только отсутствуют источники этих утверждений, к тому же в категорию попадают те, что там в принципе не должен быть. Maqivi (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Maqivi: правильно ли я понял, что речь идет об уточнении Islam (Q432)->Shia Islam (Q9585) как в случае с Uwais Qarni (Q1393228)? Или есть ещё примеры? --Ghuron (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Были и другие [9], [10]. Это явление не носит массовый характер, но некоторые участники ведут себя странно. Есть спорные случаи, как например 12 имамов (особенно первые 6), которых шииты считают шиитами. В арабской вики бот добавляет категорию, видимо, из викиданных. В общем, если Вы правите в ручную, то в некоторых случаях вместо шиизма лучше указать ислам. Если ботом, то даже не знаю как быть. Maqivi (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Maqivi: Мне кажется что можно ожидать что категории Category:Iranian Shia Muslims (Q6433094) и Category:Iranian Shia clerics (Q27049900) наполняются более-менее разумно. То что было проставлено на основе всех остальных категорий я откатил, следующий проход зальёт туда Islam (Q432) --Ghuron (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Согласен, думаю со всех категорий Category:Shia clerics (Q13292408) можно брать (кроме Category:Twelver imams (Q6129248)). Maqivi (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing P4224 : Q5

from P31 : category by name in Wikimedia (Q24571879)? Hi! Could you explain temporary QS batch edits 1, 2? Is it done by intention or by occasion? Thks.--Avatar6 (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Avatar6: The batch was intended to do %Subj% on categories like Category:Writers by nationality (Q5988442) (which are not supposed to contain articles). Unfortunately it also affect categories "by name" in Russian. I've reverted them manually. --Ghuron (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense - stop it!

(cur | prev) 08:52, 27 June 2018‎ Ghuron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,969 bytes) (+869)‎ . . 
(‎Created claim: employer (P108): Russian Academy of Sciences (Q4345832), 
because included in the Category:Corresponding Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences (Q10001070)) (undo) (restore) 12:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. Corresponding Member != employee
  2. St Petersburg Academy of Sciences != Russian Academy of Sciences 12:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The second statement is incorrect Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences (Q4345832) is institution in Russian Empire officially called "St Petersburg Academy of Sciences", modern Russian Academy of Sciences is Russian Academy of Sciences (Q83172). But the first one is correct, will revert affected edits --Ghuron (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

All reformed priests from a century are calvinists???

Hello Ghuron, can you explain me please, why someone in the category Category:19th-century Calvinist and Reformed ministers (Q8181112) should be automaticly related to Calvinism (Q101849)? This just makes no sense! Fundriver (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fundriver: not sure I understand criteria for inclusion in this category, so reverted it all of them. Let me know if you see any problems --Ghuron (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding noble title count

Dear Ghuron, I noticed you added the claim noble title count to a lot of ruling counts of Nassau. May I ask why? There is quite a difference between a present day noble with the title count and the ruling counts in the middle ages. That's why I created the claim occupation count for them. Regards, --HRvO (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@HRvO: I guess it would be easier if you'll just tell me what you want me to do. Revert my edits in Category:Counts of Nassau (Q7709023)? --Ghuron (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be nice. Note, it's only at the reigning counts in that category where it should be reverted. You added it at more people from that category, where it is a valid contribution. Regards, --HRvO (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@HRvO: is there a way how I can distinguish between reigning and non-reigning counts? --Ghuron (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't say that for all people in the category. For the ones I have checked - due to me writing or editing an article on the Dutch Wikipedia - it is easy. There the description always reads "Count of Nassau" followed by years between brackets. F.e. Henry I of Nassau had the description Count of Nassau (1160-1167). --HRvO (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Dorotheenstadt cemetery is not the grave of Q76326, as you have marked it two times, but there is a commemorative plaque. Please read Talk:Q76326. Brams (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made corresponding correction in he-wiki --Ghuron (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


Bonjour Ghuron , (désolé du revert) on va attendre, il y a une discussion en cours. la mention du préfixe est suffisante pour l'instant, tant que les questions soulevées ne sont pas clarifiées. On verra après. DDupard (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@DDupard: laissez-moi savoir le résultat de la discussion --Ghuron (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Will do.-DDupard (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Executions by firing squad

None of the people in Category:People executed by East Germany by firearm (Q30680202) were executed by a firing squad (Q216169). The point of execution by firing squad is not to know who fired the deadly shot, which is not the case if the shot is fired from close range by a single known executioner. I have undone your related edits. Kusma (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kusma: would it be more appropriate to conclude that their's cause of death (P509) is execution by shooting (Q15747939)? --Ghuron (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks correct: w:en:Execution_by_shooting#Soviet_Bloc describes the way these people were executed. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

capital punishment

Capital punishment is a manner of death (P1196), not a cause of death (P509). - Bossanoven (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If you apply capital punishment as a cause of death, a bot will automatically change it to manner of death. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Corrected corresponding categories such as Category:People executed by Nazi Germany (Q14524875) --Ghuron (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

