User talk:Infovarius/Archive/2019

Q41298

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)

Q830183

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)

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)

Q7710943

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 symptoms

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 England

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 constituent country of 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)

Елисей/Элиша

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)

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 Q604984

Hi,

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 America

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)

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 galop

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 died

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 human

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:

⟨ Harry Potter (Q3244512)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ fictional human (Q15632617)    ⟩

is correct but it is just redundant as there is already

⟨ Harry Potter (Q3244512)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ wizard in the Harry Potter universe (Q15298259)    ⟩

(subclass of fictional human (Q15632617)) which implies this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Articles

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-related terms (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)

Tide

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 [2]. 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)

Russia

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)

Q217743

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)

Special:Diff/876748142

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 отмена

Добрый день, коллега! Я не понял Вашей отмены в элементе Ruchei (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 округа

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 Q23004

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 George

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: 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 novel

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"

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 правок

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 poets

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)

Игорь

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 status

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?

Q277964

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 Rodgers

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)

User_talk:Ymblanter

Hello.

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 Q29043256

Hello. I would like to know why you reverted my edit[3]. 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)

Football

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)

Ансамбль

Q620990.

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)

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:

• instance of (P31)unwritten language (Q4085712)
• writing system (P282)no value Help (plus a qualifier, if it exists, for clenching the connection with unwritten language (Q4085712))

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)

Антон

Здравствуйте.

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: Hlieb (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 year

Re [4], 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 cartes

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)

Джоан/Жоан

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1484457&oldid=prev&diff=954764324

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

⟨ Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii (Q101516)    ⟩ given name (P735) ⟨ Sergey (Q12902079)    ⟩

). --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)

Testudinata

[5] 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 cocktails

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:Cocktails (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 fr.wiki 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)

Q3244512

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 collections

Hi! In this edit, you asserted:

⟨ God the Father (Q186350)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ God in Christianity (Q825)    ⟩

but we already have:

⟨ God in Christianity (Q825)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ God (Q190)    ⟩

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)

Thanks

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 case

• 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", uppercase letter (Q98912) is for "T"; lowercase letter (Q8185162) is for "taylor" and 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 football

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 chain

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 flutes

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 en.wiki 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)

disambiguation

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 characters

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)

Афротерии

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: https://elgeran.info/taxonomy/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5. --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 РСФСР

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)

Q1347028

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 recognition

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 fr.wiki) and in other wikipedias the title is "States with limited recognition" (like in es or it.wiki); 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 Islands

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 P1889

Hi,

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 :

• family name has to use a different item than disambiguation page (Q27924673)
• Yelena (Q29622741)

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 page (Q27924673)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

gay bar (Q1043639)

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 Problem

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somebody_else%27s_problem#silly 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? »

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 revert

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 94.142.238.250 22:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gorn: statements should be valid for all subclasses but there are soup kitchen (Q2142654) and cafeteria (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)

Q30584987

• Special:diff/993872744

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)

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 en.wiki and pt.wiki 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 es.wiki and fr.wiki the subject is integrability only in the sense of Liouville (integrable Hamiltonian system) while in ru.wiki and uk.wiki 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)

Diplura

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)

Montsoreau

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)

CJK

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 (https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#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 McCann

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 Сорос

Здравствуйте. Вы отменили мою правку относительно того, что Джордж Сорос не является гражданином Великобритании [6]. 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)

Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152)

Hello, could you please elaborate on your revert of the item Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152)? The statement that you removed seems valid to me since Kevin MacLeod (Q16731782) is indeed a performer of Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (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 Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152)). In this case, qualifiers such as has characteristic (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)

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 Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Infovarius/Archive/2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Limb

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 2019

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)

@Mike Novikoff: JFYI, searching doesn't work. Typing "кот" before the name is unusual and it wouldn't work either if we add this prefix to all cats. Infovarius (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Doktor (stopień naukowy)

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 - definition

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 Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Infovarius/Archive/2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

leadership (Q484275)

Hi Infovarius! You removed [7] 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 number

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 scale

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"

Re: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6097&oldid=prev&diff=1027555250 ""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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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)

@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?

