Open main menu

User talk:Infovarius


Welcome to Wikidata, Infovarius!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

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.

Regards, --Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Привет, Ярослав :) Infovarius (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


stag (Q29838881) / Q46643175Edit

Why do you think modeling them as subclass of (P279) of male organism (Q44148) / female organism (Q43445) is a good idea. There was no contraint violation of sex or gender (P21) reported. --Succu (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: How is it there is no CoVi?? Please read constraints for sex or gender (P21): subject of the item should be some instance of (P31) of person (Q215627) or similar. Then, I think that modelling "male deer" as subclass of "male organism" is very logical and doesn't violate any constraint. Why do you think that this is not a good idea? --Infovarius (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
We should proceed here. --Succu (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

artwork series (Q15709879)Edit

The description artwork series (Q15709879) is fine when the form of the art is to be left unspecified, or the group is mixed or of physical art. But using it in place of musical composition (Q207628) means that we no longer know what kind of art is in the series. When all the music was assembled and published as a single composition, we can safely call it a musical composition (Q207628) instead of artwork series (Q15709879). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: were these concerts assembled and regarded as a single composition? If you want to specify that they are pieces of music we can use qualifier of (P642) musical composition (Q207628). --Infovarius (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they were assembled and published together as a unit. The assemblage bears a single title; the components have only nicknames or descriptions, but originally had no titles of their own. This seems to have happened a lot in the Baroque period, and not so much afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

R (Q206904)Edit


You wanted to know why I removed these: [1]. It was because of information overload. Most were repetitions of the "programming paradigm" field. Also, "programming language" is redundant to "multi-paradigm programming language". The later gives all the information that the former gives.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I see the redundancy. But there is 2 approaches: using special class or using special property for indicating e.g. paradigm. The approaches are quite parallel and which of them to use is not yet defined (or do you know some RfC about choosing?). So I'd prefer to use both for a while. --Infovarius (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Paprika (2006 film)Edit

Hello Infovarius!

Sorry i do not speak well in English. I am Hungarian. The paprika feature film, this really right. But does not display this unfortunately in the Hungarian at us. But it, that whole evening film. "játékfilm = Feautre Film" The feature film film like that, that played real stories, stories guessed even as characters by way of actors or animated figures even, through scenes directed by a director taken in a script introduces. "egész estés film = Whole Evening Film" 80-90 minute films are the whole evening films in the average. What is a whole evening film, it much longer, we say it 2 clockmaker you are a film yet longer. Nowadays all of the evening film generally the 80 and 210 minute ones mean films. 60 and 120 mean ones between a minute generally at the child films. But what is longer than 1 clockmaker film, you are at least 1 clockmaker film, we may regard it as whole evening one already. In the Hungarian wiki this expression, which is not important in him, appears unfortunately let the box be-ban and very much lengthens the text at us the box-ban, this would need to substitute instead of the whole evening film the feature film expression let in the huwiki appear. I hope so you understood what I wrote.

You're Welcome:. --Vakondka (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Vakondka! I am sorry, I don't understand all what you've written (may be you try to write in Hungarian, and I'll try to translate it with Google Translate?). As I understand, in Hungarian there could be 2 not equal terms, "játékfilm" and "egész estés film" (why only "evening"?). I used Q24869 as a quite long, self-consistent film (in opposition to short film (Q24862)). At least in Russian this item means so, but I agree with phrase in en-wiki: "The majority of feature films are between 70 and 210 minutes long". Which of your terms is better suited for this item? --Infovarius (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we solved it that long expression did not appear in Hungarian now, but in English knew to do let us not lose info. But wiki I write to you in an e-mail in Hungarian, what I thought of punctually how. --Vakondka (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I sent it to you through the surface of the wikipedia e-mail in a message on a Hungarian language. --Vakondka (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

part of (P361)Edit

Hi! I removed part of (P361) because it requires, in the other item, has part (P527); moreover, in my opinion facet of (P1269) is sufficient in this case. Am I wrong? Thank you! --Epìdosis 18:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

New typesEdit

Before adding non-standard types to P31, could you bring it up on WP movies?
--- Jura 10:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think silent short film (Q20667187) is more non-standard type than e.g. animated film (Q202866) or short film (Q24862). --Infovarius (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: But why did you mass-revert of admin's additions without discussion? See Q4415135 --Infovarius (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is, at least compared to short film (Q24862). Periodically, I clean up and complete film project related items. I didn't investigate in detail who added what and when. I did advise some users of problematic conversions.
    --- Jura 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you stop this .. it just adds more to cleanup.
    --- Jura 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thans for deleting P279Edit

Thanks, you for deleting this property, it was a awful failure from me. -- Спасибоб, Вы оказали мне болшой помощь. Вчера старалься исправлать эту глупую ошибкуб но не получилось. С приветом. Texaner (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Film)Edit

Hello Infovarius! The feature film dot, that reports the whole evening film (film like that, that would be able to amount to a cinema program merely, and not double could be going as the part of feature only for example. That trouble, the Hungarian wikiben display it so: egész estés film. This very much info at us in the box and pulls it apart very much. It would be necessary to make changes in this info in the Hungarian in order to be a word short one with an expression there. Máté Hungarian editor tries to reflect on how he should be, but we may eliminate it somehow in the scheme theoretically. --Vakondka (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No the aim that he should get out would be needed in the Hungarian some other way to express the info, it it would be necessary to change it to something somehow in order for an expression to be shorter, back up let him be found. --Vakondka (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Feature filmEdit

Hello! Máté solved my problem. Back up I make it for you everywhere the feature expression. :) --Vakondka (talk) 13:41, 28 January 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)

Re: merge Wiktionary appendices with real termsEdit

Hi Infovarius, if you disagree/feel that it's improper, please feel free to revert. Have a nice day. :) Osteologia (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Osteologia: If I was sure I would do like this :) I am just willing to discuss. --Infovarius (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, look this: Because is a useless parameter, there isn't date for that, and there is a problem in italian wikipedia with it:Mercurio (astronomia), becasue "sconosciuto" in the template it must not appear.--Kirk39 (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kirk39: I don't understand why it shouldn't? It seems to me quite relevant information. --Infovarius (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Mercury, like sun, moon and all planets up to Saturn, it's known since ancient times, it's impossible to known that parameter (date, and the author too).--Kirk39 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sport, or not sport, that is the questionEdit


I notice you changed



Now all sports subclass of (P279) of winter sport (Q204686) used in value for sport (P641) triggers a constraint violation (not being a subclass of (P279) of sport (Q349)). That's annoying as there is a lot, especially now with the 2018 Winter Olympics (Q9680).

What should we do, revert your change or modify the constraint?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: a third solution (maybe a better one?) would be to add on other values as subclass of (P279) on skiing (Q130949) (but not idea which one...).


Infovarius, let me explain my edit and maybe we can agree on resolution. I am working on resolving some of Commons category (P373) constraint violations, and one of the constraints is single value constraint (Q19474404) that maze (Q606777) is violating. It means that we have to pick a single category on Commons for that item, and c:Category:Labyrinths is (at the moment) the parent of c:Category:Mazes, so a better choice. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I see. This constrain is sometimes hard to accomplish. In this case I don't really understand the difference between labyrinth and maze (in English). --Infovarius (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no difference between labyrinth and maze in popular English, although Labyrinth says that to some maze has branching paths and Labyrinth could include structures with a single path. It is a pretty minor difference but that explains why on Commons c:Category:Labyrinths is the parent of c:Category:Mazes. --Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Мастацкая літаратураEdit

Доброго времени суток. Просьба не трогать мои правки. Делаю по образцу русской Википедии. --Artificial123 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artificial123: хотелось бы понять подход. Ибо "літаратура" имхо однозначно указывает, что это не должны быть фильмы. --Infovarius (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

admin boundary deprEdit

Hi, re [2], I agree, I saw the deprecation rules. I filed a bot request to fix all of these, still pending. In the mean time, the current ones should be marked as preferred. --Yurik (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. --Infovarius (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


Question, is this capitalized? If so, what is the lowercase? thanks. Artix Kreiger 2 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger 2: yep, the small letter is "и". --Infovarius (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


Почему ты отменил правку ? (и даже не поинтересовался). Ты умеешь читать по-грузински ? Я вижу что не умеешь... Здесь идет речь о расходе воды а в ка. вики о стоке. Некорректно был указан Интервики. Так что твою правку отменяю. - Otogi (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Otogi: виноват, простите. Я переводил Гуглом и увидел упоминание разных единиц измерения... А куда тогда эту статью присоединить? Может, в torrent stream (Q1437299)? --Infovarius (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Нет. ჩამონადენი это конкретно, сток. Извините за поздний ответ. - Otogi (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Rank on Q1387882Edit

Hi, sorry for deleting the old rank. I didn't realise there was a rank field available symbolised by the arrows on the left. However, why did you promote suborder from deprecated to normal? My understanding is that suborder is deprecated. Mvolz (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mvolz: deprecated rank in Wikidata is used for some wrong data. While this taxonomic rank (although was deprecated by some classifications) has been regarded as correct some time ago. So we can keep old rank with specific date of deprecation (please add if you know it!). Normal rank in Wikidata is used for historical data, and preferred rank is for actual data. --Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


это не государство, а вот это - государство. --Shmurak (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Animals (Q7157802)Edit

Re [3] - Commons category (P373) is only supposed to have one value, otherwise it ends up at Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P373#"Single_value"_violations. The value I removed properly belongs at Category:Animalia (Q6254409). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey :) I'm not sure what you meant by adding measured by (P1880) = volume percent (Q2080811) to volume fraction (Q909482)? Both are the same thing, but writen in different way and the percents are not any 'scale' here, but a way to write a fraction. Wostr (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: because volume fraction (Q909482) is definitely a quantity. Calling volume percent (Q2080811) a unit is a bit pulling strings but I admit it. --Infovarius (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael de VladimirEdit

Regardez, voici une source pour la date exacte: 12akd (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Merci pour la source. Mais elle est "a la home-page" de Miroslav Marek - non trop solide... --Infovarius (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)



I didn't realise that artificial satellite (Q26540) was about different concept depending on the languages. Shouldn't we split it into two items? ("искусственный спутник Земли" and "искусственный спутник" / "Earth artificial satellite" and "artificial satellite")

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: can you please give me an example of non-Earth artificial satellite? --Infovarius (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Almost all probes send to other planets are non-Earth artificial satellite, look at the articles of exploration of Mars (Q716774) and you can find dozens of examples, e.g. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (Q183160) which is still operational and currently orbiting Mars. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: ok, so we have to have 2 items. --Infovarius (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
There is two concepts: the general "artificial satellite" and the specific "Earth artificial satellite", the item artificial satellite (Q26540) seems to be about the first but the article in the Wikipedia in Russian seems about the second. That why a suggest to split the item to reflect this distinction. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: seems to be about the first - it depends: almost all "what links here" are about Earth. So I am in doubt what is better: to move almost all sitelinks to a new item or to move almost all subclasses and instances to a new item? --Infovarius (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach (Q1339)Edit

The "classical music" you are citing and referencing is not the value you have added. There are two different meanings of "classical music" in English. One of the meanings is that of classical music (Q9730), which is a style dominant in Western European music from about 1750 to 1827. The other meaning of the term is "more serious forms of music, taught through formal education and performed according to strict rules, as opposed to folk music or popular music" (see wikt:en:classical music).

The locations you have cited for calling J. S. Bach "classical" are using the second sense of the term, which is not a genre, and is not represented by the use of classical music (Q9730). You would need to use a different data item for that sense of the term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I have found art music (Q1583807) exists for this purpose. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind all of the above. This situation was far more confused and tangled than I thought. I have added different from (P1889) to all three of the related data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Former settlementsEdit

Hi! You recently undid some of my work related to former settlements, unfortunately without explanation. As for more generic item, please see Talk:Q22674925. Secondly you merged Q50323443 (former village) into abandoned village (Q350895) while there is a clear distinction. As with Q22674925, not all former villages are former because they were abandoned. I created "former village" item specifically for villages that have been merged into other villages, and that are not known to have become unpopulated or abandoned. I believe that instead of merging, "abandoned village" should be subclass of "former village". Would you be kind enough to explain or to reconsider your actions? 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


uk [граматичні] роди́ = en grammatical genders ≠ ru ро́ды. Are you sure that you're not massively making other similar mistakes, based on homographs, on Wikidata? --Ата (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ата: uk [граматичні] род = en grammatical gender = ru род. Are you sure that you understand all the meanings of ru:род? --Infovarius (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This is correct. I only mean that in this certain edit you mixed роды́ meaning uk:роди with ро́ды meaning uk:пологи (child-birth). --Ата (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Now I understood, I am sorry. I just overviewed recent edits and thought that the aliases was accidently lost and Google Translate (I am sorry for using it) showed me ru:"склонение по родам". --Infovarius (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Q10927630 и Q10927615Edit

Здравствуйте. Дал неточную ссылку в описании правок, поэтому указываю её здесь: ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Викиданные/2018/1 полугодие#Wikidata:Q10927630. Пожалуйста, не вносите в третий раз неконсенсусную версию с несуществующими в русской хоккейной терминологии понятиями. С уважением, Sealle (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


hello. you reverted my edit on

the bayan is a type of button accordion spesific to Russia, "button accordion" is the general type of accordion with buttons, Bayan would be a subtype of it, not the same, I would write this while making the edit, and indeed I have often wished for a text field of sorts to put justifications in before doing anything. but iiuc it is not possible unless with a bot, if you know of a way to add a description of what one is doing while editing a wikidata item, please tell me! --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, CatQuest. And I often pity about the absence of edit comments too... --Infovarius (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Q48963 ~ Q1091243Edit

I noticed you revert my edits on Q48963. I partially agree with you because Labyrinth deals with both the palace of Knossos and with traditional labyrinths form Classical times. We must decide what Q48963 deals with. The palace of Knossos (then it should be merged with Q1091243) or the ancient idea of a labyrinth?--Carnby (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Carnby! Oh, I didn't know about Q1091243... But I am not sure what is it about: palace or labyrinth? And do you think that much of Q48963 still represents (other) traditional labyrinths? --Infovarius (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikidata items should be at least three: 1) Original Labyrinth (Palace of Knossos) 2) traditional unicursal labyrinth 3) modern labyrinth (maze).--Carnby (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Infovarius,