P4224 deleting

hi! pls not doing P4224 deleting for metacategories : #temporary_batch_1538128620279

metacategory itself means that category contains categories, but P4224 means that category or its subcategories contains statement:P4224 or its subclases. an you do addition of information instead of deletion?--Avatar6 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Avatar6: My Ukrainian is bad, but we probably можем говорить по русски если для Вас так удобнее. I currently see no evidence that your point of view regarding its subcategories is shared by someone else or reflect current consensus. To the contrary, when I started filling P4224:Q5 this summer, a few people reverted my edits for metacategories. We probably can start discussion on Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Categories to reach consensus --Ghuron (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiple entries

You have added several chess titles in many items, e.g. four times the same statement in Q312985. Can you please clean up? Steak (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: no problems, will revert later today. --Ghuron (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Should be fixed now --Ghuron (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I had to revert a lot of wrong imports of chess titles, please refrain in the future from importing chess titles based on category entries in wikipedias, titles are imported directly from the website of the world chess federation. Steak (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Steak: Well, I guess I'd like to learn more about that. I can see the following your reverts:
So I'd say in the first 4 instances I wrongly imported "plain" grandmaster where more specific title is available (should not occur in the future). But those "specific" titles somehow were not "imported from the website". For Icelandic guy I probably misinterpret the meaning of category, will remove P2962 from there. For mexican gut es-wiki clearly said that he is grandmaster (both in text and in category). If this is not so - article need to be corrected.
I realize that you probably make more reverts there and I'm willing to analyze them as well. But I don't think your proposal for stopping import of chess title is completely justified. I can see that even initial run brought some correct edits and those that are incorrect can act as indication of misinformation in local wikipedias. --Ghuron (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell, you imported a lot of correct titles, and yes, some titles are not imported from official sites. However, the error is a) that no:Kategori:Islandske mestere i sjakk does not only contain Grandmasters ("mestere" supposedly just means "Master" in some sense), and b), that players like Wilhelm Steinitz (Q102648) who died before 1950 can not have been awarded a title that was introduced in 1950 and is never awared postum. Before 1950 there was an inofficial usage of the term "grandmaster" around, and some wikipedias follow this informal usage, but in wikidata we don't do that. Steak (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, Q9839070 is corrected now and should not cause problems. Regarding "early" grandmaster, may be we should create a separate "unofficial" non-FIDE grandmaster item and specify it? The same apply for "grandmaster of the soviet union"? --Ghuron (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
For the informal usage, an item is absolutely not justified because in these early times calling somebody "grandmaster" was just based on some subjective opionion. A player might be called grandmaster by someone while someone else did not use this title for the same player. It's probably similar to the use of "Super Grandmaster"/"Super-GM" today. For the soviet title an item might in principle be created, but I don't have any sources about it and who was awarded the title, which is the reason why I did not do it yet. Steak (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect edits to Walter Raleigh

In this series of edits you edited the date of birth of Walter Raleigh on the basis that he was included in some category, January 22 births. However, your edit summary did not provide enough information to determine which Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation project this category was located on, so it could be corrected.

It should be corrected (that is, removed from the category) because the January 22 birthdate was marked depricated, and it is indeed incorrect. It was marked as having been imported first from the English Wikipedia, and later the Italian Wikipedia. But all Wikipedias are unreliable sources. The correct birth date, circa 1554, is supported by two reliable sources, Dictionary of National Biography and

To help avoid attention from automated or semi-automated processes that don't know enough to ignore depricated data, I have completely removed the incorrect birth date from Sir Walter.

Jc3s5h (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: please take a look on the link you've provided - it clearly says imported from Wikimedia project (P143):Italian Wikipedia (Q11920) --Ghuron (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Due to the number of consecutive edits, I wasn't sure if the Italian Wikipedia. In any case, all Wikipedias including the Italian Wikipedia are inferior to the sources that were already cited in the Wikidata item, so the edits should not have occurred. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: Thanks, I've implemented additional measures to prevent consecutive unnecessary edits and ensure that P569 is corrected only if
  • there is only one birthyear specified
  • either there are no references or only P143:some_wikipedia --Ghuron (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

theologian (Q1234713)