Hi, you reverted my edits on Alamito Creek (Q16437): Wikimedia disambiguation page. How can a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410): type of wiki page usually in main namespace (article namespace, ns=0) containing links to articles with similar names, and very little details only, use with P31 "instance of" 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 brook (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 film

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)

Boris

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

glucose (Q37525) cannot be an instance of an item being concept (Q151885); Zuckerart (Q227790) with instance of (P31)group of isomeric entities (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 group of isomeric entities (Q15711994). --Infovarius (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You added model to a serie

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)

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)

Может и не правило, но проект, согласно правилам которого работают миллионы элементов. Если хотите обсуждать целесообразность этого подхода, лучше сразу в обсуждение проекта писать, ибо меня переубедить - наименьшее дело.

Пример? Пожалуйста. Есть ru:Сантос и ru:Сантуш, в то время как на латинице только Santos. Объединить в одном элементе невозможно.

Если объединить всех Ивановых, то какая метка по-вашему будет на латинических языках? Однозначно не определить, т.к. у разных Ивановых разная транслитерация.

Место ссылки на Викисклад надо определить. Мне просто не хочется, чтобы она была в Ivanov, но видимо это самое логичное. Ссылки на разные написания, действительно, согласно этому подходу должны быть разнесены на разные элементы. И, честно говоря, мне этого не хочется. --Infovarius (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Instances of (musical) interval

Hi. I noticed that there are some "quickstatements" that undid my recent edits related to (physical) quantities. See for instance quint (Q224169) where in the history it reads "#quickstatements; #temporary_batch_1571932565053". I don't know what that is, but it is reverting statements that I carefully corrected. For a discussion of "instance of" vs. "subclass of" physical quantity, see the project chat. Toni 001 (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Toni 001 I've made these edits by automatic tool. As there are no words about intervals at Project chat (and you treat them differently), I'll answer here.

⟨ quint (Q224169)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ interval (Q189962)    ⟩

is nonsense because it implies by transitivity

⟨ quint (Q224169)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ physical quantity (Q107715)    ⟩

which is obviously nonsense. Another point, which you may be don't understand, is that quint (Q224169) is not a specific interval (i.e. ratio of frequencies) but a class of similarly named intervals (such as minor fifth (Q17025195), perfect fifth (Q12372854) and others). Note that quint (Q224169) is defined by (non-strict) "staff positions" while perfect fifth (Q12372854) is defined by semitones and easily can be converted to a ratio of Herz. This all means that quint (Q224169) should be subclass of some quantity in order to have perfect fifth (Q12372854) some level lower (instance or subclass, doesn't matter). --Infovarius (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I see the point about subclasses. From a quantity and unit point of view, here is my explanation:

• Just like 5 kg is an instance of a mass (which is a subclass of physical quantity), 7 semitones is an instance of an interval, and "perfect fifth" is just a name for 7 semitones.
• More tricky is the question about fifth, which is defined, as you mention, as five staff positions. Staff positions, while not having a fixed value, could still be considered as unit: There are other "units" like "spoons of sugar" used in recipes, whose value might also not be fixed. But I don't have any reference for a unit-like treatment of staff positions, and I like your explanation with "fifth" being a class containing (instance of) perfect fifth.

So, to summarize: perfect fifth instance of fifth; fifth subclass of interval; interval subclass of physical quantity, right? Toni 001 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I restored your edits. After thinking some more, that makes perfect sense. Toni 001 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Plombir

Even Lorraine's tourist site provides these details, please look explanation: https://www.tourisme-lorraine.fr/a-voir-a-faire/boutiques-et-degustations/sucre/885003069-degustation-de-la-glace-plombieres-plombieres-les-bains I'm working on this article for hours I would ask you See the source before taking back my change. I'm not interested in Russian and French wiki, but if the wrong information is published there, please correct FikriyeRıza (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@FikriyeRıza: so your site also says: "la glace de Plombières-les-Bains" like I said. And not from Russia (like you are insisting)! So please revert your revert and add this reference. --Infovarius (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The site says: "En 1798, un glacier-confiseur, TORTONI, maison fondée par VELLONI, près de l'Opéra à Paris, propose déjà de la glace "PLOMBIERES" à ses clients. Ceci se présente sous la forme d'un entremet glacé aux œufs et fruits confits, sanglé dans un moule en plomb, d'où son nom." Many sources have acknowledged that this dessert was first made at Tortoni in Paris including by Larousse Gastronomique and books of Academic Publisher it is accepted. [8] Mold comes from Balzac's writings about Tortoni. I can not make the change you ask, please refer to the resources. FikriyeRıza (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I add both but one is an option that resources don't accept. Also change the country to France, but the Russian ice cream originate in Russia İ don't want to fight over this. FikriyeRıza (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@FikriyeRıza: If you don't understand, you were fighting with yourself. Finally, you have changed to the version which I wanted, hallelujah! --Infovarius (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Author qualifier for 'quote or excerpt' statements

