New York Times and Dean BaquetEdit


Could you point me to the « consensus edition from November 2018 », was there a discussion ?

Anyway, this is very strange to keep both The New York Times (Q9684) editor (P98) Dean Baquet (Q5245997) and The New York Times (Q9684) editor-in-chief (P5769) Dean Baquet (Q5245997). Does he really have both function? (and if so, do you have references?)

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A has property that the subject of A is BEdit

Thanks for your fixes here. P1423 and P1424 do both have examples, so I don't see any obvious way to make things easier for newbies. Boud (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

GHS labellingEdit

You're adding tons of incorrect GHS data. Not without a reason there are constraints for this property. GHS labelling is only valid, if there are all properties filled. If not, you give the impression for the re-users that there is no H-phrases or P-phrases. That's why we didn't import the GHS data from EU databases (the other reasons is that, we don't have permission for that) – in EU databases there are no P-phrases. This page (Wikidata:Database_reports/Complex_constraint_violations/P4952#European_GHS_data_without_any_of_the_4_mandatory_qualifiers) will soon be full of items that needs to be corrected, thanks to your import.

I hope you'll either improve the data you've added by adding H- and P-phrases, or you'll revert all your changes. I really don't know why you haven't consult this mass import in WikiProject Chemistry or in other place in WD. Of course, your mass import must stop as soon as possible. Wostr (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Wostr:, ok, I stopped it. What do you mean by "we don't have permission for that"? And is there a database with all the staff like H- and P-phrases to use? Wikisaurus (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a CLP database maintained by ECHA (like here an example) that have harmonised classification and labelling (problem is the lack of P-phrases, so it's of no use to WD, because harmonised classification and labelling is for manufacturers, importers etc. to classify and label substances, quite often their labelling is different than harmonised) and that database have 'notified classification and labelling' (also lack of P-phrases and lack of important information about the creator of classification and labelling, the purity of substance etc.). For the problems I've mentioned and the lack of permission for reproduction we haven't use this.
      Now, you've used the this version of CLP Regulation from 2008. Does your import reflects the changes made by so-called ATPs (Adaptation to technical progress)? At least a dozen of them was issued so far and these documents changed classification and/or labelling for many substances.
      The problems I mentioned above makes it problematic to mass import of CLP data, because there is no database of it we could use. I don't know of any way right now to add CLP data otherwise than manually. Wostr (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Wostr:,
      • a) I do not understand about "harmonised", can you explain?
      • b) About old information: even if now someone adds newest information, it will become old after the publication of the next ATP, so it does not make sense to expect information always to be newest. Maybe one should just add qualifier point in time (P585) 2008? (Of course, it is rather old, but, for example, in Russian Wikipedia we often still use old ECB pictograms added in articles in 2006-2007, so the addition of GHS pictograms, even from 2008, would be a step forward).
      • c) About all 4 or nothing: if there is no H- or P-phrases for this substance in the source (and the source uses H- or P-phrases in general), then "no value" should be present, and if H- or P-phrases are absent at all, then nothing should be present. I believe there is no wrong impression.
      • d) If there is a way to add it manually, one can probably program it as well. What is this way? Wikisaurus (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Don't take this wrong, it's not personal, but as you don't know the GHS/CLP and all the procedures behind it, you shouldn't be doing this in the first place. We already have tens of thousands items that need to be corrected after mass imports of other people.
          1. Harmonised classification & labelling is a version of GHS/CLP that should be used throughout the EU, especially for very dangerous chemical compounds (mutagens, teratogens etc.). But it's not something that manufacturer/importer/etc. can copy-paste, manufacturer has to classify and label the substance himself on the basis of harmonised classification & labelling (C&l). Some substances have to have the harmonised c&l, for some substances harmonised c&l is considered as a minimum, for some harmonised c&l is not sufficient in regard to physical dangers (and the substance has to be tested by the manuacturer), for many substances there are 'Notes' that contain conditions for the harmonised c&l. In other words, harmonised c&l is the only 'official' c&l in the EU, but has little use for anyone beside the producers/manufacturers/importers/etc., who can't use the WD data in any way, because are legally obliged to use the legal acts.