You have added theologian (Q1234713) to Danish priests/theologs as occupation. That is not correct. In Denmark, Norway and Iceland we use Candidatus theologiæ (degree) (Q1787885), and it is an academic degree (P512), not an occupation (P106). Brams (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Brams: ok, but what is the occupation of people like Henrik Wigh-Poulsen (Q28167902)? --Ghuron (talk)

@Ghuron:Now I have edited Henrik Wigh-Poulsen (Q28167902), there you can see occupation, academic degree and position held (= Bishop). Persenly I would mean, that a "Bishop" in Danish Lutheran Church is Ocupation as well as "position held", but it is not so here on Wikidata, I think. Brams (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Brams: I understand what you said about P512:Q1787885. I agree that his primary occupation is priest (Q42603). What I don't understand is that why he cannot be considered as theologian. He has appropriate formal education and academic degree, he wrote a few texts that look theological for me. --Ghuron (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

flood flag

Hey Ghuron, can you please ask for a flood flag? You’re flooding my entire 500 pages watchlist in less than 30 minutes right now… :-/ —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I don't think my edits can be described as "never be controversial" (see above). Sorry for too many edits with country for sport (P1532), will rethink them now --Ghuron (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still suggest to ask the crats for a flooder flag in case you’re starting a larger job like that one with country for sport (P1532). My impression is that this import clearly is not controversial enough in order not to grant the flag. The alternative would be to ask for a bot flag on a separate account, which means that the task would have to be discussed in advance. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Soccer players

Such edits are wrong. de:Kategorie:Fußballspieler_(Deutschland) does not contain german soccer players, but players who played in germany. Can you please revert all edits that you made based on this wrong assumption? Steak (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: I certainly appreciate your opinion, but if I wanted to express sentence "german soccer player" I would use P27:Q183, not P1532:Q183. P1532 was specifically introduced for the cases when person is playing in the country that is different from his formal nationality --Ghuron (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not in line with the property proposal at Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/26#P1532, nor with the property description which tells “country a person or a team represents when playing a sport”. From my experience, which pretty much fits to this formal description, this property is used (1) for international sports event participations only if (2) country for sport (P1532) != country of citizenship (P27). This distinction is necessary because in several cases athletes represent another country than the one of their (original) citizenship, or in cases where like e.g. citizenship = UK, country for sport = England.
Btw. in German Wikipedia, there is a distinction being made between a person’s citizenship (de:Kategorie:Person nach Staatsangehörigkeit and subcategories) and their occupation by country (de:Kategorie:Person nach Staat and subcategories). Both branches of the category tree are independent from each other, which leads to the problem that was described by Steak further up. Consequently, I would recommend not to infer any country for sport (P1532) claims from dewiki categorization (query: items with potentially problematic claims). —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: So basically what you are saying is that P1532 should only be specified if one is differs from P27 and there is a proof that person actually participated in the international competition? I have no problem rolling back my changes, I just want to be sure I'm doing that based on the consensus understanding of the property usage rules. And right now although your opinion sounds logical, it is not reflected neither in property proposal nor in property discussion pages --Ghuron (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As there is no damage if P27=P1532 and both claims are present, I would not roll back those ones in spite of my comment above. However, I think “country [which the] person represents or have rights to represent on international sports events” from the property proposal should be a requirement for country for sport (P1532) claims.
Interestingly, while you were doing the import, I had a diffuse feeling that this might be problematic, but I had absolutely no idea what could be wrong with it. I saw a lot of edits in rowing person items on my watchlist, and in that case the import is technically pretty correct (in the sense that there is indeed an international representation of that country by the described person). However, it is effectively type of sport-specific whether such an import works or not, and it depends a lot on categorization rules in Wikipedias.
Side note: I personally prefer not to use this property directly in items about persons. If an athlete is representing a country in an international sporting event, this “represented country” information is kind of a qualifier-piece of information regarding the participation, and “represented countries” can then easily be inferred from all participation claims (with SPARQL). I do admit, however, that direct claims are more useful for display in e.g. infoboxes, which is quite popular.
Side note 2 on another problem with the property: the regular case in international sporting events is indeed that you somehow represent a country and that you have to hold citizenship rights in that country to do so. However, there are lots of exceptions from this rule, like the “Unified Team” at the 1992 Olympics, mixed German teams in the 1960s, or refugee/independent athlete/etc. participants also at Olympic Games. There are other special cases like, again from rowing, where there is permanently a team “Great Britain” and a team “Ireland”, with North Ireland participants being able to pick one of both teams. Those special cases are really difficult to deal with when having a property country for sport (P1532) that does not really allow special cases. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I am in favor of having both, P27 and P1532, independent of the question regarding whether they are the same or not. As long as they are correct of course, and the german soccer categories cannot be used to infer the federation from a player (e.g. for chess players this would be possible since the category explicitely reads Chess player by federation. But as you can see in de:Kategorie:Sportler nach Verband, this is the only sport that is categorized like this.). Steak (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy, Steak: Ok, I guess P1532 is a bit too complicated for automatic runs, so I probably will not import them again. Regarding already imported statements, it looks like we can make the following assumptions: 1) P27==P1532 is ok 2) my wrong assumption was derived from de-wiki 3) I was adding P1532 only if there we none of them. Based on that, query returns ~300 potentially problematic statements. Not all of them are mine, but I can revert them. Do you want me to do that? --Ghuron (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Side note: your query is much quicker when using a “named subquery” instead of a “sub-select” (try here). From my experience this is almost always the case; theoretical drawback is that “named subqueries” are not native SPARQL, but only a Blazegraph extension instead. Might be worth to consider in future queries… ;-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine, please do it as described. Steak (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ghuron: Can you do me a favor and import the federations of chess players based on de:Kategorie:Schachspieler nach Verband? I imported the current federations of all players, but the german category also contains historic federations, which would be a nice additional information for wikidata. Steak (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: would be happy to help, but not sure I 100% understand the task. Could you please show me 1-2 person items, that you'll manually process? --Ghuron (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I made an example edit at Levon Aronian (Q154586): The german article de:Lewon Aronjan is contained in de:Kategorie:Schachspieler (Armenien) and de:Kategorie:Schachspieler (Deutschland), but so far, only country for sport (P1532): Armenia (Q399) was set. Thats why I added Germany (Q183) with imported from Wikimedia project (P143): German Wikipedia (Q48183). I also set the current federation to preferred, but you don't need to do this. Steak (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Steak: The trick here is to correctly identify country for each category. Could you please check this table and see if everything is correct? If yes, should I run import from de-wiki only, or from any wiki, that has corresponding category? --Ghuron (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the list is correct. And please only import from de:wiki, all other wikis do not follow a strict categorization according to federation. Steak (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Steak: done, let me know if you see any problems there --Ghuron (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks a lot! Steak (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Markus Dröge