I noticed you making these edits, which surely you know are wrong. Why? - Brya (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Brya. I would say the same for your edit. Why did you delete correct ast-link? Why do you create nonsensical Q3546082 even not knowing what the article is about? Why do you think that the name of sitelink in an item is wrong as alias? Do you understand what is alias in Wikidata? --Infovarius (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Infovarius,
you are indeed right about the ast-link. My apologies! But I don't see what Q3546082 has to do with it, and I certainly did not create that. As to the names of sitelinks, surely you know that in many cases we add sitelinks to items when they don't belong there, just so that they don't sit isolated in the items where they do belong. That does not mean that their names match the concept of the item. - Brya (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius,
My English is not very good,In fact,I don't really understand the difference between punctuation mark and punctuation,but my first language is Chinese,in chinese,punctuation (Q82622) is 書面上用於標明句讀和語氣的符號, Chinese description is usually very compendious.Actually article 标点符号 is not only marks but also grammatics,rules and others.and Q24841628 is part of punctuation (Q82622),That is 句讀 is part of 标点符号.But 句讀 is ancient Chinese writing note marks, So 句讀 it's still not the same as punctuation mark.My editor was wrong at the beginning,Should not be redirected 句讀.I know a little Japanese.In Japanese,句読点 is part of 約物.So I think 句読点 is punctuation mark.So I think my editor should have no problem now. As for other languages, I have no idea how to distinguish them, because I do not understand them at all.--chaus (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ffffnm: good, let it be so. I believe you. I recommend you in future to check that articles in your language corresponds to the statements (like subclass of (P279), part of (P361) and so on) in the items. --Infovarius (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!--chaus (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your feedbackEdit

Hi Infovarius. I think we addressed your feedback here. Would you kindly respond to it?
--- Jura 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ksenia (Q43979833)Edit

Hey Infovarius, something went wrong your one of your recent batches. You added Ksenia (Q43979833) as given name to many people with variants of (seemingly cyrillic) Georgi as a given name. Can you please check your recent contributions? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring this, but according to this list the problem is quite large. Could you please fix it? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: oh, that's my error, sorry. I'll correct them, yes. --Infovarius (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Georgius AgricolaEdit

Hello Infovarius. Are you sure? Your edit on Q76579 seems strange to me. Georgius Agricola is the Latin form for a German name: Georg Bauer. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Chris.urs-o: no. He is called "Георгий Агрикола" in Russia, so it is logical for Russian that he has the name Георгий. But I am not sure if we should put it in the item. --Infovarius (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally undoing your editEdit

Hi Hi. Sorry for accidentally undoing your edit on Lexeme:L305 and Lexeme:L311, I was actually intending on undoing edits on linked Items and Properties. Adam Shorland (WMDE) (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Shorland (WMDE): It's OK. You've undone it, so you can even avoid mentioning it :) --Infovarius (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi, could I ask what is the reason of this edit? HastaLaVi2 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Error in replyto template: Username not given. See Template:Replyto for usage. because the category contains personal pronouns and thus perfectly fits this item. May I ask you in reverse: what was the reason of deleting it? --Infovarius (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for replying this late, but I got it all wrong that day, even though I speak Turkish. Now I see, sorry. Good day! :) HastaLaVi2 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Undo revision – natural rubber (Q131877)Edit

Hi, you have undo my edition where I added "NR" as Also-known-as parameter to polish language. I meant the abbreviation of name of rubber which is used in industry like other. For example: polyethylene - PE, polyethylene terephthalate - PTFE and so on. And this abbreviation is approved in US standard (ASTM D1418) and ISO standard (ISO/DIN 1629) (see: In addition this abbreviation exist in english and german Also-known-as. Is my edition can be restored? — Piotr Osada (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lexeme: masculineEdit

Hi Infovarius, family (P53) is a property for families, including dynasty and nobility houses. For a lexeme like "Theaterintendant" (Lexeme:L2254) grammatical gender (P5185) fits better. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kolja21: of course, it's an obvious error. --Infovarius (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast reply. I wasn't sure because the translations of the properties might mix different meanings. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Я правильно понял что проблема в многочисленности квалификаторов P143 (вполне достаточно одного)? --Ghuron (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ghuron: квалификаторы "взято из ХХХ-Википедия" вообще имеют мало смысла - они обычно появляются при различных автоматических импортах из языковых разделов. Я их удаляю как мусор - они всё равно не могут являться настоящими подтверждениями. И да, иметь более одного такого значения добавляет нулей после запятой в их значимость (0,00...1). --Infovarius (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Так я и делаю автоматический импорт   Идея imported from Wikimedia project (P143) не в том, что это ссылка на АИ, а в том, что если оно висит у откровенно неверного утверждения, можно пойти в соответствующий языковой раздел и снести его и там тоже. Но иметь их шлейф смысла никакого нет, я поправил исходный запрос. Спасибо что заметили! --Ghuron (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

keyboard emoji reversionEdit

Hi, you reverted my removal of the "keyboard" (🎹) emoji on the piano saying it quite fits. I actually do see your point, but I respectfully disagree.

"keyboard" is not a piano, but just the keys, and many instruments have a keyboard like this; Organs, synthesizers, melodica, accordion, all have keys like this, and by such logic should all include the "keyboard" (🎹) emoji. I see keyboard emoji more as an emoji for the part of instrument "keyboard" than any one specific instrument. --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC) note the use of the name "Musical Keyboard" and a general look of only keys and no indication of specifically piano (other than "Also Known As" which, are "fan names" and not official) or any other instrument for that matter. :) --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@CatCat: Yes, you're right. --Infovarius (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


Dear Infovarious,

Why did you undo my edit?Caleb The Wipper (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Caleb The Wipper: how can a voice be a watercourse? --Infovarius (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

[1] I did not list it as a watercourse. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I just realized the problem. I linked it to Q491713 when I should have linked it to Q11461. Stupid English language having multiple meanings for the word "sound"Caleb The Wipper (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Caleb The Wipper: yes, I understand. But again, P31=Q491713 is redundant (and wrong) as there is already P279=natural sound (Q6980787) (which is subclass of sound (Q491713)). --Infovarius (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. citeurl=}}%7Ctitle=diff

Грамматическая категория лица у форм глаголовEdit

Привет! Я заметил, что для Russian (Q7737) ты добавил в свойство has grammatical person (P5110) значения типа third-person feminine singular (Q52431970). И я было подумал их ипользовать в описании грамматических признаков у форм глаголов, но не нашел варианта для «первое лицо женский род единственное число», «первое лицо мужской род единственное число». Насколько я понял это предложение ещё не принято, но есть отдельные first person (Q21714344), second person (Q51929049) и third person (Q51929074). В общем я тут пока путаюсь с описанием лексем. Не подскажешь, как лучше делать на примере идти и пойти? Don Rumata 16:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@DonRumata: Привет, я сам не знаю, что лучше использовать. Действительно, обсуждается ещё. --Infovarius (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Graduate student vs graduate studentEdit

Would you please explain how these two items are different, and how separating the ja/zh sitelinks from the de/ru etc sitelinks is useful to our readers? --Deryck Chan (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Здравствуйте, Infovarius. Не подскажете какое свойство лучше использовать в элементах маскотов организаций/мероприятий, чтобы указать организацию/мероприятие, к которому относится данный маскот? Я заметил, что другие участники используют свойства "facet of/тематически относится к" (P1269) или "represents/представляет" (P1268), чтобы указать организацию/мероприятие, к которому относится маскот.

Как Вы считаете, какое из этих двух свойств (P1269, P1268) наиболее подходящее для маскотов? Наверное, если какое-то из них подходит больше, то стоит убрать дублирующее свойство в таких элементах, как вот этот: (World Cup Willie). Там представлены сразу два этих свойства.

Еще хотел спросить на счет обозначений (меток) на русском языке для элементов персоналий. Я правильно понимаю, в Викиданных стандарт — это «имя отчество фамилия», как вот в этом элементе: (Александр Сергеевич Пушкин)?--Russian Rocky (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Russian Rocky: Я точно не берусь выбрать, по названию оба свойства мне нравятся. Конечно, первое более общее, поэтому если со вторым все согласны, то лучше использовать второе. Однако в вашем примере P1268 вызывает CoVi (constraint violation), т.к. задумано, что у этого свойства значения должны быть только люди или организации. Но если что, можно попробовать расширить его, добавив и события (или мероприятия).
Насчёт персоналий - да, обсуждали здесь на форуме, что лучше иметь прямой порядок, а все остальные добавлять в синонимы. Даже в воздухе висит необходимость пройтись ботом и исправить это. --Infovarius (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Наверное, я попозже подниму этот вопрос на странице свойства P1268. Теперь, когда с русскими названиями персоналий все предельно ясно, то я буду по возможности исправлять все встречающиеся ФИО, унося их в синонимы. Спасибо за Ваши ответы и потраченное на меня время.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


These two (benzodiazepine (Q9168929), benzodiazepine (Q83871)) items are about different classes of compounds. The first about dibenzodiazepines (every compound having e.g. 1,4-benzodiazepine, 1,5-benzodiazepine etc. ring system), the second about compounds of the general struture File:Benzodiazepine a.svg showing psychoactive properties. Please keep it in mind when editing these two items (I had to revert one of your edit). Thanks, Wostr (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you've copied MeSH ID and BabelNet ID to the other item and now these two ids are present in both items. I think both ids are describing concepts described in benzodiazepine (Q83871), not in benzodiazepine (Q9168929) (the MeSH is a medical database and in BabelNet entry there are medical categories linked to the entry). Regards, Wostr (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


One might hunt

SELECT ?billionaire ?billionaireLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?billionaire wdt:P31 wd:Q1062083.
  MINUS { ?billionaire wdt:P31 wd:Q5. }

Try it! another time through Petscan. :)

Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for noticing, User:Marsupium! I am fixing them now. --Infovarius (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Please, read the property documentation before doing such edits (or at least post some reasons for you revert in the description, not just a comma). phase of matter (P515) is a qualifier only and there is simply no reason for indicating state of matter in such way. There're melting and boiling points for indicating state of matter in given temperature. Could you restore my deletion or give me some explanation? Regards, Wostr (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


?? Which anachronistic claims are you talking about? -- Blackcat (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: because modern state was initiated at 1946 and before that there were different other states like Kingdom of Italy (Q172579). Infovarius (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Infovarius, there's no State discontinuity. Italy has been an unitarian State since 1861 and its only variation is that until 1946 was a monarchy. But the State is the same. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Empty fieldEdit

Thanks for your correction. The field seems to be empty - or am I missing something? Maybe you know that the person was married, but no name? Sian EJ (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sian EJ: this special value means that he had no wife. --Infovarius (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed claim: subclass of (P279): human (Q5) from 'woman'Edit

Hi Infovarius

Could you explain to me your reason for this edit?

(Firstly, it's not a woman, which is at woman (Q467)) I would say that this is P31=gender (Q48277) but then we should also delete Homo sapiens (Q15978631)... --Infovarius (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

organofluorine chemistry (Q1090893) and organofluorine (Q2200141)Edit

Hi, you reverted my merge of these two and perhaps rightly so, but the problem with something like the organofluorine compounds is that there is more or less by definition not much more to them than their chemistry. If we are to keep both items, I suggest moving all the sitelinks to one of the items, I think organofluorine (Q2200141) is best. Some wikis choose a name that include «chemistry», others not, but afaics they are all very similar in scope and should be linked to each other. Are you ok with that solution? Danmichaelo (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Danmichaelo: I agree that there is such problem. One solution is to move (almost) all sitelinks to one item (but it has drawback that claims would be incompatible with titles), the other is to keep sitelinks at right places (but then we have no all interwiki links between them). Ontologically I prefer the second solution. And the drawback can be solved by some hacks, one of them - to create redirects at Wikipedias with proper names which would be at proper items. If we have a pair of article/redirect at each wiki, we have a full interwiki-linking between them. But this solution is quite tedious... --Infovarius (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I'm not sure what is the concern that led to this edit. My understanding is that, despite sharing the same name and being both musical terms, C major (Q1022293) is a major scale (Q190812) (according to its Wikipedia article), while C major (Q55706505) is a major chord (Q2372455). Perhaps the way the Wikidata items are modeled don't correspond exactly to the Wikipedia articles connected to them? Please clarify. Regards, Waldir (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You've duplicated C major (Q55706505) from D major (Q50286885) and forgotten to change labels (ru) so I saw it like D major (Q50286885)... Now I've fixed them both. --Infovarius (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Subclasses of landformsEdit

You have changes numerous items to be subclasses of landform, instead "instance of". Landforms like Mount Queets (Q29633678) and Lot's wife (Q24566570) are concrete objects at particular location. They are not types of landform (like mountain (Q8502) or valley (Q39816)) and so they shouldn't be marked as subclass of landform. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:CD58:9119:4D87:E170 11:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's an error... (because they have no coordinates I've regarded them as classes...) Thanks for noticing, I'll try to revert wrong ones tomorrow. --Infovarius (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I worked some time, please check what is left. --Infovarius (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Собор Святого Александра Невского» (Q1603677)Edit

Вы отменили мою правку. Однако, никакого "регистрационного номера культурного наследия" российским ресурсом не могло быть присвоено памятнику на Украине. Поскольку 15-значные номера и ЕГРОКН действуют с 2014 года. Это ошибка. Если Вы не согласны, то прошу представить АИ на рег. номер 8231626000, по сути являющийся сегодня плодом самодеятельного творчества группы заинтересованных граждан проекта Викигид. --Frutti-mytti (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Да, действительно, смог подтвердить только номер 911711040770005 для собора... --Infovarius (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Moscow - capital of Russia - former capital - cityEdit

По поводу этой правки: [5]. Почему избыточно? Сейчас получается, что она не является столицей (Q5119) и скрипт ( по wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q5119 не покажет Москву. То есть где-то должно быть явно указано, что она столица, или я что-то не понимаю? Dhārmikatva (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dhārmikatva: Потому что она уже capital of Russia (Q4442912). Хм, Q4442912 не было подклассом столицы, а только "бывшей столицы"... Я добавил, но может быть это неверно и вы правы, что нужно особо указывать для текущих столиц... В любом случае сейчас есть:
SELECT ?item ?label ?_image WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q5119.
  ?item wdt:P17 wd:Q159.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru" . ?item rdfs:label ?label } 

Try it!

