Open main menu

User talk:Sapphorain



Please do not remove valid identifiers, as you did recently with person ID (P4927) on three items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Goodreads id for Jean-Jacques RousseauEdit

Thanks for noticing! I messed up between the id of the book ( and the id of the author... Koxinga (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

BEIC GLAM project and WikidataEdit

Dear Sapphorain, the edits you rejected as "irrelevant" are a part of a bigger GLAM project, see Wikidata:BEIC, running since 2014. Also few data that you consider "minor" are a part of the Mix'n'Match catalogue and are an essential part of the project, and they will be automatically reinserted in the next update. So that you are now aware that we know exactly what we are doing, please do not revert our edits. Thank you for your collaboration. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn’t realize this was (at last) a sound project. (There are so many bot trainers now on Wikidata who are importing any sort of crap from anywhere without ever checking whether what they import has any sense at all, that I become sometimes too quick in reacting). Sapphorain (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi. So why is this an "inappropriate entry"?--Sporti (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Napoleon wasn't a partner of "No label defined (Q61314753)". This makes no sense. Sapphorain (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is in many languages. --Sporti (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata contains one single page for each item. See Emilie Kraus von Wolfsberg (Q1337332). Sapphorain (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes but "No label defined" means there is no label in your language. Anyway restored it and added en label. --Sporti (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
No. You still don't understand: you created a second page on the same person (Emilie Kraus von Wolfsberg (Q1337332)). It should be deleted. Sapphorain (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok I see merged them. --Sporti (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an acceptable sourceEdit

Dear Sapphoroin, you wrote that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for Wikidata. So, I think there is a mystery, because more than one tool (like HarvestTemplates and PetScan) were developed to do this, and many users (not only me) use them to import thousands of thousands data into Wikidata. Please kindly let me know where is this specifical guideline that forbids importing from Wikipedia and/or other Wikimedia projects. Thank you in advance. --Marcok (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Since Wikidata and Wikipedia are both wiki encyclopediae, it is essential that every assertion be sourced INDEPENDENTLY of both. Wikipedia is not in itself an acceptable source, and Wikidata is not in itself an acceptable source. You can import an information from one to the other (and an importation is NOT a reference) only if the assertion is correctly and independently sourced where you import it from. And in that case, there is no reason to import it: you can just source it with the same independent source! But you have been systematically importing unsourced assertions from (from articles that sometimes contain no source at all!). There is a big problem when you do that: in some languages, for instance in, there are infoboxes that directy import assertions concerning personalities in Wikidata into the article in Wikipedia. This means that an unsourced assertion from is imported in Wikidata, and then imported back into So I systematically delete any assertion that is labelled "imported from WP....". Sapphorain (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Sapphorain, when I import data I always do my best to check errors. So a such rollback is hardly acceptable because the data are correct and well known. I think your opinion is respectable but not necessarily shared by the community, as the evidence suggests a significant percentage of assertions in Wikidata are based on Wikipedia imports, and a (bigger) percentage is totally without a source. I asked you to cite a specifical guideline page on Wikidata to support you opinion. Again, please kindly provide a link to that page. If you cannot, I kindly ask you to avoid any rollback based on questionable or personal opinions. Of course any fix of real errors will be welcome. Thank you. --Marcok (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. I am not going to loose my time to find a specific guideline confirming that an assertion in wikidata must be verifiable: this is simply common sense. And verifiable means a source must be available. And if a source is available it can easily be given. So it's as simple as that: if an assertion is sourced neither in Wikipédia, nor in wikidata, I erase it in both. Sapphorain (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


Well, I can see in Q24447087 (был первым президентом совета 500) that he was Member of the Council of Five Hundred (Q28218611). This encyclopedy is quite dated, but I see no reasons to believe that it is a mistake --Ghuron (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but then the reference given should be just that, not "Wikipedia in Russian", which is not a reference in itself. In any case, the declaration that he was a member of the council of 500 is already present in his page (with zero reference), so your entry either was redundant, or should have replaced the existing one. Sapphorain (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on Property talk:P463#voluntary? I'm assuming that for politicians we should prefer P39, not P463. If you know the place, where P39 vs P463 cases was discussed in more details, let me know. I've re-added statement with explicit reference to Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358), if you believe P463 is redundant - go ahead and remove it --Ghuron (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Sapphorain (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Here we have "la Real Academia Española de la Lengua le otorgó el diploma de Miembro Correspondiente", so Miguel Febres Cordero (Q1358473) technically not a full member. How would you suggest to express this in wikidata? --Ghuron (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Either he is a member, or he is not. If there is doubt the only correct way is not to express it in Wikidata at all. I really think you should stop importing assertions without saying from where you import them, and with zero valid reference.
By the way: there are still dozens of absurd declarations you made, on April 5, putting people in the « Académie française ». Letting them stay is confining to vandalism (I don’t know which kind of vandalism: malicious, or ignorant destruction?). Sapphorain (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking here and do not see dozens of absurd declarations I've made. Can you please give me a few examples? --Ghuron (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 ??? The items you mention don't contain most of the ones you modified on April 5, 2019. Please stop playing. In fact, please stop doing anything on wikidata, it will be better. Sapphorain (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday I've reverted my erroneous edits and the query above lists all items with member of (P463) Académie française (Q161806). Based on your remark, I thought that you have "dozens of absurd declarations" that I missed, which apparently is not the case. I'm fed up with pointless conversations like this, so this is the last message I'm writing to you. Of cause, I keep doing what I believe is beneficial for wikidata. --Ghuron (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello, this edit is not vandalisme. At France (Q142) there is capital "Algiers" (1942-1944) - and there is opposite consistency rule between them. I know, it seems silly, but its not a vandalisme. --Frettie (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Then source your edits, and there will be no problem. You also inserted the declaration that Algier and Geneva are twin cities, and this is patently false simply because the city of Geneva decided not to have any twin city. Sapphorain (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Merci !Edit

Ah... Merci... ! Sauf que maintenant que je vois ta page de discussion, je me dis que je vais devoir secouer ma paresse et ne plus utiliser "importé de Wp", même quand c'est correctement sourcé sur le Wp en question et que je recule devant l'ennui de créer des éléments pour les références. Ceci étant, je crains que nous nous battions dans le vide. Bon, re-merci. --Cgolds (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Pas dans le vide, mais contre des "bots" qui sont programmés pour faire à la chaîne des centaines de modifications, sans aucune sérieuse vérification. C'est assez affligeant, il semble qu'une part grandissante des contributeurs n'a aucun intérêt réel dans une information correcte, mais veut juste faire fonctionner le dernier joujou informatique qu'il a mis au point. Bon, courage... Sapphorain (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Sapphorain".