Veverve

Welcome to Wikidata, Veverve!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Versions and Editions

Hello Veverve:

On Wikisource, an individual text is an edition and is distinct from the work itself. For example, s:Bible (Webster's) is the 1833 Durrie & Peck edition of Webster's revision, and is not the same item as Webster's revision itself. For this reason I have created a new item The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, in the common version (1833) (Q75882422) for the edition hosted at Wikisource, and linked it as an edition of Webster's Revision (Q7978859).

Please ensure to create separate items for individual editions hosted on Wikisource, and the work or rescension in general. For more information, please see Wikidata:Wikisource/How to help#Works_2. Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for warning me. I thought Wikisource versions were a mix. I have also done the same kind of edits for other bible versions. Veverve (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Cristianisme ortodox

I reverted your edits on Q106432860 and Q3333484 because the sitelink states "El cristianisme ortodox es pot dividir en: L'Església Ortodoxa, [...] Les Esglésies ortodoxes orientals", which translates to "Orthodox Christianity can be divided into: The Orthodox Church, [...] The Oriental Orthodox Churches". It is therefore not an article exclusively about Eastern Orthodoxy and should not be linked to Q3333484 in its current form, especially since it would be linked to from the infoboxes of articles on people for whom this item has been indicated as their religion. Sahib1609 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Q3714547

Hi Veverve,

Catechism is defined as a "genre" so it should be used with P136 and not with P31. It is already in P136 for Q3714547, so I removed the P31 statement. CaLéValab (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@CaLéValab: Ok, understood, thanks for explaining me. Veverve (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Fascism in Russia

I don't agree with [1]. Please see my comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fascism_in_Russia --Piotrus (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: the whole article at WP pl is a translation of the article "Rashism" from WP en, so it is an equivalent of it. Most entries make a clear difference in their names and in their content between faschism in Russian and the alleged rashism ideology. There is no source on WP en which states that "Russian fascism" is an equivalent to "Rashism", the summary there contains OR and en:FICTREF. No one has called the en:All-Russian Fascist Organisation 'rashist'; and no one has stated that the two expression ('rashist' and 'Fascism in Russia'/'Russian fascism') were equivalent. Veverve (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

While the pl wiki article may be based on the en wiki, since I believe they discuss the same topic, I'd prefer to merge all possible interwikis to wikidata on fascism in Russia. What remains should probably be merged on their respective Wikipedias. And the preferred name should be 'fascism in Russia', not 'rashism'. Piotrus (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: you cannot make an article about an Ukrainian neologism and claim this neologism is the official term or topic for all fascist groups in Russia for the past century. Veverve (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I fully agree with your comment at the AfD: 'raschism' is a linguistic phenomenon (a new word, a political insult) so its place should be in a small sub-section in a broader article on Fascism in Russia, instead of being an overblown piece of SYNTH and OR. Veverve (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I do invite you to offer your thoughts&analysis in the en wiki AfD, as you seem to have done some research on this. The more voices, the more clear the consensus we can reach. The more I think about this, the more I believe that 'raschism' should be indeed just a subsection of the wider topic. Piotrus (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I am afraid I cannot accept your invitation, for I have been topic banned from anything related to Russia on WP en. I had been working on the "Rashism" page before that; if you want my opinion in English on this topic, you can find my interventions at the talk page of en:Rashism (some are likely archived by now). I have made a synthesis of my arguments and thoughts on the rashism in French, in the messages I have posted at fr:Discussion:Ruscisme/Admissibilité. Veverve (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about the topic ban. Do ping if you ever appeal it, and I'll see if I can help. Piotrus (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: While we are at it, we might as weel discuss the content of the WP pl article. You seem to believe 'Raschism' meets GNG or else you would not have created a WP pl article; I do not believe it meets GNG, to me it is a loaded political word with no clear referent or meaning which has its place on the Wiktionary. Still, if the article is to exist it might as well be in the best state possible. So, maybe you would be interested in having a look at my previous criticism of the way sources were used to support the material present in the article, e.g. the fact absolutely no source mentions Third Rome or a special civilisational mission of Russia, or states that Russia would currently be considered by academic consensus as fascist or described by the term of art 'raschism', that some sources are FICTREFs with no mention of the topic, etc.; all those information have been in retained in the WP pl version by you who translated and assumed good faith. As to why despite my criticism those information are still there on WP en, I leave it up to you to draw you own conclusions. Veverve (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact I agree Raschism does not meet GNG. I should be a subsection if the wider topic of Fascism in Russia. Hence, that's why I objected to the interwiki change. As to the content, well, there's no conspiracy here, it's just a mediocre to weak article cobbled down by few amateurs using likewise poor sources. Piotrus (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I would have nothing against linking a WP pl article that discusses the broad topic of fascism in Russia to the item Q13479496 if said WP pl article is an article about that topic. Currently, despite its name, pl:Faszyzm rosyjski's summary, content and illustration images make it very clear the subject is specifically the Ukrainian neologism 'rashism', with the bloated overanalysis about it as if it was a real political ideology or term of art which is due to it being a translation of the WP en article. Veverve (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Portmanteau