P.S. Блин, сколько же мелочи в столицах сидит (закомментируйте строчку про Россию)! --Infovarius (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Ну теперь тоже не совсем верно. Смоленск проходит как wd:Q5119, но не должен проходить (ибо не столица). Хотя может он и раньше проходил... Dhārmikatva (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Я его не менял, так и было. Но ведь он столица Смоленской области, не так ли? :) А ещё я имел в виду, что по всему миру столиц гораздо больше:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?countryLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q5119.
  ?item wdt:P17 ?country.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru,[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

Try it! --Infovarius (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

removal of uses from directed acyclic graph (Q1195339)Edit

Why were the uses removed from Q1195339? Some cryptocurrencies use blockdags (block directed acyclic graphs)

I am referring to this edit

TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X: because acyclic graphs don't use cryptocurrencies. Or did you mean different property - used by (P1535)? --Infovarius (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Oh yes I meant used by (P1535), I didn't notice I used the wrong property, thanks! TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Meow.ogg removal on house cat (Q146)Edit

Please explain. —Tom.Reding (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: please explain why do you insist that File:Institute of Zoology NASU (9).jpg is audiofile? --Infovarius (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Советское гражданство у БессоновойEdit

Добрый день! Это такой же Орисс, как проставить в место рождения "СССР" человеку 1985 года рождения с русской фамилией и российским паспортом при отсутствии данных в АИ. Но обсуждать этот момент здесь смысла нет, вопрос более глобальный. Ведь можно же по такой логике просто ботом пройтись по всем персоналиям с гражданством Украина, местом рождения Киев и датой рождения между 1946 и 1991, подставив им гражданство СССР.--Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Сидик из ПТУ: можно, я не против :) Я понимаю, что могут быть какие-то единичные исключения (семья увезла младенца сразу после рождения и потом вернулись уже после распада СССР), но они же настолько редкие, разве не так? --Infovarius (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Это бессмысленные домыслы, из-за них в карточки людям 1990 года рождения полезет советский флаг. Опять же, аналогия с местом рождения "СССР": очень редкие случаи, когда младенец рождался за пределами СССР, но являлся его гражданином.Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Сидик из ПТУ: Насчёт первого предложения - 1990 год, может, и преувеличение. Как насчёт отсекать где-нибудь по 1987 году (т.е. если родился в СССР до 1987 года, то имел гражданство СССР)? Второе предложение не понял: где я утверждал, что рождённый за пределами СССР является его гражданином? Кстати, о какой Бессоновой идёт речь? --Infovarius (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Мы ничего отсекать не должны, такой подход — чистейший ОРИСС и додумывание, я сравниваю это с идеей считать всех граждан СССР, родившихся после 1945 года, по умолчанию родившимися в СССР, если в АИ нет точного места рождения. А конфликт у нас возник тут: Anna Bessonova (Q253461) Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Элемент ВикиданныхEdit

Здравствуйте, коллега! Раз уж вы отменили мою правку, то сделайте, пожалуйста, так, чтобы Роберт Адамсон стал в инфобоксе директором школы, а не завучем. Eugene M (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Придётся мне, видимо, откатить вашу правку? Eugene M (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Коллега, я объяснил свою правку. Причина — Адамсон. Вы же ничего не ответили и ничего не предприняли. Eugene M (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eugene M: ага, вижу проблему. Давайте тогда определимся, Q1056391 всё-таки про завуча (и тогда моя метка правильная) или про директора школы (и тогда русскую статью надо уносить в другой элемент)? Я почему подумал, что это про завуча (кроме русской статьи) - в английской метке-описании написано "head teacher" и к тому же ведёт занятия. А директор школы не обязан вести занятия (да и по-английски обычно называется "headmaster"). --Infovarius (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Как уж они там за бугром себя называют, не знаю. Но headmaster тут стоит как синоним head teacher. Видать, отсюда и проблемы. Eugene M (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius:, директор Адамсон всё ещё числится завучем. Надо что-то делать. Eugene M (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius:, в этих [...] Викиданных что, не существует должности директора школы? Ну сколько уже можно смотреть на дезинформацию в статье об Адамсоне? Вы откатили мою правку, сами же ничего не предпринимаете. Eugene M (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Please, stop mass adding country of citizenship Russian Empire to the people, who have nothing to do with it. (Example) --Silesianus (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


In you wondered why I had entered dramaturge (Q487596) subclass of (P279) researcher (Q1650915). I made that claim based on its English Wikipedia article lede: "A dramaturge or dramaturg is a literary adviser or editor in a theatre, opera, or film company who researches, selects, adapts, edits, and interprets scripts, libretti, texts, and printed programmes (or helps others with these tasks), consults with authors, and does public relations work." Since "researches" was the first word in the job description, I added "researcher" to the subclasses. Runner1928 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Help us improving the user experience of Lexicographical DataEdit


I’m Jan, doing research on user experience in the Wikidata team. I’m currently discussing with people who are editing Lexemes, in order to understand their needs better, and improve their experience with the interface.

We noticed that you have been actively editing Lexemes recently (thank you for that!) and we would love to have a discussion with you about what you’re doing, how you work, what motivates you to create Lexemes, and how you imagine reusing the data later.

This discussion would take place as an individual interview with one of our designers. Via the communication platform of your choice, you’ll be able to share your screen, show how you’re currently editing the data and chat with us. The discussion would take between 30 and 60 min, we will set up the appointment depending on when you are available. Depending on your preferred language, the discussion can happen in English, German or French.

If you’re interested, feel free to reply to this message or send me an email:

If you don’t want to be contacted by us on this topic anymore, please let me know.

Thanks a lot for your help Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

IPA and "язык произведения или названия" (P407)Edit

Hi, I wonder why you made series of removals of language of work or name (P407) from mango (L7565) (like this). I wonder because in IPA transcription (P898) there is constraint property constraint (P2302) mandatory qualifier constraint (Q21510856) property (P2306) language of work or name (P407). KaMan (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KaMan: constraint, I see. I made this because they are redundant in a Lexeme (it is obvious that in Polish word we show Polish transcription, why would it be otherwise?). And at the same time they are necessary for transcription in Items... So now I start thinking that it is wrong to use the same property IPA transcription (P898) for items and lexemes. Or may be to exclude this property from items completely? Because notion can't have any pronunciation, only words describing it can have (and they can be different!) --Infovarius (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I not agree. We have various dialects in Polish and the same Polish word can be pronounced differently so language of work or name (P407) is needed to point out if this is general Polish or dialectal one. See for example into Wiktionary (L3402), there are five IPAs and each has different language of work or name (P407). This property is not redundant at all. KaMan (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Q327742 revert will help ja community, thanksEdit

FYI, I am proposing label change at village pump (ja) for d:Q327742; it's present page title in ja suggests it's for field and athletics, but there is d:Q12469953 for that deffinition. Thank you reverting my misunderstanding, and hopefully ja community would agree to rename Q327742 as for swimming. --Omotecho (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Omotecho, wait! Actually I was too bold in removing the category (taking only Russian label into account). We should investigate labels and sitelinks for all languages at the same time, if to do it properly. There is non-zero probability that this category item should be splitted to two! --Infovarius (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, my motive was in a similar situation as taking Japanese into account. Do you go ahead and move this problem into some public light, say, community portal please? I'm not sure of what's the best as I'm a data geek but not used to discussion kind of elements here. --Omotecho (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Senior lecturer ()Edit

Hi Inforvarius,

Can you explain why you reverted my edit on this item? I know you have indicated that you disagree with the statement instance of (P31)academic rank (Q486983) but I don't understand why. The first sentence of the English Wikipedia article is "Senior lecturer is an academic rank" and a translation of the Russian Wikipedia article indicates that it has the same meaning. I suspect that usage of senior lecturer varies in different countries (like professor, for example) and it might be necessary to have more than one item to reflect this. Simon Cobb (Sic19 ; talk page) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sic19, probably you are right. In Russia it is not a rank but a position which can be held by almost anyone (who has a diploma). It seems that it was a wrong merge by User:Glovacki, I undid it and here you are: second item senior lecturer (Q7450737). Please check. Though there is a little doubt: it is said in English wiki: "is an academic rank" and in the next sentence "is a faculty position". Isn't it contradictory? --Infovarius (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter in musicEdit

It was a mistake and I correct other like this. Thank you. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally, I read more about this and I think it's correct. The sequence is the discography of the composer John Williams. Isn't correct ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you just discuss here rather than only cancel my modifications ? --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Simon! I believe that the sequence should be clear, and in your cases it is far from being obvious. Look at 1 (Q199) - it would be very ambiguous to use follows (P155)/followed by (P156) without qualifiers there, isn't it? So it is better to use part of (P361) with qualifiers P155/P156. And honestly I doubt that we need such sequence as "discography of a composer". Some kind of such list we can generate by Sparql on the basis of publication dates:
SELECT ?item ?label ?year WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q4176708.
  ?item wdt:P86 wd:Q363241.
  OPTIONAL{?item wdt:P577 ?year.}
  SERVICE wikibase:label {
    bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru".
    ?item rdfs:label ?label.

Try it!

but strict sequence can't exist actually (why a composer couldn't work on several compositions at once?). P.S. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Q1190705) is not by John Williams. --Infovarius (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot to answer here.
First of all, I think that we can't compare this case with 1 (Q199). We don't process numbers as we process artwork.
Secondly, every wikipedia versions that I know are classifing the timeline of albums/singles/songs with a previous one and a next one and I think it can be the same on Wikidata.
At last, we don't break contribution here because we can find another way to get the information. Even if we consider that this is a kind of redondancy (and I'm not convinced about this), it can, among others, help a greater number of users to get what they are looking for. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I have found several cases where you have added the given name "Ilya" and also the given name "Fedor", although only Fedor is correct. Examples are this, this and that. Could you please check where you made this error and remove the statements? Steak (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: yes, sorry, my mistake. Fixing. --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sacred textsEdit

Ok for this. Then, the two categories need to be fixed between each other. Is there a property or a template to indicate that? :-) --Superchilum(talk to me!) 10:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Superchilum: said to be the same as (P460) usually means that :) --Infovarius (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Infovarius,

I'm not agree with you about thaht.

Q7465774, Thermal conduction, is a physical phenomenon. Q14946524, conduction, is not a physical phenomenon ; it's a disambiguation page for simple english. Thermal conduction and Electric conduction are not part of conduction.

Ludo29 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ludo29: May be it's arguable, but. Q14946524 is not disambig (even formally) - it is about a class of "ways of moving energy" (the other are radiation and convection). So it can have more narrow subclasses too. --Infovarius (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No. Thermal conduction, convection and thermal rays are part or subclass of Thermal transfert.
But Thermal conduction is not a subclass of conduction. Because Thermal conduction is a physical phenomenon and conduction is.... nothing in physics. It's just a disambiguation page.
Ludo29 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Dana InternationalEdit

Hello Infovarius, why have you restored Dana's website ( if it has been discontinued for at least 2 years and is no longer available? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: but it was true 2 years ago and Wikidata tracks history too. You can check this website at WebArchive: --Infovarius (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your revertsEdit

Hi Infovarius, just saw your reverts of my edits here and here. Unfortunately, you're a bit mistaken here, Germany (Q183) is indeed the correct item for the country of origin (P495) statements, even for dates before the German reunification. The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949 and continues to exist to this day, as covered in Germany (Q183). "West Germany" was simply the name used to differentiate it from the "other Germany", the German Democratic Republic (Q16957) or "East Germany" while that one also existed. In 1989, the GDR ceased to exist and its states joined the FRG. But West Germany was never a separate country from the current FRG, no new country was formed. So while it's okay to use "West Germany" and "west german" in texts (e.g. Wikipedia) when talking about that time period, to indicate which of the two Germanys is meant, we don't need that in a database like Wikdata, where we can simply use the item for the country in question to indicate which country is meant - which is Germany (Q183). Hope that helps. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello, as far as I could see here that's a festival, not a honorary award or a special prize equivalent say, to the Medal of freedom or the Order of the British Empire. So what that award is about? -- Blackcat (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There is an award (fr:Trophée) handed at each festival which called Премия "Золотой Остап". It is described in the same article and so the same item is used as award. --Infovarius (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"subset of" vs. "instance of"Edit

I write you because of this Edit.

Non-mathematical explanation:
A subclass gets (inherits) all properties of its superclass. (see en:Subclass (computer science))
Baseball is subclass of team sport is subclass of type of sport is instance of first-order metaclass.
Because Baseball gets (inherits) all properties of its superclass we have:
Baseball is instance of first-order metaclass.

Baseball is of course not instance of first-order metaclass. Thus, Baseball cannot be a subclass of type of sports.
Thus, either baseball is not subclass of team sport or team sport is not subclass of type of sport.

Short-mathematical explanation:
Let's say, we have the following 5 type of sports.

  1. soccer
  2. american football
  3. baseball
  4. tennis (with 2 persons)
  5. golf

We can write sport =  {soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf}.
Subclasses of sport are classes, which have only elements from sport.
For example:

  • team sport =  {soccer, american football}.
  • individual sport =   {tennis, golf}.

Each element of team sport is also an element of sport. Thus, team sport is a subclass of sport.
Each element of individual sport is also an element of sport. Thus, team sport is a subclass of sport.

What is with type of sport:
type of sport =   {{soccer}, {american football}, {baseball}, {tennis}, {golf}, {team sport}, {individual sport}} = {soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport}.

Thus, soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport are all instances of type of sport.

Long-mathematical explanation:
If desired, I can give a more detailed mathematical explanation. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You said look at the subclasses of "type of sport": The subclass ist not "sport". The subclass is "class of sport". As I said! --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss, Eulenspiegel1 (I am not 100% sure too). Firstly, about Non-mathematical explanation. Only "set" properties are inherited from superclass. They are majority but not all. P31 is not one of them. A subclass of B subclass of C → A subclass of C, A instance (P31) of B subclass of C → A instance of C. But not "A subclass of B instance of C → A instance of C"!!
Secondly, about mathematical explanation. Here is more subtle. You mix sets and elements here, and misinterprets the symbol   (union of sets). I agree that two sets can consist of this elements:
  • team sport(s) = {soccer, american football}.
  • individual sport(s) = {tennis, golf}.
Then the set sport = team sports   individual sports. We can write it (though not entirely correct) as   {team sports, individual sports}.
But your last formula doesn't make sense at all. If you write that type of sport = {soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport} then your type of sport will be a metaclass of variable order (consisting of elements and sets) which is not desirable I suppose.
The difficulty I see here that I don't know exactly if each of type of sport (e.g. one of 5 mentioned by you) is an instance or class (element or set). And I don't understand ontological difference between type of sport (Q31629) and sport (Q349)... --Infovarius (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're right with with your first point. It's not: "A subclass of B instance of C → A instance of C". Yet, outside the mathematic it's very often the case that A is an instance of C.
Soccer, tennis etc. are no elements. An element is, if we two play tennis, today. This match is an element. Tennis consists of all tennis matches wich are ever played. Soccer is a set of all soccer games which are ever played.
The   is the union ( ) of all sets inside the set:
Let's say:   and  .
In sport, we have the following sets:
  • soccer = { }
  • football = { }
  • baseball = { }
  • tennis = { }
  • golf ={ }
  • team sport =  {baseball, soccer, football} = baseball   soccer   football = { }
  • individual sport =   {tennis, golf} = tennis   golf = { }
  • sport =  {team sport, individual sport} = team sport   individual sport = { }
That's the difference between "sport" and "type of sport": sport consist of all single matches. "type of sport" consists of subclasses of sport:
  • type of sport = {soccer, football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport} = { }
The ontological difference between sport and type of sport is, that sport refers to single matches. If you have a single match (e.g. the finals in FIFA World Cup 2018), it's an instance of sport. In type of sport you don't look at single gamnes. You look at structures.
In sport (Q349), there is a difference between the finals in FIFA World Cup 2018 and the finals in in FIFA World Cup 2014, because these are two different games. In type of sport (Q31629) both is the same. Both is soccer. You dont't look at single games, you look at structures.
Let's assume we play golf, today (g1). You win. Tomorrow, we play golf again (g2), but I win. These are two different games: One game is today, the other game is tomorrow. Yet, both are instances of golf. We can also look at the type of sport: The two different games belong to the same type of sport. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius, could you tell me where did you find this lexeme? I guess this is a proto-language and so it should not be tagged as West Germanic languages (Q26721). But now, I am not able to know which proto-language. That is why I think it is important to add references for proto-language. Pamputt (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Pamputt: I am not an expert, please look at etymology of wikt:en:wæter. --Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, ok it looks weird. I think we should delete this lexeme. Pamputt (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