Hello Ghuron,

at the moment I add for Bishops the date of the Begin and End of their job and who had this job before them and after them. For Markus Dröge you added as his religion roman-catholic church, but thats wrong, he is evangelical and the bishop for Berlin and Brandenburg. Can you check please where you else added as religion roman-catholic in relation to a category called bishop in Berlin, or maybe you did it with other citys too. These edits you should check, because maybe some of them are wrong. In this case with Markus Dröge it is a problem of the category details in Wikidata, because you find in the category at else people from the the evangelical and orthodox church. So we should check the categories with bishop in and then the city. I can help you checking this because I think there are more categories.

-- Hogü-456 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hogü-456: it was added because de-wiki article was included in Category:Bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Berlin (Q8909144). I've looked into commons wiki sitelink and wrongly decide this category cotains catholic bishops only. Reverted my edits there --Ghuron (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Nina Arkina

Dear Ghuron, would you be so kind not to (re)add to Q7037842 that she was born in Norway? Thank you! Yours sincerely, Orf3us (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Orf3us: It was due corrections someone was made in Category:Norwegian writers (Q6716207). I've reverted them and filled some info for Nina Arkina (Q7037842) manually --Ghuron (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


fwiw, 2 of the three issues precipitating user:Johnbod's unhelpful and pissy comment here were your edits - [11] & [12]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there were many more mistakes than that "precipitating" it! Any time I actually drill down on WD entries. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It's very good of you to sit on the sidelines and deride the work done here. I'm sure we're all very grateful for your condescention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I always appreciate feedback and I don't think those comments are unhelpful. Apparently my past exercises to identify gender based on the name are inaccurate (see section "Japanese genders" above. I thought that majority of mistakes were fixed in 2017, but apparently they are not. Now I'm practicing different approach for identifying someones gender (such as [13]), I'll think what I can do to double-check genders for Japanese people.
Speaking about original question gender disbalance is large (see WD query) --Ghuron (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Extra US presidents

I just noticed that, since , we’ve had three extra US presidents on Wikidata, because someone created duplicate items for them and you automatically added position held (P39) President of the United States (Q11696) based on their categories. (I’ve merged them now – they were Q13141542, Q12446530 and Q12429195.) Do you really think US presidents are elected at such a rate that we need to automate their position held (P39) statements like that? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister: well, I am glad that my automation revealed possible candidates for merge, but if you believe that this specific position should not be automated, feel free to remove P39 qualifier from category contains (P4224) human (Q5) in Category:Presidents of the United States (Q7130129) --Ghuron (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think GZWDer creates them .. maybe check with them? --- Jura 06:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Those 3 elements was created by Sk!dbot 5+ years ago, I don't think we should blame his owner for that. I think the only way to find such orphans from smaller wikis is to try to enrich them with useful info until someone noticed that it should be merged with other item. I'm regularly checking P31:Q5 elements that are using the same commons image and normally found one or two candidates for merge --Ghuron (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • True, not the usual suspect and probably to old an edit to be relevant. Still, I think the problem is the duplicate creation, not statements that will eventually allow us to identify duplicates. Unfortunately, developers don't really care about solving the problem. --- Jura 12:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Native label for Japanese names