What do you mean by this? Portmanteau word “results from blending two or more words, or parts of words” (Britannica); still those words must exist before blending while there is not such a word as “rasha” (probably you don't mean that one). Андрей Романенко (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Андрей Романенко: You cannot make "raschism" with "Russia": this is because there is no "a" in the middle of "Russia". You would end up with "Ruscism" or "Russiascism". See also this source and Wiktionary which both state "raschism" it is a merge from "rasha" and "fascism". Veverve (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean the pejorative one, this one. Veverve (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

As a Russian native speaker I am well aware about Russian word Раша. However, it does not make the word “rasha” exist in English. Mister Alexander Motyl, however highly esteemed politologist he might be, is not an expert in English etymology (it's quite typical that he is spelling “rashyst” with improbable Y). Same way, in Wiktionary they don't claim such an English word exists but explain that the word рашизм is derived in Russian. So, either we have to admit that this word is originated from Russian and/or Ukrainian (in which it was a portmanteau word) and was borrowed into English as a whole or we have to admit that in English it was re-created from English words and one of them was the word “Russia” (same pronunciation, different spelling as Russian Раша). Андрей Романенко (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Андрей Романенко: the word is a rough, unlocalised version of an Ukrainian/Russian term, which is itself a portemanteau of two Ukrainian/Russian words. And from what I get, the word is now considered as being part of English in its "rashism" form. As for the word "rasha", it seem to have remained on the other linguistical side of the bridge.

'Rasha' does not aqual 'Russia' (although it designates to Russia); it is a derogatory term, the same way 'yankee' does not equal 'citizen of the USA'. The nuance is important.

So, maybe we could make a compromise by putting as Wikidata description "portemanteau between a pejorative moniker for Russia and the word fascism". This would also maybe help English speakers who have no idea what 'rasha' means. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be quite reasonable solution. Андрей Романенко (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Q15975478

Title of the pl Wiki article: "Faszyzm rosyjski", beginning of the pl Wiki article: "ideologia polityczna i praktyka społeczna rządzącego reżimu Federacji Rosyjskiej w XXI wieku".

See also Label: Indonesian, Slovak, Slovenian, Swedish.

See also Description: Azerbaijani, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Croatian, Indonesian, Latvian, Portuguese, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, Swedish, Turkish.

Wikipek (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Los Consejos Pontificios quedan reemplazados por Dicasterios

I think it is so; cfr. Predicate evangelli JLVwiki (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@JLVwiki: I know that they have all been renamed as "dicastery". Still, does it imply the possibility of creating a pontifical council does not exist anymore? Do pontifical councils not exist anymore in Catholic canon law? Veverve (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Todo es posible, pero el canon 360 del Código de Derecho Canónico no los prevé; y la Const. Apost. Praedicate Evangelli, tampoco. Es decir actualmente no existe en la Curia Romana ningún Consejo Pontificio, y la legislación de la Iglesia Católica no los prevé

Pienso que Wikidata debe incluir datos reales y actuales, no los hipotéticamente posibles en el futuro. Greeting- JLVwiki (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@JLVwiki: I think a discussion on related WikiProjects should take place before you make your change. As for me, I am not convinced by your argumentation, for the reasons I stated above. Veverve (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Incident de chichi jima

Nous sommes en train de créer un projet compilant les crimes japonais, il s'agit avec cette description de faire la différence entre les différents niveaux de crimes, c'est un peu trop long comme description c'est vrai mais la mention cannibalisme doit y figurer pour mieux orienter les futures recherches...donc :

"crime de guerre japonais de 1944, cannibalisme sur prisonniers de guerre" ok?

