Question related to ruwikisource deletionsEdit

Hey Vladis13, a couple of months ago you have deleted several pages on ruwikisource, which in turn led to Wikidata items which might need to be deleted as well. An example edit is Special:Diff/730231636, and the full list should be these 78 items. I’d like to ask what the problem with the deleted ruwikisource pages was? Duplicates, as they all were postfixed with "2" in the title? Do we need the items any longer, or will the content stay deleted forever? Thanks and regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Those pages are homonyms. We merged them on one pages (like as s:ru:ТСД2/Попахивать). So, the items don't need, better will to delete them. Thank you for the question. --Vladis13 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, I have deleted the items. Cheers! —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

TextworkerBotEdit

This account does not have a bot flag. To run a bot here, please file a request at WD:RFBOT.--GZWDer (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. --Vladis13 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You are interwiki linking works and editions together, that is not the guidanceEdit

Hi. At Q4421344 you have interwiki linked a work and the edition. The project page Wikidata:WikiProject Books explains that a book has an item, and an edition has a separate item, and it explains how you link from one to the other using other properties. Then the interwiki link to a work belongs on the work, and the item has the edition. Your methodology does not allow for multiple editions of a work to exist and to be properly described, and this becomes worse when you try to manage translations. It would be worthwhile reviewing your editing practices and look to utilise the guidance for how items are meant to be done at Wikidata.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it so. But historicaly exist only version of this text, and topic page is just about this edition. They equals, items for work and for "edition" will be duplicates. So, I sure that can to merge these interwiki. If Wikidata have a rule or big discussion for such cases, please give the link. --Vladis13 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata keeps work data items and edition data items separate. They are not duplicates. Each time a book is printed again, it has new data that will be different from the previous editions. Do not merge works with editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not "edition", but the only original. The originals of works on Wikisource linking in the main item. E.g., Politics (Q69539) has link to s:el:Πολιτικά. Because such cases is massive on English and all other languages, If you don't agree with this practice, please bring this up for general discussion for Wikidata and Wikisource, and add the result of the discussion to the rules. Thank you. --Vladis13 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If you disagree with the policies at Wikidata:WikiProject Books, you can raise questions there. Yes, there are many bad Wikisource links because editors do not follow the policies. I have written to you to help make you aware of the policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I should not raise questions there, because in this policy is nothing about counting the originals as "edition of originals" with creating separated items for originals as for them editions. Such links to originals in almost or all items of literature works, it's very strange that you discuss it only with me. --Vladis13 (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Q24512790Edit

moved to Talk:Q24512790. --Vladis13 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)