Hi Ghuron,

Thanks for adding them. I don't read Japanese, but at [14] there seems to be a different of length between the name in the English description and the label you added. I assume you wont a Japanese native label for names that have Latin script defined as writing system. --- Jura 06:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: Are you referring to the fact that むつみ != 六美? Mine is written in kana (Q187659), which represents phonetics and thus normally has 1:1 relation to japanese name. The later is written in kanji (Q82772) and one name can be expressed in multiple ways (see en:Yūko as an example). Normally label for people of japanese origin in written in kanji (Q82772) and kana (Q187659) representation is specified in name in kana (P1814). Currently for names itself some people write kanji (Q82772) as native label (P1705) (sometimes multiple), some - kanji (Q82772) and some - romanized version. In japanese wiki normally "names article" are named in kanji (Q82772) and I think it is much more consistent approach (@Harmonia Amanda: since we had discussion about latin/cyrillic names previously) --Ghuron (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I will have to go through this in detail (and read up on Japanese names), but I don't think there should be a difference between the spelling in the English description and native label. Further, using phonetic representation isn't really the way given names are grouped. So it's likely that we would have items for each kanji spelling, one in kana, + one in Latin script (for Americans named Yuko). Maybe @Okkn: can help us with Japanese names. @Moebeus: did quite a lot of work on names in scripts other than Latin script (but not Japanese AFAIK). --- Jura 12:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
fix @Moebeus: --- Jura 12:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll stop adding P1705 for now, let me know where can I store kana representation of given names --Ghuron (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ghuron: You can use name in kana (P1814) for that. An example can be seen in Tarō (Q2293011). --Okkn (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have one statement with P1705 that indicates the original spelling (if there is one). --- Jura 08:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think native label (P1705) value for Mutsumi (Q26922890) should be "六美 (ja)". "むつみ" (=="Mutsumi") is just a pronunciation of "六美". By the way, not all Japanese names are written in kanji (Q82772), so there can be an item whose native label (P1705) value is "むつみ". Also, Mutsumi (Q21055043)("睦"), Mutsumi (Q26922414) ("睦美"), Mutsumi (Q26922424) ("睦心") and so on have the same pronunciation of "むつみ" ("Mutsumi"), although I have no idea how to link between these names. --Okkn (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Okkn Couldn't you use said to be the same as (P460) to link similar names? This is what Project Names is recommending if I understood correctly Moebeus (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

From a Japanese point of view, we can't say they are the same name, but if the statement has an appropriate criterion used (P1013) qualifier, that will be acceptable. Before using P460, it would be even effective if you could start a discussion about this topic in WikiProject Names, and leave the usage as a document. Regards, --Okkn (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gytha of Wessex

Hello! You have added occupation "nun" for Gytha of Wessex. But I cannot find any support of this information in her biography. It was changed by some anonymous user in 2011. Is there some reliable source of this information?-- 11:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, de:Gytha von Wessex said "Einer Inschrift in der Kirche St. Pantaleon in Köln starb „Gytha die Königin“ am 10. März 1098 als Nonne" --Ghuron (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
But there are two versions: "Über ihr Todesdatum gibt es zwei unterschiedliche Angaben". So it is not a fact, but rather an assumption. I'm not that good in the terminology, but cannot it be just an honorary title due to participation in the first crusade? -- 15:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It frequently happens that there are 2 or more variants of bio described in various reliable sources (especially for people that died many centuries ago). I'm not qualified to comment on "honorary title" idea, but de-wiki seems to imply that Vladimir Pashuto (Q2493557) mentions Köln inscription in his book --Ghuron (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you mean "Alexander Nazarenko", not "Vladimir Pashuto" (he is linked to Smolensk version). It is interesting, how he mentioned it, if it is "100% Gytha of Wessex" or "it may be this Gytha". So far, as I have seen, you removed this information, possibly it is better so for a moment.-- 09:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Again with my question about "nun" -- you used Swedish Wikipedia with no sources at all. At least German has link to one book (I cannot check it) and category "Nonne (römisch-katholisch)". It is not exactly the same, as Swedish "Ortodoxa nunnor". In this case Wikipedias are not the best source-- 10:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Вы спрашивали, почему я исключил название «Финстервальде» из элемента Fürstenwalde Aerodrome (Q1433594). Дело в том, что существует/существовало три аэродрома с похожими названиями: Фюрстенвальде, Финстервальде-«западный» и Финстервальде-«восточный» (координаты соответственно (1) 52°23'20.7"N, 14°5'43.7"E (2) 51°38'12.4"N, 13°40'20.9"E (3) 51°36'18.4"N, 13°44'25.7"E, код ICAO соответственно EDAL, EDAS и EDUS). Элемент Fürstenwalde Aerodrome (Q1433594) относится к первому из них (как и элемент Q28845180, который теперь я с ним объединил), тогда как название «Финстервальде» – к второму или к третьему.