Ceci pour mieux "coller" avec les autres cas de cannibalisme japonais pendant la même période... Hanafunda (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hanafunda: D'accord pour cette proposition. Veverve (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, juste une question finale que veut dire wpfr ? Hanafunda (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hanafunda: Wikipédia fr. Veverve (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, i just came to apologize who not replying to you on the talk page of Q98406706. I had a lot of other stuff going on at the time. I removed the social media due to privacy concerns, @Veverve: --Trade (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Trade: But the person is a public figure and its social media are public, the same way Q13423853's social medias are. I oppose this removal. Veverve (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The vast majorite of coverage was either due to a single event (the crime). Or it was about her cyberstalked in the most literal sense of the word without seeking such attention as part of KW's stalking of her. She's the definition of a non-public figure and as such we need to take that into consideration rather than insisting she's the same as PewDiepie

Wikipedia is not a reliable source so i don't think her birth place can stay unless we find one Trade (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Trade: The person is a en:YouTuber who willingly produces and publicly releases videos for the world to see; as such, the person qualifies as a public figure. Their Tweets are also public and for the world to see, by the person's own volition. Same goes for their Instagram and Facebook profiles. The person acts as a public figure, qualify as such, and is mentioned as such ("YouTuber", "online personnality", "internet personnality") in reliable sources ([2], [3], [4]).

Therefore, those information are not private.

By the way, I fail to see how a superepicfailpedia article ID is relevant to privacy concerns.

I agree on removing the birthplace. Veverve (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alias removal

Regarding the English alias removal at the monastic community of Mount Athos (Q780149) Autonomous Monastic State of Mount Athos is the literal translation of Αυτόνομη Μοναστική Πολιτεία Αγἰου Όρους, which is the official name in Greek as territorial entity. Would you prefer it in official name (P1448) instead? Jimkats (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jimkats: which is the official name in Greek as territorial entity: what source are you relying on to state this? Veverve (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I honestly remembered seeing this exact name in official documents, but I can't find it. It seems it's official name in Greek is just "Άγιο Όρος", with the "Αυτόνομη Μοναστική Πολιτεία" being just a designation and not included in the official title. Sorry for bothering you, and thanks for that reversal, else I would still think that was its official name. Jimkats (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Q41463697 à scinder ?

Bonjour,

je vois que vous intervenez pas mal sur les questions de liturgie et de sacramentaire, et notamment sur Q41463697. Je voulais vous suggérer une idée que je viens d'avoir concernant ce dernier élément : ne serait-il pas opportun de le scinder en deux, un pour le vetus ordo (toujours en vigueur dans certaines communautés Ecclesia Dei telle que la FSSP, comme vous le savez sans doute), et un second pour l'usage postduovatican ? Cela permettrait une description plus fine sur les éléments des prêtres ordonnés Nomen ad hoc (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Idem pour les ordinations diaconales ; et les ordinations de clercs mineurs/institutions de ministres (à propos desquelles il reste encore à créer un élément...). Bien à vous, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC).

@Nomen ad hoc:

1) J'ai une réserve sur le fait de scinder. En effet, la plupart des articles WP traitent des sacrements catholiques en mentionnant leur évolution. Ces sacrements sont traités comme un tout qui évolue en plusieurs formes, pas comme plusieurs objets distincts.

2) J'ai créé un objet pour les ministres institués : Q115682605. En effet, ce sont là des fonctions distinctes, surtout que la fonction de catéchiste est désormais un ministère institué. Veverve (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc: j'ai créé fr:Ministère institué. Veverve (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Merci ! Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC).

category combines topics (P971)

[5] This is not category, so using category combines topics (P971) is wrong. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

version of version

Bonjour Veverve, yes, quinta is an edition of Stuttgarter but both are versions of Vulgate (Q131175) which in turn is a version of the Bible. We've had a constraint not to combine has edition or translation (P747) with edition or translation of (P629) which is sensible in general. In our case I did define an exception saying Vulgate (Q131175) is a version with versions but I prefer to reject building a chain. Vollbracht (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

source for capital

(it's easier to properly write here where it is than adding it directly as reference :d) the Presidential decree which validates the Charter of Mount Athos, page 5, article 11.
And here is its correspondent wikilink (because people uploaded it as whole in wikisource) Jimkats (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jimkats: I think this should be sourced on Wikidata with the Wikisource link. Veverve (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Mes maladresses