[9] I noticed you edited the Don't Panic: The Official Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Companion (Q5291841) page to remove the subject sense (P6072) qualifiers that I put there. And that's totally fine as I was planning on eventually removing them myself anyway, since I was just testing out a new concept. However, I noticed you also removed the author (P50) qualifier, from the quotation or excerpt (P7081) statements, and I was wondering, why? In that case the author of the quote was different to the author of the work that used the quote. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liamjamesperritt: Hi! How it can be that "the author of the quote was different to the author of the work that used the quote"? --Infovarius (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The definition of a quotation (Q206287) is "the repetition of one expression as part of another". The expression was originally authored by Douglas Adams, and then Neil Gaiman (the author of the work) quoted Douglas Adams by repeating the expression in his book. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

your revert of sulfur

Hello, there are several forms of sulfur which need a superclass (xyz instance-of what?). If Q682 is it not, you can tell me please? --SCIdude (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@SCIdude: They are not chemical elements itself, they are substances and as

⟨ sulfur (Q682)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ nonmetal (Q19600)    ⟩

it is inherited correctly. --Infovarius (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Et tu Brute

The words "Et tu, Brute" are entirely fictional. They are not hypothised by anyone to be Caesar's actual last words. It's only a misconception based on popular culture brought on by Shakespeare's play, (and they're not even his last words in the play). If there is a "common misconception" thing on Wikidata that can be used.*Treker (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

диакритика

Коллега, не рекомендую использовать этот жаргонный термин. В русском языке скорее используется «диакритический знак», хотя в английском diacritics довольно прижившаяся лексема. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read the articles

Q56315368 and Q49377 are the same exact subject! Why do you insist on separating them? Have you even read the articles Église des trois conciles and Églises antéchalcédoniennes? "Église des trois conciles" is what is called in English the "Oriental Orthodox Churches", whereas "Églises antéchalcédoniennes" is an overview article about all ancient, historic non-Chalcedonian churches, i.e. both the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East/Ancient Church of the East. Veverve (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: I don't know why do you insist on linking fr:Église des trois conciles with Q49377. Because it is directly said in ru:Древние восточные церкви: "признающих постановления и исповедующих вероучительные догматы только двух или трёх Вселенских соборов" (2 or 3). --Infovarius (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification (and your partial translation since I do not speak Russian)! en:Oriental Orthodox Churches clearly states: "Oriental Orthodox Churches shared communion with the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church before the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, as well as with the Church of the East until the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, all separating primarily over differences in Christology." and "The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes incorrectly described as an Oriental Orthodox church, though its origins lie in disputes that predated the Council of Chalcedon and it follows a different Christology from Oriental Orthodoxy." (also on en:History of Oriental Orthodoxy: "Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus"). Same thing in hu:Antikhalkédóni egyházak, etc. Therefore, I believe ru:Древние восточные церкви and fr:Églises antéchalcédoniennes should be joined in a new item for the ancient, historic non-chalcedonian Churches. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So, do you agree? Veverve (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I decided to do it: Q76526564. Veverve (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico

...and Puerto Rico is not in the United States.

It is instead a US territory which is legally a separate domain under the control of the US congress. According to the United States Supreme Court: Puerto Rico belongs to but is not part of the United States.

See this ref: See [[10]] Puerto Rico is not "in" the US. See [[11]]

Therefore any address in Puerto Rico should not include United States. The change that you made incorrectly gives "Arecibo, US" and should show "Arecibo, Puerto Rico". Arecibo is "in" Puerto Rico not "in" the United States.

Any person born in Puerto Rico was born in Puerto Rico, not in the U.S. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Puerto_Rico/Standards

See when the US politicians discuss The Arecibo Observatory, for example: Hillary Clinton. They know it's not in the U.S. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2862

See [[12]]. This is an article listing Puerto Ricans who are in the United States.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: I made this according to the statement

⟨ Puerto Rico (Q1183)    ⟩ country (P17) ⟨ United States of America (Q30)    ⟩

- at first you should challenge this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Balantiopsaceae

The problem with "Balantiopsaceae" is that it is not a taxon; it is a misspelling. Both ITIS and Tropicos point this fact out. It is neither a validly published name nor a taxon, but an error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Зачем?