Больше название я не трогаю. Рассчитываю, что вы ещё раз это проверите. LesNick19 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Importing unsourced affirmations from wikipedia

Hello. You appear to be using a bot (?) in order to automatically import in Wikidata, from any language version of Wikipedia, declarations inferred from categories, regardless of their correct sourcing there. Wikipedia is not by itself an acceptable source, and assertions in it should be checked for sources before being imported here. In fact, it would be better to source any assertion directly in Wikidata. Sapphorain (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: Yes, I am importing data from many mediawiki projects based on their categorization. Wikipedias are not reliable source (source fiable) of information, I'm not familiar with notion of "acceptable source". Yes, it would be better that 100% of information in wikidata would be based on reliable sources, but we are nowhere near this yet. In fact, we are in the beginning of the stage where information need to be collected. At this stage it is generally (except blp) acceptable to make statements even without any references (just look at Special:RecentChanges).
Regarding John Calvin (Q37577) help me understand your opinion. I was under impression that he established Collège Calvin (Q672022) and he was teaching there. Am I wrong? Regarding cause of death, you are right, simple wikipedia author probably mistaken him with his father. --Ghuron (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found any source stating Calvin taught at the academy he founded. I doubt it, as the first rector was Théodore de Bèze and not Calvin. Sapphorain (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sapphorain: I've spent some time looking for sources, and it looks like you are right. I can see that you've removed corresponding category from en-wiki, I did the same in es/tr/fa wikis. --Ghuron (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Sapphorain (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nazis convicted of war crimes

Hi. You must not be using the English version of this category. Many Nazis who were convicted were charged with crimes other than war crimes, which is a particular charge. I checked a bunch of them, and then changed them appropriately. Please stop adding this value war crime (Q135010) to the property convicted of (P1399) unless you can confirm it through the German or English Wikipedia (preferably both) since they are reliable. - 18:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up, it looks like there are different criteria in different wikipedias for inclusion into Category:Nazis convicted of war crimes (Q6926827). I've removed P1399-clause from this category, so one won't be used any more. There are a few other categories that are used for P1399:Q135010 (see here). Do you think they are reliable enough? --Ghuron (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not think they are sufficiently reliable. They are not based on the English Wikipedia, and they are not well sourced like the English Wikipedia is. - 2602:306:C478:5C90:60A6:7B15:C236:8CC8 04:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Importing inconsistent birthdays from Wikipedia categories