Hello, Veverve, je suis absolument certaine que tu as raison - mais je ne sais pas faire. Il m'a fallu du temps pour comprendre que c'était en réalité le même article - avec, en plus, une version :fr caviardée jusqu'à la rendre incompréhensible. Sorry si mes maladresses t'ont donné du travail en plus. Cdt, Manacore (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Manacore: je préfèrerais que tu me demandes d'effectuer la fusion ou que tu postes un message sur le Bistro de Wikidata plutôt que de faire ça.

Si tu as déjà fait ce genre de maladresses, tu peux me les communiquer et je ferai le nécessaire.

Je te conseille d'aller dans tes Gadgets de tes Préférences de Wikidata ; dans la section Wikidata-centric, tu as comme premier gadget "Merge: This script adds a tool for merging items". C'est ce gadget que j'utilise. Il ajoute un choix "Merge with..." en-dessous du "More" en haut à droite. Veverve (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Буквы

I see what you mean about YouTube. I'm going to keep an eye out. Also, bad times on enwiki, eh? Elizium23 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I think Буквы tries to either POV-push, or to impose their own opinion, on some topics related to Russia. They have been doing that for months now. They also love to add random, unwarranted, non-official YT videos.

As for WPen: yeah, my negociation skills have never been good. Nor my ability to win against edit-warrers. The admin who blocked me did not even rollback to QUO, and did not respond to inquiries about this; but they surely were there to revert me when I edited my own talk page and I tried to discuss with other users (I am not sure if it is even in the rule to prevent me from using my talk page, but I suspect I will be told "this has always been done this way for the past 50 years, things are perfectly clear, so stop wikilawyering so pedantly", so whatever).

Bad time on WCommons too, with my 6-months block... especially since the Wikisource admins do have the tools to make massive page moves to harmonise with WikiCommons (and I myself have developper my own tool to do so in 2 hours...). An Italian Wikisource admin even did such a massive page move when they noticed my file move from WCommons. Veverve (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Islam libéral: description

Bonsoir

Je viens vers parce que je m'étonne de la suppression de ma modification pour Islam libéral, que vous avez qualifiée de "trop long[ue] pour une description courte affichée en haut des articles".
Or je lis sur la page en anglais "Help:Description" : "Descriptions are not full sentences, but small bits of information. In most cases, the proper length is between two and twelve words. One-word descriptions are almost always too ambiguous, and should be avoided. If the description goes onto a second line it is probably too long, and if it goes onto a third line, it is almost definitely too long." (je souligne). Cette remarque a le mérite de donner un nombre de mots pour la longueur (ce que ne fait pas la page en français, si je ne m'abuse; mais je conviens que la ss-titre de la section en anglais est "Guidelines for descriptions in English" [je souligne]). Toutefois, il semble clair que neuf mots ne tiennent le plus souvent pas sur un ligne...

Et là, je constate que vous avez trouvé trop longue la phrase "ensemble de tendances et de mouvements réformateurs dans l'islam" alors que 1) elle compte neuf mots (et déborde donc en partie sur la deuxième ligne...); et que 2) la description en anglais "overview of the history of liberalism and progressivism within Islam and amongst Muslims" fait treize mots, soit à la louche 40% de plus.
La question m'interpelle parce que j'ai quelque 3000 descriptions d'articles à mon actif, avec pour certaines des textes plus longs (parfois proches de la notice que vous avez supprimée), mais de toute façon souvent plus que deux mots. Et parce qu'il y a des concepts très simples à décrire (ce qui donne par ex. "localité soudanaise" ou "espèce de plantes", "acteur américain" tandis que d'autres ont besoin d'une description plus longue, (par ex. "philosophie", "algèbre", "science" ou "racisme". Pour ce qui concerne l'article dont nous parlons, je pense que le mot "tendance" apportait réellement qc. à la description, car c'est une chose assez différente d'un "courant" qui renvoie à qc. de plus structuré.
Désolé d'avoir été long (je suis bavard), mais je pratique beaucoup la description d'articles, et je tenais à faire ces remarques. En suggérant, pour terminer, de peut-être indiquer une règle claire à propos de la longueur sur la page d'aide en français. Cordialement, Dawamne (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dawamne: le problème, c'est que WPfr utilise directement les descriptions Wikidata pour ses descriptions courtes, voir fr:Wikipédia:Description courte. C'est pour ça qu'il faut garder les descriptions de Wikidata selon les règles de fr:Wikipédia:Description courte.