L1041 KrakówEdit

This is false definition KaMan (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am stupid! Sorry. Thanks for noticing, KaMan. --Infovarius (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius, Why are you reverting my changes that really seem better:

    • All the sources provided on this items show that Diatomea is a long outdated name (1, NCBI, ITIS, EOL). The current name is Bacillariophyta
    • This is a taxonomic item, so it should point to wikicommons taxonomic category commons:Bacillariophyta not on the english named page commons:Diatoms.
    • To avoid conflict between english nativ speaker and other country, wikicommons decided to name taxon categories and pages with scientific names. English named categories and pages are only tolerated and must be under scientific named categories. English named categories contain mostly garbage (Unidentified pictures).
    • Please don't go against wikicommons own rules
    • Following this 99,9% of the taxon items point to only one wikicommons category. I have a detector that detect those 0,1%. Your revert placed the wikicommons page in my automatic error category.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

wrong mergeEdit it was not the same, it was wrong merge KaMan (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@KaMan: can you explain the difference? --Infovarius (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Just compare photos. Q17163130 is about sprouts - young (a few days) plants - just root and two, three small leaves while Q57544960 is about flowers of mature plant. Both are used as food and both are product of the same plant but they are different parts of different age of broccoli. KaMan (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ranking for statistical data - nominal GDPEdit

Hi Infovarius, the Preferential Bot now operates the nominal GDP. Because we now have only one source for the data, the preferred rank gets only the most actual data for the property in queries. If someone decides to import Euro values and these are more actual, then the query will get the Euro value. I opened a topic about this here:

I would be glad to see your opinion there. Cheers! Datawiki30 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Julián vs JulianEdit

Sorry, no speak english. Julián y Julian son lo mismo.

But they have different spellings, different language of use and different items. --Infovarius (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


Please read the articles before your provide them as references. --Succu (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Chemical substanceEdit

Why you've moved all the sitelinks from chemical substance (Q79529) to Q21652022? Many moved sitelinks describe chemical substance (Q79529), so I don't understand your action. Wostr (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: there are two concepts: Q21652022 (which have mostly constant proportion of molecules) and more general chemical substance (Q79529) (which is almost any non-energetic matter). For example, honey (Q10987) can't be regarded as Q21652022 so it is chemical substance (Q79529). Are you sure that moved sitelinks describe honey (Q10987), soil (Q36133), milk (Q8495) and other substances? --Infovarius (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree that there may be two different concepts. The problem is that: chemical substance (Q79529) still describes 'chemical substance' (statements, identifies), but all the sitelinks have been moved. Wrong instances of/subclasses of should be corrected in specific items, not by swapping two general items. Qids are meant to be permanent, and for long time chemical substance (Q79529) was defined (and is still defined by properties and identifies) as 'chemical substance'. We have a mess now: chemical substance (Q79529) should remain 'chemical substance' with 'matter of constant composition best characterized by the entities (molecules, formula units, atoms) it is composed of' definition (as in IUPAC definition) and sitelinks from Q21652022, and Q21652022 may be freely used for the second definition. Wostr (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
GoldBook is quite clear about the definiton, yet you deleted [6] all the 'chemical' adjectives. Why? Wostr (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: and Infovarius: Most of the sitelinks of languages originated from latin are incorrectly related to Q21652022 while should be on chemical substance (Q79529). I think it is messed up. There's no differenciation as you've said in my language (pt), and I really don't see any difference. I agree that "Q21652022 may be freely used for the second definition", but almost all sitelinks should be on chemical substance (Q79529). Rafael Kenneth (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

administrative territorial entity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Q3253485)Edit

Hi Infovarius,

the French article definitely is a list of administrative entities and all linked articles were also lists at the time I added instance of (P31).

It seems this item was merged or articles were added that were not lists... but until recently, this item was clearly a list.

Your modifications are are, in fact, repurposing the item… then, what do we do with the actual lists ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

провансальский диалектEdit

Проблема в том, что если элемент Provençal (Q241243) не имеет утверждения "научная дисциплина", то он не добавляется тем персонам, которые изучали его в учебном заведении. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Чем не добавляется? Проблема не в элементе (всем языкам будем добавлять "научная дисциплина"? а может всё-таки русистике, а не русскому языку?), а в инструменте, который "не добавляет". --Infovarius (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Русский язык изучал (в школе), русистику — не изучал. Английский язык изучал, англистику — не изучал. Так какой нужен инструмент, говорите? — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Дмитрий Кошелев: Вот именно поэтому Russian (Q7737) не наука, а Russian linguistics (Q4261898) - наука. English (Q1860) - язык, а English studies (Q27968) - дисциплина. Где не добавляется-то? --Infovarius (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
В Q295516, где про Парижский университет. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Ну я вижу, что нормально добавлено. Если вы о constraint violation, то их и надо править. Я попробовал добавить языки в допустимые классы, посмотрим, как впишется. --Infovarius (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


debut participant (P2318) is intended to be used for events, not for the first time a character appears in a book. --Yair rand (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


Are you saying the Landkreis existed before 2011? That's not what it says in Q2909. --Aeroid (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

«Жаков» как русское мужское имяEdit

20 ноября вы откатили объединение страницы Yakov (Q19802347) со страницей Yakov (Q544124) на том основании, что страница Yakov (Q19802347) якобы об имени, которое в оригинале пишется латиницей. В действительности же относящаяся к элементу Yakov (Q19802347) статья en:Yakov прямо указывает, что это «Russian or Hebrew variant of the given names Jacob and James» (непосредственно в элементе Yakov (Q19802347) указана его частота среди личных имён в Израиле). Где же вы тут увидели латиницу? Вы также восстановили очевидно неправильный заголовок «Jakov» в элементе Yakov (Q544124), хотя непосредственно в этом элементе указано, что он относится к русскому имени «Яков». Полагаю, что вам следует откатить эти ваши правки и связанные с ними.LesNick19 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@LesNick19: Спасибо, внёс пару исправлений на дальнейшее разделение. Правда мне не нравится "Яков" в качестве английской метки... Но так, наверное, точнее. Ещё какие-то есть несостыковки? Если вам не нравится разделение, попробуйте ответить, какое имя у Yakov Fuchs (Q8047155), Yakov Springer (Q827694) или у Yakov Rekhter (Q8047167)? --Infovarius (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Прежде всего, действительно спасибо за ‏יעקב‏‎ (Q58902451).
Что касается Yakov (Q19802347), то, очевидно, вариант в латинском написании тоже есть. Правда, надо ещё найти, у кого именно он исходный. Так, из трёх указанных вами персон: Yakov Fuchs (Q8047155) – актёр в «a Yiddish theater», Yakov Springer (Q827694) – тренер сборной Израиля и о Yakov Rekhter (Q8047167) персонально ничего не известно, так что может быть израильским гражданином. (Первым двум имя я исправил на ‏יעקב‏‎ (Q58902451).)
Также я добавил связи между элементами. (Например, в Jacob (Q25999604). Кстати, нашлись румынский и венгерский варианты имени.) -- LesNick19 (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@LesNick19: Почти ок. Только почему вы считаете, что у польского актёра (пусть и еврейского происхождения), имя от рождения не может писаться латиницей? Или даже кириллицей (вроде он жил в Российской империи?). --Infovarius (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Могло ли писаться? Тут вопрос в том, кем оно могло так писаться: выдававшими документы чиновниками или семьёй и лицами его круга. (Кстати, как-нибудь надо будет на элемент о Якове Фухсе добавить сына Leo Fuchs (Q1590884) и жену Ruzha Fuchs (Q7383665).)
Если первое, то город Львов: (1) до 1914 года принадлежал Австро-Венгрии и в её составе управлялся австрийскими властями (2) в 1914 году был занят русскими войсками и включён в созданное генерал-губернаторство Галиции General Government of Galicia and Bukovina (Q2377789) (3) в 1915 году был отбит обратно (4) в 1918 году был провозглашён столицей ЗУНР (5) практически сразу после этого был занят Польшей.
Где в это время проживал Фухс, неизвестно. Если выехал, то потом вернулся – умер он во Львове. Числился постоянно проживающим он, очевидно, в любом случае во Львове. Какой же «язык документов» тут правильный: немецкий, русский, польский или украинский?
Если второе, то у его сына Leo Fuchs (Q1590884) родным языком тоже был идиш.
Полагаю, что правильное написание в данном случае еврейским письмом. (К слову – какое написание имени правильное для проживавших в 1919-1939 в Галиции украинцев: украинское или польское?) -- LesNick19 (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@LesNick19: Сложный вопрос, я не могу ответить однозначно. На всякий случай, я бы добавил все возможные варианты - удалить ненужное потом проще, чем искать и добавлять недостающее. --Infovarius (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your revert on Q21Edit

Hi, and thanks for your revert. However there's a constraint on P85 / anthem - the property should only contain a single value. And as you did not add any refrences for 'And did those feet in ancient time' (etc) being an anthem, I reverted. Please add references, or revert your reversion. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

IPA lexemeEdit

Hi Infovarius,

There was quite a lot of discussion about an edit of yours on invalid ID (L21070). You might want to comment on Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data#Phoneme,_grapheme_and_Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/Notability. Oddly, none bothered pinging you before me. I would be glad if you would comment there. --- Jura 06:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Che GuevaraEdit

Dear Infovarius. Hi. I corrected the cause of death in Che Guevara because it wasn't a "method of execution by multiple shooters firing rifles simultaneously on command". Guevara was not condemned to any penalty, and was shot by one soldier in a no formal way. Officially, he was killed in combat the day before. So I corrected to "shooting", that is more more appropriate. Sincerely.--Roblespepe (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Q54603424 additionsEdit

I'm curious about this addition by you on a number of pages. Q54603424 is a Ukrainian/Russian male name so I don't know why it would be added to people named Alisa. Was there another female name you were trying to add? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Thanks for noticing, you're right, it's an error. I'll fix it. --Infovarius (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I noticed it via Commons when I saw this red-linked category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Done. How strange - I couldn't find prescribed category in subcategories... --Infovarius (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


Good timening.

Скорее всего, данные, которые я удалил, не соотв. действительности.

По англовики 100 млн[7], а здесь было 28. Или проделки ботов, или що. Так что я пока вас обатно отменил, попробуйте проверить. Longbowman (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Longbowman: Я понял - есть 2 панджаби : восточный (у которого 28) и западный (у которого 90 млн.) - о них есть данные в Ethnologue. А об объединённом даже нету. Но простым суммированием получается 118 млн. --Infovarius (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi! You reverted here, now for the second time, eventhough there was no vandalism or obvious error or a like. As said in edit summary, statements were only moved, they were not deprecated in relation to item about settlement. This is because they never applied to the settlement, as long as settlement and municipality are considered distinct entities and there are different items. In 2017 municipality ceased to exist, but coextensive settlement did not.

Generally, my experience is that users are encouraged to use discussion pages in case of possible disputes and they are supposed to assume good faith. I think your combative editing style does not follow that spirit. Edit summaries are not a proper venue for discussion, unless discussion page comments were really unnoticed or they came to a standstill. Currently you tend to reinstate erroneous or otherwise messed up data that may easily stay in place. Also, putting things back and forth does not really contribute to the stability of data. Please do leave a comment on talk page of relevat item if you simply don't understand an edit. Over the past year or so I've encountered that a few of my edits have been reverted by a few other users due to some misunderstandings. I haven't encountered anyone near as eager as you to revert edits that one simply doesn't understand.

When moving statements or removing non-matching ones I've tried to revert edits where these statements were added, so that I could write an explanation in edit summary. Nonetheless, people are not supposed to revert, the main "remove" links provide no way to enter an edit summary. So I'm pretty sure you are supposed to assume good faith even if there is no edit summary.

Lastly, end time (P582), that you changed here, is generally used for municipalities/settlements in Estonia. Changing this for particular item breaks country related quaries that rely on this statement. To my understanding use of P582 as a non-qualifer is not discouraged. I'd rather avoid using dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) as it has vague meaning and since it's very hard to translate it's label between languages then its use is a source of endless confusions. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8990:1492:5FD:A052 09:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8990:1492:5FD:A052: It is a strange conception for me that settlement and municipality are different as in Russia it is not the case I suppose. So it is strange for me to see all the removals like in Tartu (Q13972). Please explain me aren't all these statements correct at least for Soviet period? --Infovarius (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what was the relation between settlements and administrative entities in Estonia in Soviet period. I don't know if any city lost their administrative entity status while retaining settlement status back then. If not, then the distinction might not have been considered important. Anyway, settlements per se aren't administrative entities and if there was an administrative entity then this is either the same same as current (Tartu City (Q42307965)), or it may be considered as a separate historical administrative entity which currently doesn't have its own item. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:3849:1F84:7835:7DF4 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: your wrong reversalsEdit

In Mexico there is no separate “head of government” because it does not have a parliamentary government. That role would lie upon the president. Also, Peña does not hold any public office anymore. —Born2bgratis (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Born2bgratis: Ok, I understand about government. But as for "does not hold...anymore" - Wikidata can (and I believe that it should) keep historical data too. The only difference that current, present values should be marked as "preferred rank", and previous values would be as "normal rank". --Infovarius (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Mineral ClassificationEdit

Hello Infovarius
I might be wrong, but did you merge Mineral Classification? (de.wikipedia) is complaining. I think that I'll build the item up again. Four meanings:
  • Strunz Classification of Minerals (8 ed): 8th edition, updated
  • Nickel-Strunz Classification of Minerals (9 ed): 9th edition, updated 2009
  • Nickel-Strunz Classification of Minerals ("10 ed"): updated 9 ed by, incomplete
  • Mineral Classification, up to date: following Glossary of Minerals; International Mineralogy Association (IMA); and
Thank you. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit here: Q319123? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain me instead why did you remove relevant genre? --Infovarius (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Because, there is no movie genre that treasure hunts. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What about genre about treasure hunting? --Infovarius (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Флаг Абхазской автономной республикиEdit