• Добрый день, коллега! Зачем делать как здесь Q4289242? Я же не вчера начал править и если удаляю заявление о том, что кто-то был режиссёром и сценаристом, то это значит, что точно проверил, что Maksim Voronkov (Q4125601) - человек, умерший в 1976 году, не мог быть режиссёром фильма, снятого в 2012 году. Пожалуйста, будьте внимательны. Честно говоря, когда вечер тратишь на сверку утверждений и простановку идентификаторов для нескольких фильмов и актёров, а потом это так отменяют, даже не проверив, то сильно отбивает охоту что-то делать. Вы же сами с этим сталкиваетесь и Ваши правки так же необоснованно отменяют. Зачем умножать подобное? --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  День добрый, Ksc~ruwiki. Да, я заметил отличие отчеств и проверил, что это военный, т.е. не подходит. Но я же заменил на Maksim Voronkov (Q21092329), или он тоже не подходит? --Infovarius (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  Подходит. Он там даже был, только в другом свойстве. Я вобщем-то о другом написал, хотя может и не стоило. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

гекатонхейр

Добрый день. У вас при правках летом случился какой-то глюк и множество героев древнегреческой мифологии (человекоподобные) теперь числятся 100-рукими гекатонхейрами, а не просто "героями" (например, отец Одиссея или мать Елены Прекрасной). Исправьте их всех пожалуйста[13] Гекатонхейров звали Бриарей, Котт и Гиес, других не было. --Shakko (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shakko: прошу прощения, София, да, был глюк - вместо монархов записал гекатонхейрами. Ну описания почти ни на что не влияют же? Попробую когда-нибудь исправить. --Infovarius (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

в том-то и проблема, что влияют. Когда в рувики подводишь курсор к синей статье, всплывает именно что описание из данных. И когда в визуальном редакторе выбираешь из тезок - всплывают описания из данных. И гугл в результатах выдачи "карточку" свою сбоку справа собирает из них. --Shakko (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Liouville Theorem and Equation Liouville's theorem (Q766722) and Liouville equation (Q20180666)

Hey @Infovarius:, is there a reason, that you have reverted my changes to Liouville's theorem (Q766722) and Liouville equation (Q20180666) I missed? The first is the theorem or Satz, the second one is the equation or Gleichung which is derived from the theorem. While most wikipediae don't have distinct articles for both, the German does and I don't see, why the German names and wikipedia references should be switched compared to everything else. But maybe I missed something. CamelCaseNick (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

My change to Q8805 (bit)

I removed the simplewiki link because the page there is a disambiguation ("dab") page, and this Wikidata item is not for dab pages. I have moved the simplewiki page to Q878715, which is for dab pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I don't see a "disambig" template in there. Would you be so kind to add it? --Infovarius (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. That page actually could use some work, but for now it's a dab. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agnessa

Hey, why did you revert Agnessa? It is only transliteration of the Russian name, not a separate Estonian name. --Metsavend (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Metsavend: Transliteration of Агнесса or Агнеса? And why not to merge with Agnesa? Actually consensus is to keep all of them separate: Wikidata:WikiProject Names This solution is not ideal but the other are worse. --Infovarius (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Providing solutions or just deleting?

If you think cities are not administrative territorial entities, then you're more than welcome to take care of the restriction notices on your own. --Ehitaja (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ehitaja: It's not about classes (I like the idea that cities are administrative entities, though the others don't). You've added the statement that city is a (single) adminstrative entity which is wrong (it has no specific coordinates or a country), it is a class not an instance. --Infovarius (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so if I define it as a subclass, then somebody else is going to revert it because hey look a squirrel? Wonderful. I have no idea why I still bother doing anything on WD. --Ehitaja (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. They already are a subclass, in a convoluted way, and that doesn't help with the restriction notices. Well, who cares? --Ehitaja (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ehitaja: I don't understand metaphore about squirrel and I am sorry, I mixed Q21583365 with general "city", so everything should be fine with Q21583365. What "restrictions" (constraint violations?) do you talk? --Infovarius (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia (Q17460)

Please do not add claims that Uncyclopedia is in any way affiliated with Wikia, as you did here. The last of the Uncyclopedia CC-BY-NC-SA content was voluntarily removed by Wikia on 14 May 2019 and will not be returning to that site. 45.72.145.69 23:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Category:Products (Q7189878) } a Wikimedia category (Q59542487)?

