It appears that "Kinema Junpo award" (Q13601550) & "Kinema Junpo award" (Q28059044) are identical. Any reason that they should not be merged? ~~~~
No reason, you are right. I merged them.
In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate
(That message in other languages: العربية • bosanski • català • Deutsch • Esperanto • français • עברית • polski • português • português do Brasil • русский • اردو • 中文 – translate that message)
Like some other community members, you are using Flow.
An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.
You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?
Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!
I reverted your change to human who may be fictional (Q21070568). We have gone to a lot of trouble to separate 'fictional humans' from 'humans' so that a search on human (including subclasses) doesn't throw up any fictional characters. Making "human who may be fictional" a subclass of:human messes this up. "said to be the same as" does the job of linking these two items - that is what it was created to do.
Understood. However this means that all the instances of Q21070568 will cause constraints violations when the domain is defined as human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074) (for example for the family relationships like Property:P7, Property:P9 etc.). Is it normal and expected? Does this mean the domain should be extended?
as Q21070568 is neither fictional nor non-fictional then I guess the constraints do need to be changed to add Q21070568 to the domain.