Hi Ghuron -- A lot of date of birth (P569) properties have been updated based on memberships of wikipedia categories. I guess it would be helpful to refrain from updating P569 when those category memberships are not consistent. E.g., you changed Vasco da Gama (Q7328)'s birthday back and forth seven times over a period of three days in early October. In this particular case, no one knows what his birthday was - let alone what year he has born. Most sources that I could find say "around 1460" but 1469 also appears often for whatever reason... --Anders-sandholm (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anders-sandholm: I think there are two independent issues here. Consecutive edits was a bug, that was reported in #Incorrect edits to Walter Raleigh section and fixed since that. My apologies for that, I should have tested my code better. Regarding category membership, I believe you seriously overestimate inconsistency rate here. According to NavelGazer, I've updated ~3K statements with P569, and only a few of them had problems. But even for than, I believe by default we should try to reveal them, not ignore/hide them. And the best way would be to import data from one local wiki, so users of the other project will see discrepancy between birthdate in the infobox and corresponding category. But, if you still want to prevent my script from updating birthyear (or any other property) - just specify source there (see my recent edits in Vasco da Gama (Q7328)). I'm updating statements either without references or only with imported from Wikimedia project (P143) indicator --Ghuron (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anders-sandholm: oh, and I finally read disclaimer on your userpage :) That sounds pretty cool, I would be more than happy to leave all date properties for SlingWikiBot, my only suggestion would be to capture information, parsed from category name into category contains (P4224) statements (see Category:Danish male cyclists (Q16794230) as an example). This would make easy merging identical categories between different local wikis (especially smaller ones) --Ghuron (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ghuron: Thanks for your response and for fixing Vasco da Gama (Q7328). No worries about leaving the date properties out. We'll just update whatever still needs updating when we get to it. Yeah -- I've been looking more closely at category contains (P4224) lately and that definitely seems like something worthwhile keeping up-to-date. I hadn't thought about it as a strong indicator for merging categories across wiki languages. Good point. I guess a large overlap in members of the categories is another strong signal for potentially merging categories. A bit off topic perhaps, but I've been wondering why categories aren't being moved over to Wikidata as well? Would have the effect of encouraging/enforcing consistency across local wikis and dramatically reduce the size needed for storage. Anyway, just wondering... --Anders-sandholm (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anders-sandholm: Filling properties based on P4224 statements is non-trivial, but straightforward (see [15]), filling P4224 for categories is much more difficult. I'm using combination of "category transitivity" and primitive bag of words classifier (see [16]). You obviously are much better equipped for that :)
Regarding "moving categories to Wikidata", there is a bunch of historical, cultural and technical issues. Wikidata is a relatively young sibling in wikimedia family, it is only 6 years old, but local categories were in mediawiki from the very beginning. I can speak only for ru-wiki, but I suspect situation is very similar in all major wikipedias. Oldfags like the way categories works and they want to preserve current state in the future. They normally don't like wikidata and complain about data quality there (which is sadly true). They don't really care about consistency across local wikis, they are focused on their own home wiki. In ru-wiki there is implicit consensus that if some data in infobox is displayed based on wikidata, it is ok to automatically place article in the corresponding category. It works for a few simple cases like "place of birth" based on category for people born here (P1464), but that's pretty much it. For instance Riszat Abdullin (Q4054599) has baritone (Q31687) voice. This information is displayed in infobox of ru:Абдуллин, Ришат Мукимович from wikidata item, so my script include this article in the Category:Baritones (Q7042844) category. Unfortunately, this article is also manually included in more specific Category:Soviet baritones‎ (Q7616158) category. My toolset when rendering infobox is limited both functionally and performance-wise (I cannot run expensive queries there), so there is nothing I can do to prevent that. Automatic placement of more complex categories like Category:Danish male cyclists (Q16794230) is simply impossible now. So, to answer your question, we are moving into the direction of automated categorization based on wikidata, but very-very slow. --Ghuron (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop importing bullshit from wikipedia

Please stop importing unsourced material from wikipedia. Please check the source there before. Thanks. Sapphorain (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I certainly understand your frustration and apologise for importing unsourced cause of death of John Calvin (Q37577). I've added this item to blacklist, and it won't be modified again by my script. I certainly agree it would be better to check any statement against sources before importing. Unfortunately there is no such technology and wikidata still lacking billions of trivial facts. Since our last conversation 10 days ago, I've imported at least 10K statements and only 16 of them were reverted. Majority of those that were reverted revealed various problems in corresponding wiki articles that were corrected now. So I think I should continue "importing bullshits" unless you clearly articulates how negative impact of my work (which is obviously non-zero) overweight positive impact --Ghuron (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You write that you imported 10 thousands statements and that « only 16 were reverted ». This argument is quite ridiculous: the 10 thousands statements were imported automatically by your bot, the 16 were reverted by physical contributors who spent the time to check the assertion and realized it was either false or unsourced. It probably took more time to them to revert these 16 than to your bot to publish 10’000 unverified declaration. This probably means that not only 16 but many more of these 10 thousands statements are false or unsourced, but nobody was interested enough to check so far, or simply nobody saw the changes yet. I am not interested in «  articulating clearly how negative » the impact is of your work. The fact is that this way you are importing a lot of bullshit without any control, and I think you should stop. Lack of information is better than false or unreliable information. Sapphorain (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sapphorain if you feel Wikipedia is bullshit, you might be on the wrong ship. Your comments seem odd coming from someone who adds statements not found in Wikipedia manually, but who is unable to provide quotes that substantiate their claims. --- Jura 18:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You are jumping to conclusions. I never wrote wikipedia is bullshit. But unfortunately, it sometimes contains unsourced or false information, which means that it does sometimes contain bullshit. This is why Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for itself; and I think this should also be applied to Wikidata: Wikipedia should not be an acceptable source for Wikidata. (Your last assertion concerning me is absurd; I always provide reliable sources for my claims). Sapphorain (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sapphorain: We do not know what was cause of death (P509) of John Calvin (Q37577) and quite likely never will. There are a few hypothesis, most probable is sepsis (Q183134), but I can find a few sources for tuberculosis (Q12204) as well (albeit their reliability is questionable). You are not novice, you are supposed to know that wikipedia is not trying to capture TRUE FACTS, we are modestly aiming to capture verifiable statements. So "false information" argument is nonsense and if you are really looking for a place where "lack of information is better than false or unreliable information" - just narrow down your vision to only those statements that are supported by reliable sources. You clearly see no value in information, imported from wikipedia w/o references, but I and some other fellow contributors do. If you want to, I can explain you my opinion in more details, but IMO it is not relevant to this discussion. We can peacefully coexist here together and do what we think is best for a project without insulting each other. I certainly do appreciate time you spend on correcting my "bullshit", but I probably can survive if you will just ignore them. And regarding error rate - we are all humans and we do make mistakes. My mistakes can be caused by bugs in my scripts/queries and mistakes, that were made in "source" wikipedias. If you believe my error rate is significantly higher than average (or yours) - prove it. --Ghuron (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You are pretending not to understand. I am not disputing sources that are independent from wikipedia. What I am saying is just that an assertion should always be sourced independently from wikipedia. So please stop blindly importing from wikipedia: check if it is sourced there first. It is particularly easy to include a page in wikipedia in some category without any source; in most cases nobody will care: so a declaration inferred from a category should never be imported in Wikidata without checking first. Sapphorain (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