Hi Infovarius,

Just wanted to ask about your removal from Wikimedia category (Q59542487) from Category:Products (Q7189878). I originally marked it as such due to the presence of category contains (P4224) and that the large majority of children primarily are instances of product (Q2424752) (or Wikimedia meta category (Q30432511) containing such). That said I now notice there also seems to be a few related topic articles as well (e.g. sustainable product (Q7649686), Category:Products and the environment (Q13288838), and widget (Q2467478) ).

Cheers,

ElanHR (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ElanHR: sorry, I don't understand. What's your criterium for Wikimedia category (Q59542487)? --Infovarius (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian text appearing in template

HI, This revert of my edit at Q25250 (Volt) caused the russian text "электрический потенциал мозга" to reappear at Swedish Wikipedia, in the infobox of sv:Volt. The problem is that ru:электрический потенциал мозга does not have a translation to any other language, and the article is suggested for deletion. I do not know the exact meaning of the russian term. There are several other similar electrical potential measures that are not mentioned in statements at Q25250, such as en:Action potential, en:Local field potential and en:Electrotonic potential. Is it ok that I once again deleted the statement? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tomastvivlaren: 1) It is not a (big) problem that the article has not translation. Wikidata is international (and interlanguage) project. You are free (and welcome) to translate into any language.

2) Appropriate measures can be added too, of course. Let's see. action potential (Q194277) seems to be about process, not quantity. Quantity about this process is called "voltage" in the article, it can be added but it has no item yet.

3) I don't know what specifically is local field potential (Q533483). If you are sure it is some quantity, please add it.

4) It said "Electrotonic potentials have an amplitude that is usually 5-20 mV" in en:Electrotonic potential so I suspect it can be regarded as some measurable quantity. I'll try to incorporate it, please check me. So, no, there is no reason to remove them. --Infovarius (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bryophyta

Stating that "Bryophyta" is a food source (without source) is equivalent to saying that "Vertebrata" is a food source. This is aside from the fact that the actual source for this claim is not identified. The linked data item points to a website that is a large collection of medieval texts in multiple languages. Which text actually makes that claim? I was unable to make this determination and asked the editor to clarify. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I've just linked taxon to the item Q79101981. If you suspect that it is not a food source, then the problem is in Q79101981, not in Q25347. And while Q79101981 exists it can be connected to other items. P.S. I suppose it is a food for e.g. deers. --Infovarius (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Suspecting" something is not evidence that can be used as a reference. The other edits by this same editor indicate she is looking at human food sources. "Bryophyta" is not used as food by humans. The best that can be said is that Sphagnum is occasionally used as an ingredient in bread by Laplanders, and Sphagnum is used to flavor whiskey. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We still have no source to back this up as a reference. We have only a pointer to an entire database, without identifying the actual source, which is a problem in itself. We need to know what the source says. And if a medieval source document says "moss" or "Moose" then the best we can say is that some unidentified cryptogam (Q333458) of uncertain affinity is meant. In medieval texts, "Moss" / "Moose" does not mean "Bryophyta sensu strico"; it means "cryptogam". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

P376 = Q2

Hi,

I'm not sure to understand your reverts (including Special:Diff/1080572574) and the comment « seems ok ». Did you see the constraint Property:P376#P376$cd9bade1-4b08-8500-cfea-f71b7fd429d7 (and the discussion Property_talk:P376#Not_the_Earth who lead to the creation of this constraint) that forbid located on astronomical body (P376) = Earth (Q2)?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Why do you think that atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) is not on Earth? And which coordinates it has if this is a problem? --Infovarius (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure the atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) is not on Earth. This is not the prolem here. The problem is the constraint violation. So again : Did you see the constraint? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I see the constraint now. If it is a problem, I can remove it. But sorry, common sense says that air is on the Earth. --Infovarius (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Head of administration

What was the purpose of the whole reverting and re-adding process that you just did for the Head of Administration (which is btw the correct capitalization of the title in English) item? -Yupik (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite small, just to get rid of redirects in other items. Reversely what was the purpose of merging old and used item into newer and not-used? Sorry for capitalization, I thought that such rule is only applicable to newspaper titles. --Infovarius (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up, and if any hint for Q31448?

So appreciating for you to clean up of this plus others I made; perhaps could you advise me on a parrot where I was trying to solve an issue on; for "instance of" "family", there is a (!) mark which I thought better to solve. Do I better leave it as is? I admit flora and fauna is not the best part of my reach, and wish you would be giving me any hint. Anyway, thank you again to recover things in order. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Omotecho: taxonomic ranks are linked with taxon rank (P105). --Infovarius (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)