У Абхазской автономной республики официально нету никакого флага ни герба. Потому и удалил. С уважением!--Surprizi (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Вот источник, но тут говорится что это проекты гералдики. Я разузнаю приняли ли их официально или они пока еще находятся в проекте.--Surprizi (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


There is no exact Malayalam article for magazine in Malayalam wikipedia.--Vengolis (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vengolis: are you sure? Can you please describe difference in the Malaylam article? --Infovarius (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
ml:മാസിക means monthly(a magazine that is published once a month).There are also articles like ml:വാരിക(a magazine that is published once a week) and ml:ദ്വൈവാരിക (every two weeks).Thank you--Vengolis (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vengolis: ok, I found monthly magazine (Q11780435), fortnightly magazine (Q13112752) and weekly magazine (Q12340140). --Infovarius (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Ha, the problem is that there are not scientific evidence. Not to mention the fact that in order to warrant a surviving offspring you need at least 85 couples, less is riskful and one couple only is doomed to extintion   -- Blackcat (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand the scientific side. But I use the property as a cultural phenomenon. --Infovarius (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

профессор (Q121594)Edit

Добрый вечер, коллега! По поводу этого - я понизил ранг, чтобы эта краткая форма не грузилась в карточки, например в "Учёный" в поле "учёное звание", потому как выглядит это крайне некомильфо и непонятно. Моя правка что-то где-то поломала? эта краткая форма ещё куда-то подгружается, где необходима именно такая краткая форма? Borodun (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Спасибо за объяснение, Borodun. Но не понимаю, при чём тут элемент в Викиданных. По-моему, проблема в карточке - зачем она отображает краткое название вместо полного? --Infovarius (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Дело в том, что свойство d:Property:P1813 было специально сделано для "use as label for a link to the item, in infoboxes, navboxes and others" и ни для чего другого. --Shmurak (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ghuron: --Shmurak (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Скажу честно, я вообще не понимаю, зачем это всё автогрузить в карточки :) (если что, я противник безоглядной подгрузки всего и вся из ВД вместо локального заполнения). Ну и как коллега выше уже дал ссылку на обсуждение на форуме в руВики - там пеняют на ВД, тут пеняют на ВП... круг замкнулся :) Borodun (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Насколько я понимаю, P1813 было придумано для случаев, когда в карточке в большинстве случаев нужно показывать не название статьи, а общепринятое сокращение. Например практически везде вместо "Союз Советских Социалистических Республик" следует показывать СССР, вместо "Килограмм" - кг и т.п. Эта логика и реализована в модуле показа карточек. В этом смысле зачем вместо "профессор" где либо показывать "проф." мне не понятно. @AlexKozur: возможно Вам тоже будет интересно --Ghuron (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Насколько я понимаю, для включенных в категорию Q7710943 персоналий сколь-нибудь точная оценка года рождения отсутствует, но почти наверняка она попадает в XIII век. Русскоязычный лейбл был неудачный, факт --Ghuron (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

А, я кажется не заметил приписку "XIII век" (может, её не было в описании правки?). Кстати, в чём отличие этой категории от Q7710943? --Infovarius (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Signs and symptomsEdit

Hi! Regarding this undo, perhaps you'd like to join in this discussion. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding dates for EnglandEdit

Hey, I noticed you reverted my edits regarding the item for England (and I figured someone would). It may be my inexperience with Wikidata, but could you explain why the date of 12 April 1927 is significant for England? See, I added it as the country of citizenship for David Ashworth, but I was met with an exclamation mark which told me that it couldn't have been, since England only became an entity in 1927, after Ashworth's death. At least, that is how I interpreted it. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: how England can be country within the United Kingdom (Q3336843) (part of UK) when United Kingdom (Q145) itself began in 1927?? The problem with David is probably that country (Q6256) is now not a type of administrative division, or something like that. --Infovarius (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: thanks for clearing that up. It's still weird that if England is selected as country qualifier for a person not born before 1927, an exclamation mark appears. In any case, feel free to undo my changes again if you want to. Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Доброго вечера! Возможно Элиша и отлично от Елисей, но венг. Elizeus и пол. Elizeusz (imię) уж точно не тождественно нем. и англ. Elisha --Migel Sances Huares (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

По существующим порядкам и для них нужно создавать отдельные элементы... --Infovarius (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my merges of physico-geographical object (Q20719696) and natural geographic entity (Q27096220)Edit

I'm glad that I successfully prompted someone to clarify the intended distinctions between those three entities. Let's get them stated definitively -- I've opened a discussion on [[Talk:Q27096220#Distinction_between_this_and_physico-geographical object (Q20719696)_and_natural geographic object (Q35145263)|the talk page]] where we can do so. JesseW (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ref for statement on Q604984Edit


By any chance, do you have a references for the statement said to be the same as (P460) on singulare tantum (Q604984) (Special:Diff/769791792) ?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

North AmericaEdit

Basically we have one problem, rather two: the first is that in Italian "America settentrionale" means the whole subcontinent from the Arctic Sea down to the Southern border of Mexico. There's no a "Northern America" including only English speaking countries. The second is that we are using an obsolete thus deprecated property. If it's deprecated it means that it is not fit for qualificator, so the question is not "how to express this otherwise?" but "must it be expressed if there are not feasible tools?". -- Blackcat (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

sports club (Q847017)Edit

Hi, in regards to your edit, I did not believe an item could be both a instance of (P31) and a subclass of (P279) of a sports club (Q847017)? I believed the former was used for clubs like Dynamo Sports Club (Q1269063), whilst the latter for instance was used for type of club; like basketball team (Q13393265), association football club (Q476028), ice hockey team (Q4498974), etc. Please convince me otherwise? =) Yours sincerely, Theilert (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Theilert: This item is about union of several clubs, or in other words, class of clubs. Yes, it is not a P31. --Infovarius (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sallie Gardner au galopEdit

Hi, This is not really a film, and Eadweard Muybridge is not a film director. As you can see, there is an error in Sallie Gardner at a Gallop (Q3924909). Regards, Yann (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: The notion "film" is not strict I believe. You cannot say what number of frames serves as boundary between "film" and "series of images"... Thus I suppose it wouldn't hurt to call this "a film". --Infovarius (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This was not made as a film. It is more comparable to an animated GIF. And adding "film" produces errors (rightly so). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
As I already told you above, this was not made as a film. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Harry Potter (Q3244512 ) as a Horcrux and whether or not he diedEdit

It is not clear whether or not Harry Potter himself was a Horcrux or if it was simply a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of Harry that was the final Horcrux. The book also does not make it clear whether or not Harry Potter actually died when he was hit with the Killing Curse and found himself at a dream-like King's Cross Station. In an interview with TIME, J.K. Rowling writes, "The Avada Kedavra curse, however, is so powerful that it does hurt Harry, and also succeeds in killing the part of him that is not truly him, in other words, the fragment of Voldemort's own soul that is still clinging to his. The curse also disables Harry severely enough that he could have succumbed to death if he had chosen that path." If authorial intent doesn't mean much, there is also something to be said about the lack of fan consensus in interpreting this situation. Quora and Stack Exchange offer a sampling of the disagreement.

Personally, I think in the absence of conclusive evidence for his death in the books, it would be better to presume he did not die. Do you know if there's any kind of precedent or policy on Wikidata for handling scenarios like this? I tried looking, but I didn't even quite know what to search for.

--njohnson7 (talk)

Harry Potter is a fictional humanEdit

Join Harry Potter talk about wikidata item at wikidata Harry Potter talk page. You did not contact me when you reverted that Harry Potter is a fictional human and you deleted my reference too about J.K. Rowling saying Harry Potter is a human. On the talk page I explain my sources too Btqfshfst (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking over at Wikidata:Project_chat about how I go to revert your edit cause I don't know an effective way to do that. Considering you didn't add anything to my talk page when reverting my edit I suppose asking you wouldn't help. Do you know how I go on about to do that, or can you revert it yourself? As far as I know the author says Harry is as human as possible, then I think fictional human is perfectly valid, please tell me if you disagree Btqfshfst (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Btqfshfst: is correct but it is just redundant as there is already (subclass of fictional human (Q15632617)) which implies this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, why Q6189125 and Q59420974 are different? They seem to be the same. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 16:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Superchilum, difference is quite theoretical and they have big overlap, yes. But I can imagine wikt category Категория:Артикль@ru which contains lexemes like "article"@en, "definite article"@en and similar. Compare with Категория:Артикли@ru which contains lexemes like "the"@en, "a"@en. Compare also Category:Noun (Q9557799) vs Category:Nouns (Q61945932). --Infovarius (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see :-) thank you. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Do you really think that tide (Q23384) was discovered by Julius Caesar? People have been living on seashore for thousands of years without noticing that sea level could go up and down? The citation means that Cesar's soldiers didn't know that big tides occur during full moon. Even Cesar, who was quite boastful, wouldn't have claimed that he discovered such an obvious phenomenon. --El Caro (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

May be he first described (explained) this? But ok, it's quite strange. --Infovarius (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was added by a banned user [8]. time of earliest written record (P1249) would need a stronger reference. WP:en writes " Pytheas travelled to the British Isles about 325 BC and seems to be the first to have related spring tides to the phase of the moon" without any source. Bu it is about the relation between the moon and tides, not tides alone. --El Caro (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


So I had a look at your last contribs. Many of the automatic replacement "Russia->USSR" are wrong, you should check them (Michel Strogoff, War and Peace, Boris Godounoff...), did you mean "Russia-> Russian Empire", another replacement you did before and which seems correct? --El Caro (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your look. I suspected that USSR value would be more inaccurate. I'll overview and correct them. --Infovarius (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Really? --Succu (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Succu: It's not a modern taxon anyway. All species were moved to Rhododendron. Sources are being found. --Infovarius (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a nomen rejiciendum (Q17276482) not a polyphyly (Q217743). --Succu (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


Simple queries show that there are towns/cities that are not administrative entities of given countries: 151 in the Netherlands, 1584 in South Africa, 146 in Spain etc. There are some false positives and stuff that needs cleanup, but generally it gives an idea of what the actual situation is. Apart from cases where city/town is not and has not been an administrative entity, there are also cases where settlement and respective administrative entity have separate items for the sake of clarity, e.g. Amsterdam (Q9899) and Amsterdam (Q727), Tallinn (Q1770) and Tallinn City (Q4450503). For these, item that is an instance of settlement (and its subclass "city/town") shouldn't be an instance of administrative entity at the same time. So obviously there are many towns/cities that are not administrative entities, these are not even exceptions.

Due to this change its harder to classify entities accurately (I commented on this item here) yesterday. Comment here on settings appropriate cities/towns accurately as instance of specific administrative entity designations applys here as well since Q515 is a subclass of "city/town". 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6D9E:AD28:835E:C2C0 10:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I agree. --Infovarius (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ваша отменаEdit

Добрый день, коллега! Я не понял Вашей отмены в элементе Q4401271: населённый пункт называется Ручей, а не Русей. Это два разных слова, поэтому первоначальное удаление подобного "синонима" было оправданным. Если по-болгарски он может быть написан, так как Вы указали, то он и должен фигурировать в качестве синонима на болгарском, а не русском языке. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ksc~ruwiki:, сорри, не заметил этого отличия. Думал, что это просто уточнение "(Россия)". --Infovarius (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
ОК! Вопрос закрыт. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Федеральные округаEdit

При всей дискуссионности вопроса (обусловленной скорее теоретическими, нежели практическими причинами), самый авторитетный в России научный журнал на тему публичного права — а именно "Государство и право" — отдаёт предпочтение публикациям, которые говорят, что фед. округа являются "новыми административно-территориальными образованиями", "административно-территориальными единицами управленческого типа" и т. д. См. Черкасов К. В. Федеральные округа: сущность и место в территориальном устройстве России // ГиП, 2008, № 12, с. 68. Или Федорец М. Н. Федеральные округа: значимость и роль в государственно-территориальном устройстве Российской Федерации // ГиП, 2018, № 10, с. 139. Если же переходить к практической стороне вопроса, то на уровне федеральных округов осуществляется управление целым рядом структур: прокуратурой, Банком России, таможней, Росгвардией. Итого, фед. округа это более чем реальные административно-территориальные единицы, даже если сравнивать с дореволюционными губерниями. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Brötchen Q23004Edit

Hi Infovarius, you rfeverted my correction, but Q23004 is not a Q1401891 - Because these must have more 10 % Fat, otherwise its a Q1746803 - I don't know, how its in russia, but in English it's the same like in german like in Austrian german - reagrds from Vienna K@rl (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

But I cann see, than Хлебобулочное изделие is not the same like Q1401891
Sorry, but can telle you it only in german - Brötchen = Kleingebäck, please ask also other for a third meaning. It could be that the your description is not the corresponding to the german - this I can't answer you. regards K@rl (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Lonesome GeorgeEdit

Hey there, regarding Lonesome George. How is he not a subclass of animal? Was the last dinosaur not a subclass of animal? Cheers (: --Rasinj (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rasinj: The Lonesome George (Q16570) was the last of subspecies of Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii (Q4045992), why it can be a subclass? And hm why did you mention dinosaurs? --Infovarius (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

science fiction novelEdit

Note that novel (Q8261) shouldn't be used as a genre (Q483394), see discussions in Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books --JavierCantero (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Q1004: "penciller"Edit

Hey there-- I had removed "penciller" from "practiced by" on the comics item because it's already a subclass of "comics artist", which is also there. It just seemed redundant to me. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, though, just thought I'd explain my reasoning in case you agree ;) LadiesMakingComics (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

100500-я отмена правокEdit

Я присутствую в различных проектах фонда Викимедиа с 2007 года. И у меня во во всех проектах, вместе взятых, за целый год не набирается столько отмен правок, сколько Вы мне тут нагородили всего за пару месяцев. Если цель в том, чтобы вынудить меня уйти из Викиданных, то скажите прямо, и я уйду, невелика беда. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Дмитрий Кошелев: спокойнее. В каких правках вы видите проблему? С федеральными округами я спорить не буду - Вам как специалисту виднее. Я сначала просто возвращал к стандартному состоянию, ибо раньше наоборот меня откатывали, когда я добавлял округа как АТЕ. Сейчас поищу, кто. Я не помню, что ещё я у Вас отменял. P.S. У меня в Викиданных 27 тысяч правок отменено, но я не жалуюсь. Только иногда :), на "таксономическую мафию", которая до сих пор не даёт подступиться ни к чему биологическому. --Infovarius (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Может быть, это был User:MaksOttoVonStirlitz, кто боролся с федеральными округами как АТЕ? Или User:Сидик из ПТУ? --Infovarius (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
С фед. округами уже давно разобрались. Оказалось достаточно немного дописать статью в Википедии. Сейчас речь о Q10037858 и Q7015682. Я согласен с Вашим замечанием, что православную олимпиаду сложно отнести к числу научных состязаний. Как и вообще любые предметные олимпиады, ибо это образовательные события, а не научные. Научное состязание - это, например, конкурсы DARPA. Поэтому желательно расселить понятия по разным квартирам. Например, на Викискладе выделить категорию Education competitions и перенести в неё события, относящиеся к предметным олимпиадам. И я даже лично готов это сделать. Но когда диалог ведётся через отмену правок, у меня пропадает желание что-либо делать. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian poetsEdit

Hi Infovarius, you reverted my correction Q14899407 (Category:Ukrainian poets) and Q7066552 (Category:Ukranian-language poets). Q14899407 is about country and Q7066552 is about language. I checked all my edits and they are really about country, aren't they? --LiMr (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Уважаемый Infovarius, не могли бы вы помочь в вопросе с Игорем. ВП:Форум/Викиданные#Игорь ? Мешает ли pазное "название на языке оригинала" объединению Igor (Q28038713) с Igor (Q26214577)? - Kareyac (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Oboyan (Q72656) administrative statusEdit

For some reason the most up to date statement according to the qualifiers in Q72656#P131 is deprecated. Is it a mistake and should be preferred instead ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably, the mess is because Oboyansky District (Q2629924) was (and is) an administrative unit (districts in Russia (Q1572329) and became also municipal district (municipal formation in Russia (Q1849719)). Also this strange difference between "город" and "городское поселение" (Q20659049) which are the same in this case... I'll make both preferred for a while. What do you think, User:М епифанов?