At Jorge Meré (Q19796920) you imported twice Sporting Gijón (Q12278), although this was already stated, even with start and final dates. Steak (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: thanks, looking into that right now, will revert wrong edits --Ghuron (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Steak: my understanding is that I've fixed this mess, let me know if you still see it --Ghuron (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Steak (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Importing from Arabic Wikipedia Categories

Hi! Thank you for importing data through Arabic Wikipedia categories. If you need help, I'm here. --Helmoony (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


This is wrong. Category:Prussian generals (Q8965992) does not contain generals in general ;), de:Kategorie:Generalstabsoffizier (Preußen) is something different (the interwikis are wrong it seems). Steak (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reverted my edits based on that category and also checked whenever any other sub-category of de:Kategorie:Generalstabsoffizier has category contains (P4224) human (Q5) / military rank (P410) general officer (Q83460) (they are not) --Ghuron (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Could you revert your edits of military rank (P410) general officer (Q83460) based on Category:Roman generals (Q7088421), Category:Ancient Roman generals (Q7244996), Category:Ancient Greek generals (Q8250705), Category:Ancient Macedonian generals (Q19359140)? As referred to the ancient world, general officer (Q83460) is not precise: ancient Greek and Roman armies had specific military ranks different from the modern "general". Thank you, --Epìdosis 20:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Country for sport

You cannot assume that the country for sport is the United States of America merely because the subject is in the category:American basketball players. That merely implies the nationality of the subject, not where they are playing the sport. - 00:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you please show me a few examples of my wrong edits? --Ghuron (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Утверждение, что сабж Richard Stone был "доктором физико-математических наук" заведомо неверно, так как он к СССР не имел непосредственного отношения (в описании категории указано: "Doctor of Sciences in Physics and Mathematics" - higher doctoral degree in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states). Да и, похоже, в источнике этого нет (там так: "he took a degree in economics in 1935 (Sc.D., 1957)"). -- Badger M. (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Badger M.: спасибо be:Рычард Стоўн поправил --Ghuron (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone killed by the Second Spanish Republic was sentenced to death

Hello. I've seen that you've used a bot to add as a manner of death "capital punishment" for everyone that was killed by the Second Spanish Republic. That is not accurate for a lot of them!! Many of those killed by the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War were just killed by militia-men without any previous trial. Therefore, I'd like you to please change it to "homicide", which can rightfully include both sentenced to death and assassinated. Thank you!--Raderich (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Raderich: you want me to find all items, where I've specified manner of death (P1196) capital punishment (Q8454) based on Category:People killed by the Second Spanish Republic (Q7017876) and change it to homicide (Q149086)? --Ghuron (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Ghuron. Can you do that? Thank you.--Raderich (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Raderich: I've made a first step: removed manner of death (P1196) capital punishment (Q8454). Next time my bot will run and add appropriate cause of death --Ghuron (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.--Raderich (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth: Norway, because included in Category:Norwegian writers

Hi, edits like [17] and [18] are simply wrong. You can't just assume that a writer was born in Norway because he or she exists in a category for people having Norwegian citizenship. I don't think it is appropriate to make such bot edits. I have fixed the two items I linked to, but there are probably way more errors like them. Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kjetil_r: thanks for pointing that to me, the problem was caused by this edit . I've reverted 1161 wrong place of birth (P19) Norway (Q20) and corrected Category:Norwegian writers (Q6716207). Let me know if you see more issues --Ghuron (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ghuron/Archives/2018".