Sur WPen, la description courte est un modèle séparé qui est sur WPen et ne reprend pas les descriptions Wikidata (en:Template:Short description), donc le problème ne se pose pas. Veverve (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve OK, merci pour la réponse. Mais je relève tout de même sur la page "description courte" que vous mentionnez, la recommandation: "concision : idéalement pas plus de 40 caractères, entre 2 et 12 mots"... Cela dit, quarante caractères pour douze mots, c'est tout de même une gageure, même si, j'imagine, on ne compte pas les espaces entre les mots (ma description avait neuf mots en 56 caractères, espaces non compris, 64 avec les espaces). La recommandation ne me semble donc pas très réaliste (jugement étayé par une rapide recherche sur la longueur moyenne des mots français : 4,8 caractères, semble-t-il, et même six sur cette page consacrée à la facturation des prestations d'écriture pour le web). Dawamne (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dawamne:

on ne compte pas les espaces entre les mots : si. Je le sais, car j'ai essayé avec le compteur de en:Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper.

La recommandation ne me semble donc pas très réaliste : elle l'est. Il faut essayer d'être concis, voire lacunaire, ou ne pas mettre de description du tout. Je préfèrerais une solution comme sur WPen. Veverve (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve Si on compte les espace, je d'autant moins comment la recommandation est réaliste vu les nombres que j'ai donnés... On ne peut pas réinventer la langue, et le mot "concis" a six lettres au masculin et sept au féminin sg, huit au féminin pl., qu'on le veuille ou non. Bon maintenant, si vous parlez de "lacunaire" (càd incomplet...). Quant à laisser sans description, cela ne correspond en rien aux invites que j'ai régulièrement sur mon téléphone après l'ajout d'un descriptif: "cela vous a plu? Continuez" (ou qc. du genre, et on me conduit alors uniquement sur des pages sans description.

NB: je relis régulièrement des textes de journalistes qui ne doivent pas dépasser un certain nombre de signes, pour les aider à reformuler afin de rester dans les limites, et je vois donc très bien ce que l'opération implique (y compris parfois en perte de sens, hélas).

Mais au fond, mon approche de la question vient de ce que je cherche dans une description : comprendre de quoi il en retourne sur telle page dont le sujet m'est inconnu ou presque, et j'applique cela à mon approche des descriptions. Ensuite, la cuisine interne de wikidata... Trop technique pour moi. Mais promis: je veillerai encore plus à la concision.

Dawamne (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Mouvement Ghadar

Bonjour @Veverve, j'ai retravaillé la page Mouvement Ghadar, qui n'est liée à aucune langue, alors que la page en anglais (Ghadar Movement) est liée 17 langues (mais pas le français).

J'ai constaté que sur Wikidata, il y un identifiant pour l'art. en français (Q16665426) et un autre pour les autres pages (Q2655840). J'y ai ajouté la description - très brève ) en français, mais je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit très correct, et j'imagine que le doublon franç. (Q...26) n'a pas lieu d'être). Pouvez-vous regarder ça (moi, je n'y comprends pas grand chose, comme je vous l'ai dit). Cordialement, Dawamne (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dawamne: fusion effectuée Veverve (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Subitisme

Bonjour @Veverve, la page Subitisme se présente grosso modo comme celle du Mvmt Ghadar... (Voir la page en anglais: Subitism). En plus, il me semble que la version française n'existe tout simplement pas sur Wikidata (ni en anglais pour autant que je puisse voir). Vous pouvez regarder ça? (Si jamais, le descriptif qu'on peut ajouter pour le français: "concept du bouddhisme zen"). Cordialement, Dawamne (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dawamne: voilà qui est fait. Le gradualisme (Q5591994) de WPfr, pourtant le contraire du subitisme, avait été lié à l'élément du subitisme (Q7631353). Veverve (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve, merci! Dawamne (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)