Hi Infovarius , I don't know the german language but did you check the definitions in the other language before you reverted my modification ? Except in Russian, that is a mess, all other languages refer to a block in metal used in printing. --Pixeltoo (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Brendan RodgersEdit

Yes, he WAS indeed. But so far that property is believed to host the current coach, not the whole chronology, as it's used by wikimedia templates for sports teams... -- Blackcat (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong. Wikidata properties not only for current situation but the whole chronology. Current value is marked by higher rank than others and is obtained by queries and templates by default. --Infovarius (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)



Вместо того, чтобы снести вот это безобразие, очевидно выпирающее в истории правок, Вы удаляете две моих темы (и бог знает сколько других) без архивирования. И, собственно, с какой стати Вам пришло в голову, что Блантер не управится со своим user_talk самостоятельно? Он просил Вас о какой-то подобной помощи?

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

On your edit at Q29043256Edit

Hello. I would like to know why you reverted my edit[9]. We write the Portuguese name José "ジョゼ," not "ホセ" in Japanese("ホセ" is a Japanese writing of Spanish name Jose) and your edit seems to be a restoring the wrong information. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Frankly I don't understand. Football is the generic name. A specific sport is played either with spheric ball or a spheroid, but that has nothing to do with this item which is only a metaclass for the several types of 'football'... -- Blackcat (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: because these items are also generic. E.g. football (Q262090) is not always spheric. --Infovarius (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
And wouldn't be better keeping football the blanket item? -- Blackcat (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)



Как же мне не нравятся отмены до обсуждения...

Вот это не сайт, а типичный лендинг, не содержащий информации и созданный лишь для перевода пользователей на конечную страницу.

Кроме того, в этом свойстве должно быть одно значение (он показывает ошибку рядом со свойством).

Ну или если так хочется пойти поперёк, то хотя бы одно из них назначить главным. Или вот что происходит n:ru:Категория:Ансамбль песни и пляски Российской армии имени А. В. Александрова (справа под картинкой значок ссылки, можно посмотреть как меняется при соотв. изменениях в Викиданных по количеству и главной, только пустую правку там нужно делать, чтобы кеш обновлялся). Можно, конечно, и там подстроить под все чудачества, и выбирать хоть что-то, но если есть какие-то соглашения (по одному значению, по главному в случае множественности и т.д.), то почему бы им не следовать. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: я делаю тысячи правок (часто в день), если бы я обсуждал каждую... Как человек со стороны может определить, что это не официальный сайт? Хотя взглянул повнимательнее и, наверное, в этом случае вы правы - информации здесь меньше и в основном перенаправления. "в этом свойстве должно быть одно значение" - неочевидно. По-моему, шаблоны должны уметь обрабатывать такие случаи. --Infovarius (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Спасибо за пинг, а то я уже перестал следить. Насколько понял по комментарию, эта отмена всё же вызвала вопросы, поэтому лучше было спросить я же тоже не ради вандализма сюда захожу, какое-то обоснование есть в этих действиях. "Неочевидно", - там прямо ошибка выдаётся в явном виде. "Шаблон должен", - в принципе согласен, хотя до конца не уверен. Если бы не отвлекали, то может и шаблон можно было довести, а так приходится выбирать. А неуверен, потому что обычно такие ошибки - это в большинстве случаев на самом деле что-то не то и нужно с ним разбираться, возможно даже хуже, если они будут замыливаться. При существующем же положении они явно визуально видны. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

writing system (P282) = unwritten language (Q4085712)Edit

Hello! Yesterday I made this edit, since unwritten language (Q4085712) is not an alphabet. I tried in some way to assert that no value Help is "caused by" unwritten language (Q4085712), but I didn't find a way to do it. I also noticed that there are a lot of other items like this. I was wondering if the best way is to assert:

What do you think? --Horcrux (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Horcrux: yeah, probably this modelling is better. --Infovarius (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)



В wikidata я перенес три интервики статьи Антон (ru, uk, bg) из Q35663473 в Q5401576. Вы откатили мои изменения с комментарием «something strange». А что ж тут странного, это ведь одно и то же имя, разве нет? --Montegorn (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Montegorn: Этот комментарий был не в этих статьях. Посмотрите в историю Q5401576 - я там пояснил отмену. На засыпку вопрос: почему вы перенесли интервики не в Q27873442? --Infovarius (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
В каком смысле - "different spelling, can have different transliterations"? В обоих случаях речь идет о мужском личном имени Антон, только в одних языках оно пишется кириллицей, а в других латиницей. Но имя-то одно. Или вы утверждаете, что это два разных имени и две отдельных сущности?
Сейчас разнесено по двум разным элементам - из-за этого большинство интервики не работает. О существовании Q27873442 я просто не знал, а так-то да, надо его тоже добавить. --Montegorn (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius:? --Montegorn (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Отвечу вместо коллеги: увы, да, с точки зрения Викиданных Антон (русский и украинский) и Anton (то же самое, но транскрибированное на инглиш) - две разные сущности, см. Wikidata:WikiProject_Names#Basic_principles. Это ужасно мешает с точки зрения Википедии, но тут такой консенсус. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Да, спасибо, Викизавр за ссылку. @Montegorn: я пытаюсь как-то объяснить смысл этой системы. Представьте, что в какой-то Википедии есть несколько статей, соответствующих русской "Антон" (может, не с этим именем, но такая ситуация часто встречается в англовики). С какой бы из них не соединять русскую - будет несимметрично и "нечестно". Единственный симметричный вариант - ни с кем (явно, через интервики) и со всеми (через свойство said to be the same as (P460)). --Infovarius (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: @Wikisaurus: Нет слов, коллеги.
А почему же тогда, к примеру, имя "Глеб" соединено с немецкой, итальянской и польской статьями - это же аналогичный случай, или просто руки пока не дошли разделить? --Montegorn (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Недоработка :) Кстати, с Глебом ещё хуже - белорусы решили отделиться: Hleb (Q20971659). User:Montegorn, если хотите обсудить структуру элементов об именах - прошу пожаловать в обсуждение вышеупомянутого проекта. Мне тоже не нравится нынешняя система, и я активно боролся с ней поначалу. Но в итоге, т.к. не смог предложить ничего более удобного и хорошего, смирился и пытаюсь отстаивать наши "кириллические" права в этой системе. --Infovarius (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

New yearEdit

Re [10], I'm puzzled, doesn't ruwp separate New Year (Q34812) from New Year celebrations (Q1980736)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I am puzzled too: what's the difference between them? I suppose the beginning of new year is always a fest in some sense. And if you mean New Year (Q34812) to be just a day why not to merge it with January 1 (Q2150)? --Infovarius (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's that one is the event, and the other is the celebrations of the event. New year is commonly January 1st, but it depends on the calendar system, so they're separate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Les Joueurs de cartesEdit

Hi, It is useless to add images here, it just produces errors when using the item in a list. And no, we can't add all the images. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Where an image in a class (group) produces error? --Infovarius (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


In this change you claim that the given name Joan is best given as "Джоан/Жоан" in Russian. This seems unlikely to me. Can you cite any documents in which someone is referred to as "Джоан/Жоан"? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bovlb: This is a question of modelling. Joan has no single correspondence in Russian so I want to show it by enumerating all variants for it. It is like for a name Q12902079 which has no single transliteration into latinic languages and it is shown in de-label (English is wrong with single label, just look at ). --Infovarius (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
We normally handle this by picking the best form to be the label, and having other forms as aliases. It is not (IMHO) correct to give a form that is never correct because it embodies a list of forms. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: The best form for Q1484457 is Joan but it's not Cyrillic. And there are no the best Cyrillic form. Any form would be wrong for some persons. And the label "a list of all possible forms" at least partly correct always and understandable. --Infovarius (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


[11] Yes, you are completely right about Testudinata being a wider group than Testudines and it's also why I made the edit. Those three articles are not about Testudinata, they are about Testudines but they regard Testudinata and Testudines as synonyms. In my opinion they should be linked with Testudines regardless of their erroneous names. For example now it looks like the Portuguese Wikipedia doesn't have an article about turtles, which is untrue. --Paranaja (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paranaja: it is a usual situation when many wikis don't have an article about common name of animals/plants' common name. If these article are really about modern turtles why not to rename them in common name? --Infovarius (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I now tried to do like you suggested, but I was only able to move suwiki. --Paranaja (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alcoholic cocktailsEdit

Hi :-) what's the difference between Q18562959 and Q7214075? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 14:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Superchilum! Honestly I don't know (I marked them as "nearly duplicates" myself). Probably in different languages there is difference in terminology according to different alcohol concentration? By the way, please revert your moves because in English and French "cocktail" means always with alcohol (and Category:Cocktail (Q6511353) is about non-alcoholic too). --Infovarius (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ups, I didn't know about english, my bad. I will revert it. However, in French it doesn't seem to be so, on they have fr:Catégorie:Cocktail with the subcategory fr:Catégorie:Cocktail alcoolisé. Regarding my previous question, I think we can merge them, don't you? :-) --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ley's try. If there would be some counter-argument one can unmerge at that time. --Infovarius (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Property date of death should contain date of end of life, it is logical. For example, we do not write dates of clinical death for living persons there. Otherwise, we would have to specify date of resurrection too, but we aren't able. --SkоrP24 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Skorp24: Hm, interesting argument. And I tend to agree but for characters there can be a "real resurrection"! Else how to reflect those events for the character? --Infovarius (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the events be reflected? Death in the middle of life. I don't think so. We specify dates of birth and death as they are specified for biographies of real persons, but there is no resurrection in real life. For example, we don't refrect date of university entrance in Wikidata though it may be important event too. --SkоrP24 17:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm returning my edit. --SkоrP24 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Distinguishing individuals from collectionsEdit

Hi! In this edit, you asserted:

but we already have:

You edit makes "God the Father" an instance of an instance of God, which seems ontologically incoherent to me. How do you plan to fix this?

Also, your edit summary for this edit does not appear to describe the reasons for the edit. Instead it seems to address another editor. You should use talk pages for this purpose.

Finally, you appear to have reverted the same edit by multiple users, which is edit warring. I discourage you from continuing to do this.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I understand incoherency, let's discuss. And yes, I revert this deletion in second time and I explained my revert in the first reversion while both deletions were unexplained. Who are edit-warring then?
The problem with christianity is the Trinity. It consists of Jesus (which is God in some traditions) and others. And it is considered to be the God itself. So seems to be that both P31 are correct. But we can add also P279 to the second to avoid violations. --Infovarius (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to be so slow to reply.
I understand the nature of the Trinity (well, perhaps that is an overstatement), but that does not licence us to make God a second-order collection (which is implied by an incoming path of two P31s). Perhaps the best approach here is for "God the Father" to be part of the Trinity, and an instance of God. "God in Christianity" either needs to be an individual (and have no instances) or a collection (and not be an instance of any first-order collection).
It is unfortunate that the Wikidata UI does not make it easier to provide edit summaries for most edits, or to see the history of a specific claim. My change was made independently (pursuant to a constraint violation report), and I did not observe that the claim was reinstated recently, nor did I see your edit summary. If I had, then I might have handled it differently, but I would still have wanted to remove the claim.
I don't want to belabour this point, but the policy I linked to says that "Edit warring is the repeated reverting of the same edits by multiple users." From a review of the history, you have inserted this claim (at least) three times, and it has been removed by two different users. The lack of edit summaries is unfortunate, but does not seem relevant to this point. Again, I just wanted to encourage you to discuss (as you are now doing), rather than simply reverting all comers.
@Nurni: Since you made the same change I did, you may wish to weigh in.
Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for pointing about the discussion of the property. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

5 reverts on 4 items about letter caseEdit

  • Q4444253‬ removed redirect to Q8185162 -- your definition "letter which is smaller than the capital" is unusably bad and after your "fixes" and the item is inconsistent with the opposite
  • Q8185162‬ your definition "script consisting of smaller letters" is unusably bad (smaller than who or what ??) and the item now has 3 opposites and 2 warnings
  • Q98912‬ reverted me twice
  • Q3960579‬

Your comment "isn't it?" is incomprehensible. What was wrong with my revisions? Please explain the point with your "fixes". My revisions were consistent did not have warnings. You created a mess. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Taylor 49! Let me explain with the use of the word "Taylor". lowercase (Q4444253) is for "t", upper case letter (Q98912) is for "T"; lower case letter (Q8185162) is for "taylor" and uppercase text (all caps) (Q3960579) is for "TAYLOR". So these 4 items are now consistent while your merge has created a mess. If there are some problems with labels in some languages, let's fix them (together or with the help of native speakers, because English is not my native tongue). --Infovarius (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What a strange answer. It was you who brewed a mess. You removed my definitions (why? didn't you see them?). You created a large amount of warnings and inconsistencies (didn't you see them?). My version was consistent. If your Russian stuff is broken then feel free to fix the Russian stuff but don't create a mess and don't remove the definitions. Without definitions nobody knows what an item is about.
  • lowercase (Q4444253) is garbage, do you have any hard argument against merging it into Q8185162?
  • Q8185162‬ is supposed to be "lower case letter" -- for example "a" -- this one is NOT about lowercase text
  • Q98912‬ is supposed to be "upper case letter" -- for example "T"
  • Q3960579‬ is supposed to be "uppercase text (all caps)" -- for example "TAYLOR"
  • Q65048529 is supposed to be "lowercase text" -- for example "taylor"
Best regards Taylor 49 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert at association footballEdit

I have a question about this revert: the statements "minimum number of players" and "maximum number of players" have an icon beside them stating that the item should be an instance of game or sport. This was the reason for my edit that you reverted. Is there another way to resolve the error that you are aware of? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke: I see, thanks for writing. I've changed some constraints in minimum number of players (P1872) and maximum number of players (P1873) so there should be no violation now.

