Vladis13

Question related to ruwikisource deletions

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)

TextworkerBot

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 guidance

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)

Q24512790

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

incorrect claims

I have undone several edits by your bot in the last few days. The latest examples are Ivan Kirillovich Naryshkin (Q48429280), Q24516781, ... Please stop your bot until you figure out how to do the correct edits and please check all your past edits for errors. Thank you, Henry Merrivale (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC).

Это не ошибки бота. 1) Первая была сделана мной вручную с аккаунта бота, который тогда ещё не был ботом, а учётка использовалась для полуавтоматических правок. Я хотел указать ссылку на соседнюю статью s:ru:ЭСБЕ/Нарышкины, дворянский род, где персона указана, но перепутал ссылку. 2) Ссылка перенесена с ru.wikisource, где находилась с 2009 года. Как я не раз упоминал, и специально поэтому сделал определённый блок кода в модуле Викитеки, "ручные [ссылки] обычно устарели на 5-10 лет, часто ведут на ошибочные, удалённые статьи или переделанные в неоднозначности". --Vladis13 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Q9289 и Q113613737

Добрый день. Заметил, ваш бот создал Q113613737 для статьи БСЭ1/Столовая гора. Подумал связать со статьёй из википедии, но не дает, пишет, что статья уже привязана к Q9289. Судя по всему, нужно удалить Q113613737 и статью из БСЭ привязать к Q9289. Ang15 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Аналогично Q623319 и Q113613738. Ang15 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Нет-нет. Это разные сущности. d:Q9289 - это элемент о сущности, как в нём указано вверху: "это частный случай понятия", "созвездие", его свойства - космические.
А d:Q113613737 - это элемент статьи в БСЭ1, его свойства - издательские.
Чтобы связать:
1) вы можете просто в Викитеке в шаблоне указать параметр ВИКИДАННЫЕ = <элемент темы статьи> или ВИКИПЕДИЯ = <название соотв. статьи Википедии по теме>. Через пару дней бот свяжет элементы.
2) Непосредственно связать элементы вручную. См. примеры в d:Q22132149 и d:Q14274, в первом указано свойство P921 "основная тема", во втором обратная ссылка в свойстве P1343 "описывается в источниках". Vladis13 (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Добавил в Викитеку. Vladis13 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)