Hill chainEdit

Hi! Can you explain me this revert? IMHO, an "hill chain" is indeed a "group" of "hills". Why not? Thank you. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@BohemianRhapsody: it is only in English (and German). In other languages this item is about higher form of relief, e.g. Smolensk Upland (Q1929164) consists of what hills? --Infovarius (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@BohemianRhapsody: I found another item - upland (Q55075651) which is more suitable for most of the sitelinks so I'll keep hill chain (Q9381142) as "hill chain" as you thought of it. --Infovarius (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Edge-blown aerophones and flutesEdit

Hi! Can you explain me this revert? "Edge-blown aerophones" is the official name in Hornbostel-Sachs classification of the family commonly known as "flutes" and recorded with the code "421". You can see that for example here: en:Hornbostel–Sachs#Edge-blown_aerophones_or_flutes_(421).

In fact, the page on linked to list of musical instruments by Hornbostel–Sachs number: 421 (Q5337632) is a list of instruments in the 421 family.

Pan flute and occarina are both "flutes": pan flute has code 421.112.2 (i.e. "Sets of stopped end-blown flutes"), while ocarina has code 421.221.42 (i.e. "Vessel flutes with duct with fingerholes"). --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


What is the reason to revert my edit on Category:Disambiguation pages (Q1982926)? I made a script that uses this property extensively on categories, and this property is meant to tell what a category is holiding. So I don't understand your revert, neither do I understand the explanation what else?. Edoderoo (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edoderoo: because category combines topics (P971) has a constraint of having minimum two values. Category:Disambiguation pages (Q1982926) is joining "disambig" with what else? --Infovarius (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not see the sense of "it *must* be two", and this is a clear example of why it doesn't make sense. Now my script uses extra code, to avoid silly rules. Edoderoo (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

mythical charactersEdit

I don't understand this change. Is there some policy decision I'm not aware of? What is the reason for creating a separate data item for Hippolytus as a character in myth from Hippolytus as a character in the play? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: sorry I can't find discussion. May be User:Valentina.Anitnelav can give a link? At least I see a problem in having mythical and fictional character together: they can have different properties (different history, different relations, different fate). So as "the same" character from different creative work. --Infovarius (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This becomes very complicated very quickly. Will we have to have a different copy of Hercule Poirot (Q170534) for every book, story, film, and TV program in which the character has appeared? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no policy decision, but it started to become a kind of "status quo" by mass imports of operatic characters and theatrical characters (see a related discussion at User_talk:Beat_Estermann#Characters).
Even though I'm generally in favour of creating own items for different character versions I also see that this can get complicated, but the other way (having all statements about all versions at one item) can also get quite messy (just imagine the item Cinderella (Q13685096) cluttered with statements applying to any version of this character). I started to collect modelling options and pros/cons at Wikidata:WikiProject_Narration#Characters_appearing_in_multiple_works_(adaptations,_spin-offs)_with_different_characteristics.
Of course one should not create an item for each appearance of a character (as to Hercule Poirot (Q170534): there should be only one character for the 33 novels, the play and the 50 short stories by Agatha Christie as I would suppose that they should play in the same narrative world). There already exist own Wikipedia articles for prominent versions of characters, mostly from pop culture (like Snow White (Q14153484)/Snow White (Q2739228)/Mary Margaret Blanchard (Q21233426) or Poseidon (Q41127)/Poseidon (Q12046450)). I'm not sure how to deal best with the spectrum inbetween those. Probably an adaptation of a character with no difference to the original would not merit an own item. Those rules of thumb are still up for discussion considering different requirements from different projects (voice types for operatic characters, significant roles of stage actors/dancers/singers, development of characters throughout different adaptations, modelling of narratives, comparison of original works and adaptations, ease of querying works featuring "the same" character, etc.)
As to versions of mythical and religious characters in fiction I think an own item is generally appropriate due to the distinct character of myth/religion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


У Вас есть АИ, что Afrotheria (Q27399) по-русски называются "африканские звери"? --VladXe (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@VladXe: нет, только перевод названия. Настаивать не буду, но легче это словосочетание запомнить, чем спецтермин, синонимы никому не мешают. --Infovarius (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Не знаю, АИ ли, но вот тут: --Infovarius (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Я не большой знаток КОИ, но, ИМХО, не АИ, ибо сайт использует альтернативный механизм вики, следовательно, автора у конкретной страницы нет. --VladXe (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Насчёт административно-территориальных единиц СССР и РСФСРEdit

Здравствуйте. Вижу, что Вы отменили мои правки, поэтому хотел бы это обсудить. На географическом форуме как-то обсуждался вопрос об указании "уровня административных единиц" у АТЕ СССР. Обсуждалось это потому что РСФСР изначально был независимым государством, а потом вошёл в союз и стал административной единицей под названием "союзная республика". Например, если губернию можно было бы считать АТЕ первого уровня, то в СССР она бы стала вторым. Но всё это сочли ОРИССом и договорились удалить из карточек в будущем. Сейчас я провожу работу по категоризации АТЕ СССР, начиная с РСФСР, где всё очень не однозначно и сложно в первые годы. Насчёт государства, то я думаю вернее было бы указать РСФСР. Helgo13 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


Привет. Этот подкласс от традиционного блюда, не метода. Теперь русское описание ссылается на метод. Не могло бы ты это исправить? Спасибо. -Yupik (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Element(s) about States with limited recognitionEdit

Hello, I have seen your rollback. The elements Q15634554 (States with limited recognition) and Q199683 (List of states with limited recognition) are exactly the same. The only difference is that in some wikipedias the title of the voice is "List of states with limited recognition" (like in en or and in other wikipedias the title is "States with limited recognition" (like in es or; but the argument, the content and the structure of the voices are the same in all wikipedias. So, why not merge the two elements? --Franz van Lanzee (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Franz van Lanzee: I understand your pain. But the Wikidata is about strict and exact modelling. Lists are not classes. If you're worry about interwiki-linking there're another methods to link them. --Infovarius (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I unterstand that classes and lists must not be merge. But in this case the voices connected with both elements are all list, and the only difference is the title. I hope that the difference between a list and a class is deeper than the presence of the words "List of" in the title; or no? --Franz van Lanzee (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Aegean IslandsEdit

For maps there are several specific properties. Note that for most places a satelite picture is the main picture הנדב הנכון (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on P1889Edit


As you've seen, I duplicated symmetrical information already stored on Wikidata where the data was asymmetrical.

I see that you reverted two of these edits :

The first one was obviously a mistake, thank for spotting it. The second one seems also to be a mistake but is more tricky ; at first, I didn't understand why you reverted me, it's because the value is already in said to be the same as (P460), right? In this case, shouldn't we add a constraint saying that different from (P1889) and said to be the same as (P460) are incompatible (and vice-versa)?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: so far I reverting only obvious cases which I also fix simultaneously. The name was erroneously marked as "don't mix with" another name - current practice to link them with "the same as". What do you mean that they are incompatible? They can be at one item. But of course if "A P460 B", there should be no "B P1889 A". --Infovarius (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It may seem obvious to you but it was not to youme.
And yes, « if "A P460 B", there should be no "B P1889 A" » is exactly what I'm thinking about, is it always true? If so, I'll add the constraint.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for not using edit comment in these cases. "is it always true?" Hm, there are some frontier cases in which it isn't clear which property to use, thus they are used both - there constraint would not work. By the way, why don't you copy criteria like family name has to use a different item than disambiguation pages (Q27924673)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

gay bar (Q1043639)Edit

Коллега, вы отменили мою правку, вернув в описание громоздкую граматическую конструкцию. Посмотрите формулировки на других языках — это в основном одна-две строки. Термин ЛГБТ давно языковая норма и не требует дополнительной расшифровки (в конце концов для особо непонятливых имеется ссылка на саму статью).
Давайте приходить к консенсусу, для краткости я бы даже отказался от слова "клубное", поскольку в следующей колонке оно присутствует как вариант. - Gerarus (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ладно, как хотите. Мне казалось, что ЛГБТ всё-таки не всем понятен, по крайней мере, тем, кто не в теме. --Infovarius (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Somebody Else's ProblemEdit

Hello. What makes you think "Somebody Else's Problem" is a psychological effect, and that it was invented by sci-fi writer Douglas Adams? Per discussion at it seems more the case that this was a joke based around a pre-existing common phrase (the book in question talks about making a pink mountain literally invisible with a "Somebody Else's Problem field"). The Wikipedia article on the subject frames it as a phrase used in various contexts, only one aspect arguably approaching anywhere near to a "psychological effect". --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer to « why it should be subclass of it? »Edit

for reference I know it’s not obvious to anyone, even controversial maybe, but it’s a very reasonable thing to argue.

What is a prize, like a Noble Prize ? It’s something won or given to someone. In that concern, then, the « peace Nobel Prize 2010 » (I don’t know who was the winner(s) of that prize) is definitely an example of (hence an instance of) a peace Noble Prize. It’s also a Nobel Prize and a Prize.

By definition of « subclass of », if « peace Nobel Prize 2010 » is indeed an instance of all of them, the only logical relationship between them is subclass of (P279).
We have
< peace Nobel Prize 2010 > instance of (P31)   < Peace Nobel prize >
. Then because we have also
< peace Nobel Prize 2010 > instance of (P31)   < Nobel prize >
(we commonly would say to someone whe won such a prize « impressive, you are a Nobel Prize !), and it’s true for any concrete Nobel prize awarding, any (concrete) peace nobel prize is an instance of Nobel Prize. By definition …
< peace Nobel Prize > subclass of (P279)   < Nobel prize >
The same for
< Nobel Prize > subclass of (P279)   < prize >
The alternative is to say « Nobel prizes are types of awards » (
< Nobel Prize > instance of (P31)   < Type of award >
). But imho it’s unecessary and more complicated.

Where you are right is that we should be consistent with the physics Nobel prize and the other one. But if you follow the definitions of subclass of (P279) and basic principles (see User:TomT0m/Classification), it’s something we could agree on. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Restaurant revertEdit

I just want to understand more the resoning behind this revert. You write "wrong, some are free" and I do not fully understand why restaurant class is not subclass of a shop. --Gorn (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gorn: Shop is a place where something is bought/sold, but not all Q11707 are working with money. --Infovarius (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I respectfully disagree with that argument. There might be some minority of restsurants where the food is not sold, but there also might be minority of shops where money is not required. As well as you may say that such a shop can not be called shop, we may also say that such restaurant should not be called restaurant. I still beleive that restaurant is a type of shop. I do not want to start a revert war, so unless you change position we must seek some way to reconcile this opposing POVs. I am not sure what process to follow. Regards 22:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gorn: statements should be valid for all subclasses but there are soup kitchen (Q2142654) and canteen (Q54957790) and food-courts at "all-inclusive" resorts are not selling (at least directly) food. So your subclassing is wrong. --Infovarius (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Please see wikt:ko:사용자토론:뭉게구름#d:special:diff/768162246. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, Googel Translate doesn't help to understand the meaning... --Infovarius (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
User 뭉게구름 had added category 올림말, but he/she said, it is mistake. So I removed it. But I am not still certain that my action is correct or not. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Integrable system (Q1957758)Edit

Hi! I saw your edit in Integrable system (Q1957758). I don't think an integrable system is a subclass of task, understood as an "activity that needs to be accomplished within a defined period of time". The integrability of the system is an intrinsic property that does not depend on whether you want to actually solve it or not. Korteweg–de Vries equation (Q601796) solution is actually known as an equation but that doesn't change the fact that it is an integrable system (and neither would if it weren't solved). What do you think? Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mr.Ajedrez: There may be some inconsistency across languages. In Russian this item is called "точно решаемая задача" ("problem with exact solution") and it contains as an example Ising model (Q1076349) which is not a Hamiltonian system (Q2072471) so I removed this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That's true. I'm reading the article in several languages and it's not at all the same concept. In and the subject of the article is integrability both in the sense of Frobenius (considering the existence of foliations in the corresponding manifold) and in the sense of Liouville (which is the case for Hamiltonian systems), but in and the subject is integrability only in the sense of Liouville (integrable Hamiltonian system) while in and it's simply about systems with exact solution (though the term "exactly solvable model" is often used for the Hamiltonian case). Maybe it would be necessary to split the item. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Please, help me. Diplura should be linked correctly. The present one doesn't work. It should be Diplura (Q221563), not Diplura (Q36308478). Then, it would link to many other languages. I obviously don't know the right way to do this change. I hope you do. Thanks, --Polinizador (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius, I saw you removed the link to the french wiktionary. The page exists and is accurate, Could you explain why? Best,--Philippe49730 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


I do not understand your objection to "identically? no. This is for external databases" to my statement to the items Q53764732 and Q1198450. What "this" is "for external databases"? And which databases? The Wikipedia articles linked to the both items describe the same subject. Can you explain your objection on the relevant talk page? --Mmh (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mmh: because exact match (P2888) ("identical to url") is for external databases, look at examples, description and creation proposal. --Infovarius (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The description says: used to link two concepts, indicating a high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used interchangeably. Nothing about databases. I have overviewed all the linked Wikipedia articles and I can say with a very high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used interchangeably.
If this property is not the right one to indicate such identity, then tell me which one is. --Mmh (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Note "URLs only" (link to another item would be "item-type", not "URL-type"). This property was intended for "skos:exactMatch (" whatever it means. And if you want to connect identical items there is said to be the same as (P460). But I don't think that "CJK symbols" and "CJK languages" can be "used interchangeably". There is another relation between them (which is already present). --Infovarius (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

en.wn link for Madeleine McCannEdit

Apologies; we seem to have been at cross-purposes. We've been associating en.wn's Category:Madeleine McCann with en.wp's Disappearance of Madeleine McCann because that's the article en.wp redirects "Madeleine McCann" to. However, you'd moved the link to Madeleine McCann (Q18542441), which is also a plausible choice because it's associated with the person rather than with her disappearance — but there's nothing in any English project attached to it, so for purposes of wikilinking that association has no value.

Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Джордж СоросEdit

Здравствуйте. Вы отменили мою правку относительно того, что Джордж Сорос не является гражданином Великобритании [12]. Насчёт Венгрии (где он родился) и США (есть данные о натурализации в 1961 году, я не нашёл данных о британском гражданстве (именно так называется данный пункт в Викиданных, а не место жительства. В русскоязычной Википедии данных нет (он там жил, но для этого именно гражданство не нужно). Если у Вас есть ЯАИ, то вопросов не имею, если же нет, то просьба убрать Ваш откат.--Jordan Joestar (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jordan Joestar: Т.е. в Великобритании он учился и работал с 1947 по 1956 год, но не получил гражданства? Ну если такое возможно, то ладно. --Infovarius (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Вид на жительство, как вариант. Но это не гражданство. Вопрос закрыт до появления АИ --Jordan Joestar (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Silent Night (Q172152)Edit

Hello, could you please elaborate on your revert of the item Silent Night (Q172152)? The statement that you removed seems valid to me since Kevin MacLeod (Q16731782) is indeed a performer of Silent Night (Q172152) (i.e. he acts as a performer in some recording of the carol, namely Silent Night (Q66922472)). I thought this was the correct way to model the composition-recording relationship. Additionally, similar statements are quite frequently used in other items as well (e.g. Last Christmas (Q1318118)). --Sintakso (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sintakso: may be I am wrong but I thought this property is for voice performers of a song. Does it "count" if some instrument would perform just 1 voice of multiple lines in polythonic piece? --Infovarius (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I think performer (P175) is primarily used for listing various performers (including those playing musical instruments) on a recording of a song or on a release, as can be seen from Wikidata:WikiProject_Music#Release properties and the note at the end of this section. However, I believe this property is also suitable for associating people or ensambles who recorded certain song or musical composition with the item for that song or composition (which is what I was intending to do in Silent Night (Q172152)). In this case, qualifiers such as has quality (P1552) cover version (Q155171) or statement is subject of (P805) Silent Night (Q66922472) can be used to provide additional information about the recording. This appears to me as the most sensible way to describe this relationship, but maybe there is some better way to do that. --Sintakso (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

naming of Sintel (Q925587)Edit

When the film was in development, the codename was Durian, named after the fruit (Q134185) [all Blender Foundation films are codenamed after fruit], and then when it was ready to be released it was named after the Dutch word for a cinder, Sintel.

I am curious why you deleted the named after (P138) statements as to such. Arlo Barnes (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Upon further thought, it is more correct to say the movie is named after the main character, so I have updated the entry. Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Arlo Barnes: I just didn't find how a fiction novel Cinder (Q5120404) is related to this animation. ember (Q177257) is more understandable. --Infovarius (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


I see that you added "said to be the same as" to both limb items. Are there reasons against merging them? ChristianKl❫ 18:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKL: I don't object. I was thinking about the same but I was just not sure. --Infovarius (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's September 2019Edit

  Hello, I'm Mike Novikoff. I wanted to let you know that I'm neither an inexperienced user with less than seven years of Wikimedia tenure, nor a one with a "not-a-big-deal" attitude, so my every edit (most of which are reversions here at WD) is based on some research. Sometimes it takes half an hour or even more, as it was the case with Garfield (Q767120), and I'm always ready to prove it. Please take care not to undo my edits too soon, and if you do, please provide some more explanation than none at all or a question mark alone (I'm sure you know who these are aimed against). If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Mike Novikoff 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: I have no objection to this your edit, you've just not cared to revert previous vandalism. But I don't understand why you've deleted Russian alias. --Infovarius (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not at all that I didn't care, I've already told you that I've spent half an hour studying the case, and I've explained my deletion here. It turns out that the fuss about Garfield's gender goes on (at enwiki) for more than two years now, basically being a trolling, and even The Washington Post writes about this edit war. So I've decided that the lesser of evils would be to omit this subject altogether, rather than to memorize the vandals with the new sources. Anyway, thanks to Valentina for resurrecting the old source that, unlike the others, doesn't go into much detail on the WP edit war.
As for an alias, please note that they are supposed to be natural, not the parenthetical disambiguations from WP page titles (and even for WP page titles the natural ones are preferred). Just because the parenthetical names occasionally get imported doesn't mean they should remain here like that. So that e.g. 'кот Гарфилд' would be fine, but definitely not 'Гарфилд (кот)'. And then again, not every item needs an alias at all, note that the Russian page currently has no disambiguation in its title. — Mike Novikoff 16:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Novikoff: Ok, I suppose the problem with gender is solved. But I disagree with your understanding of aliases. Primary goal of aliases for me is the help in finding and using the item. Disambiguation "Гарфилд (кот)" helps to filter this item from others (animation film, series and others) while "кот Гарфилд" helps much less because starting to type "кот..." doesn't help to find at all. And yes, parenthetical disambiguations are very helpful. Just try to choose correct one "Ивановка" in a Russian search field without parenthesis (English conventions are a bit different, they use "," instead of "()", but it's the same purpose - disambiguation). --Infovarius (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, geographical disambiguation is another story and it may be more complicated, but I currently don't see any problem searching for Garfield, it works just fine, doesn't it? — Mike Novikoff 13:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Doktor (stopień naukowy)Edit

Hi. The article pl:Doktor (stopień naukowy) describes the scientific degree of PhD, and should be linked to Q752297 not Q4618975. I am surprised that you think you know better the Polish system of scientific degrees than the community of Polish Wikipedia. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Michał Sobkowski: All I see in this article (correct me if I am wrong) is general description of several titles in several countries. One of these titles is obviously PhD, but others (Russian) are obviously not. So it perfectly fits to general item Q4618975 (which includes PhD but also other equivalent titles). And please tell me if "Doktor" in Poland is fully identical to (anglo-saxon) PhD and not "nostrification" equivalent of it? --Infovarius (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not 'general description of several titles in several countries', It is a description of PhD and equivalents:
  • Kraje anglosaskie – one sentence on PhD only
  • Polska – description of Polish equivalent to PhD. This is obviously the main section of the article and describes the scientific degree of doctor (= PhD) in Poland.
  • Rosja, Białoruś – a note on Russian and Belorussian кандидат наук, an equivalent to Polish scientific degree of doktor and English PhD + a note that дoктoр наук ('doctor of sciences' which may be misleading) is not PhD but a 'habilitated doctor'.
  • Węgry – this section was not about PhD, indeed. Removed.
Polish term doktor may have various meanings. One of them is the scientific degree of PhD, another may be a doctor of arts, yet another – physician (like in English). The term doktor filozofii (= Doctor of Philosophy) was abandoned in Poland at least 50 years ago but the current doktor scientific degree is still identical to PhD. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So at least "Rosja, Białoruś" part is not directly linked with "PhD". But do as you wish. --Infovarius (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Animal - definitionEdit

Hi Infovarius - I think you may be confusing 'animal' with 'mammal', perhaps? 'Animal' includes birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc., etc., as well as mammals. So pigeons and ducks are animals ;-) The important point is that domesticated animals are not separate taxa from the wild animals they are derived from; they do not have a taxon designation, nor a separate scientific name. MPF (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: Actually this your edit is not correct not because the class is incorrect, but because P31 is incorrect relation between these classes (should be P279). --Infovarius (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

leadership (Q484275)Edit

Hi Infovarius! You removed [13] from the item. Is there a particular reason to do so? Regards
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיקע פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndike preferentsn talk contribs 23:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mach numberEdit

Hi. About Mach number (Q160669) and speed (Q3711325) (following up on your revert here): The former is a ratio of speeds, therefore a dimensionless quantity; the latter is a quantity of dimension "length / time". Toni 001 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Toni 001: But this dimensionless quantity measures speed! E.g. "This plane is flying with the speed of 1.5 Machs" (pardon for bad English). --Infovarius (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Not exactly, but I understand why common language misses that detail: Assuming a given speed of sound, the speed can be computed from the Mach number. That assumption is implicit when someone says "the airplane is flying at Mach 1.5". However, this is like saying that "millimetre" measures temperature, assuming you use a thermometer with corresponding markings. Toni 001 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Temperature unit vs scaleEdit

Hi. You just undid two of my edits related to temperature units and scales (1, 2). Note that a unit (say, the degree Celsius) and a scale (say, the Celsius scale) are not the same thing, so there should be separate items for each concept. Toni 001 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Tea as a "soft drink"Edit

Re: ""A soft drink (see § Terminology for other names) is a drink that usually contains carbonated water (although some lemonades are not carbonated), a sweetener, and a natural or artificial flavoring." this is not true of tea or rarely true of it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: In ru-link (translated as "non-alcoholic drink"): "напиток, не содержащий алкоголя. Безалкогольные напитки зачастую газируются и обычно потребляются холодными. Наиболее часто употребляемые безалкогольные напитки — это tea (Q6097), coffee (Q8486), juice (Q8492) и nectar (Q2719623), carbonated water (Q264554), lemonade (Q893)" which contains direct mention. --Infovarius (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, may be do you mix with carbonated beverage (Q13417200)? --Infovarius (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on Cytochrome c oxidase (Q306116)Edit

@Infovarius: The item is a protein family, so it can't be an instance of another family, rather a part or a subclass. Please fix. --SCIdude (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

How can a disambiguation page be a class of stream?Edit

Hi, you reverted my edits on Alamito Creek (Q16437): Wikimedia disambiguation page. How can a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410): type of page in the Wikimedia system. Use with P31 'instance of' for disambiguation pages be a subclass of stream (Q47521): body of water with current within bed and stream banks? SixTwoEight (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it is a list (in other words: "class") of creeks in all languages. Look at their content. --Infovarius (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a good idea to mix ontology (concepts) and lexicography (words). Disambigution page really isn't a kind of stream (e.g. the way creek (Q63565252) is). If you are interested in words in various languages and senses, then tere is Wikidata:Lexicographical data. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D460:F776:FDEC:1ED4 20:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Animirani filmEdit

Why did you do this? "Animated film" in serbian language is "animirani film", and therefore the page sr:Animirani film should be linked in Q202866. --Dcirovic (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dcirovic: According to sr:Цртани филм it is a synonim to "animirani film". So sr:Animirani film is just a new, empty, duplicate of a better article. --Infovarius (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi, may I ask you why did you revert my changes on Q666112 and Q39314414? Thanks Poko (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Poko: Because they have different spellings (even different scripts). Why do you merge not to q20682286? Anyway, please read Wikidata:WikiProject Names#Basic principles. --Infovarius (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


glucose (Q37525) cannot be an instance of an item being concept (Q151885); Zuckerart (Q227790) with instance of (P31) family of isomeric compounds (Q15711994) is completely wrong. It does not seem okay, it should be deleted or you should find different statement for Zuckerart (Q227790) to be valid in glucose (Q37525). Wostr (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wostr: Sorry I don't understand what's wrong in saying that glucose is a type of sugar. Zuckerart (Q227790) instance of (P31) concept (Q151885) doesn't spoil anything because it is not subclass relation. Nevertheless I don't inssist on family of isomeric compounds (Q15711994). --Infovarius (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You added model to a serieEdit

Hi, I noticed that you add "video game console model" to at least 2 series of consoles: Q685088 and Q3880969. I already reverted your 2 changes but maybe that you have done the same error on other items. Can you check all your others similar modifications? Look at the history of the two items for details. --Arosio Stefano (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arosio Stefano: the problem is that they were "subclass of console" which is incorrect too. I'll try to correct. It is hard to distinguish series from model sometimes... --Infovarius (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivanov (Q40711158)Edit

Добрый день. Поясните, пожалуйста. Я, разумеется, обращал внимание, что существует свойство «письменность», но сейчас впервые сталкиваюсь с тем, что оно, оказывается, какой-то смысл несёт. --INS Pirat (t | c) 21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@INS Pirat: см. Wikidata:Wikiproject Names. Здесь принято, что "Иванов" - в одном элементе, "Ivanov" - в другом, "Ivanoff" - в третьем, "Ivanow" - в четвёртом и т. д. --Infovarius (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
""Иванов" - в одном элементе, "Ivanov" - в другом ..." — Вот конкретно в этом вы уверены? Не встречал разделения по письменностям языков разделов (в кириллических, арабских и т.д. точно не будет списков однофамильцев "Ivanov", а в латинских — "Иванов"). Честно говоря, принцип звучит не особенно осмысленно в общем случае.
Да и на практике вы просто отменили правку, не разделив присутствующие в формально элементе "Иванов" викиссылки "Ivanov" и "Ivanow" (и вариант на фарси), а лишь оторвав от них ссылку на категорию Викисклада, где, разумеется, подавляющее большинство "Ивановых" с родной кириллицей (как и в обратных ссылках на элемент, тоже не разбиравшихся вами).
В общем-то, и сама концепция "родной письменности фамилии" — это большая условность. Это же имена собственные, а не дизамбиги (опять-таки, по собственным же, не сказать что неоспоримым правилам Викиданных): не слова как таковые по элементам группируются. Грамматически одинаковая фамилия не является "разной" из-за языковых орфографических отличий. При определении необходимости в собственных элементах нужно исходить от существования в проектах множественных страниц для различных написаний, а не дробить искусственно. --INS Pirat (t | c) 23:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@INS Pirat: Уверен. Да, система не идеальна. Но она симметрична по отношению к языкам, что уже неплохо. Без "родной письменности" нельзя будет создать единый элемент для всех возможных вариантов имени (или фамилии), подходящих всем персонам. Давайте посмотрим на Ivanov. Почему мы должны утверждать, что иностранцы Debora Ivanov (Q48872586), Alexandra Ivanov (Q20156123), Sacha Ivanov (Q47520735), Alessandro Ivanov (Q59529665), возможно никогда не видавшие в глаза кириллицы (к тому же большинство женщины), должны называться кириллической фамилией "Иванов"?
Я разобрал все обратные ссылки - они почти все сейчас должны отражать истинную ситуацию, проверьте.
В любом случае, как я уже сказал, латиническая версия Иванова может выглядеть как Ivanov, а может как Iwanow и у них могут быть разные статьи в одном и том же разделе Википедии (пусть не конкретно в этом случае, но примеров полно), а следовательно разные элементы, и всё равно пришлось бы между ними выбирать. Так пусть этот выбор будет естественным - как пишется на родном языке, такой элемент и используем. --Infovarius (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Если уверены, то на каком правиле основываетесь? По вашей ссылке проект участников, а не правило. Что "примеров полно", вы говорите о ситуации, когда одна и та же группа персоналий в каком-то разделе скомпонованы на одной странице (как однофамильцы), а в каком-то разбиты по нескольким. Но я и настаивал обращать внимание именно на это, — в противовес сказанному вами тут о разделении по письменностям. Попробуйте хотя бы несколько примеров такого привести: я уверен, что это невозможно, исходя уже попросту из концепции языковых разделов и интервики-связей.
"Почему ... должны называться кириллической фамилией "Иванов"" — Где "называться"? На каком языке о них пишут (или читают в Викиданных, — если говорить о лейблах элементов), соответствующим образом фамилия выглядеть и будет.
И повторю самое главное: я объединил элементы в первую очередь потому, что в одном — ссылка на Викисклад, а в другом — викиссылки. Вы это так и не прокомментировали, в том числе одновременное присутствие в элементе викиссылок "Иванов", "Iwanow", "Ivanov", "Іванов" и "ایوانف" вопреки вашим утверждениям. --INS Pirat (t | c) 22:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Infovarius".