          2. And that's why we are doing this (like here, references section). I think Russian Wikipedia has time to implement GHS, because as far as I remember GHS is obligatory in Russia from the half of 2021. But you should keep in mind that EU GHS (implemented by CLP Regulation) and Russian GHS (implemented by other legal act, sorry, I don't know if it's a GOST or other act) are different systems based on GHS and shouldn't be used interchangeably: EU GHS is based on GHS rev. 6 (2015), Russian GHS is based on GHS rev. 4 (2011), different classification categories (EU did not implemented Flammable liquids, Category 4; Acute toxicity, Category 5; Skin Corrosion/Irritation, Category 3; Aspiration hazard, Category 2; Aquatic toxicity, Acute 2 and 3; Russia did not implement different categories).
          3. In both ways, the end-user gets the same information: no phrases. That's why every entry have to be complete. The source you've been using has H-phrases. It has also 'Notes' and 'Specific Conc. Limits, M-factors' which I don't think can be processed automatically (I don't think that from 'Repr. 2; H361fd: C ≥ 1 % STOT RE 1; H372: C ≥ 1 % STOT RE 2; H373: 0,2 % ≤C < 1 %' you can automatically deduce which H-phrase you should add to the item). The problem, however, is the lack of P-phrases, because P-phrases are always assigned by the producers/importers etc. and there should be max. 6 P-phrases (that's for example is one of the difference between EU GHS and US GHS; Russian GHS also has max. 6 P-phrases).
          4. We usually add this from GESTIS database or from SDSs. Importing it from GESTIS: you should have permission to reproduce the data (but reproduction is not permitted) + there're sometimes additional informations about the C&L you can't program (unless you have an AI). From SDSs: you have to have permission + products have different purity, are in different forms etc. + source have to be reputable and it has to be GHS implemented in specific country (right now we were adding only EU GHS, so it has to be country in the EU; for other countries you should add different value in safety classification and labelling (P4952)) + SDSs are usually a PDF files and have different style (also you have to keep in mind that in WD we have only GHS labelling, we don't have GHS classification; in SDS there are both and people sometimes are making mistakes by adding classification instead of labelling).
        Wostr (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Wostr:, well, I reverted the batch, as you are probably right about it - I do not understand this stuff and would not be able to do it correctly. There was also a couple of manual edits which I cannot find, but they will be shown in complex constraint violations anyway. Sorry for troubling :-(
          • Thank you for you actions. I don't know, maybe for the Russian GHS there is some way to do it automatically or semi-automatically (then such GHS should be added with safety classification and labelling (P4952) item for Russian GHS Regulation or other Russian legal act, but you would have to consult a proper WikiProject in; I'm not familiar with Russian implementation of GHS and even more so, I don't know of any public Russian GHS database but maybe there is some from which export is permitted and it wouldn't be a violation of a Russian Civil Code or any other law. There is but I don't think it is public and I don't know what sort of data this database contains. Wostr (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

symmetric matrices are Hermitian matricesEdit

You were doing this revert with explanation [Hermitian and normal matrices] "both make sense only for complex matrices". Since symmetric matrices are real matrices and complex conjugation the same as transposing for real matrices, it does make sense.


One can proof that every real, symmetric matrix is Hermitian. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Bigbossfarin:, I mean that the name "symmetric matrices" is used for matrices over any field, not only for matrices over complex (or real, rational, etc.) numbers, while "normal" or "Hermitian matrices" makes sense only if you have conjugation; so one can not say that every symmetric matrix is normal or Hermitian, even if every real symmetric matrix is. Maybe one should create an item "real symmetric matrix"? Wikisaurus (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
OK I see. Thanks Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)



I do not understand why you revert my change A Lie bracket of vector fields is a special case of Lie bracket so its not different to it. --Christian1985 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Christian1985: hi! I understand different from (P1889) ("item that is different from another item, with which it is often confused") mean that the classes A and B are different, not that every object of the class A is different from every object of class B. The item is very often used to a class and its subclass, I believe. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok--Christian1985 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Categories for mergingEdit

About Special:diff/1179958757, the category was deleted and later on, restored. Paucabot (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


А что это вы против наименования всех статей в Википедии изменили смысл элемента? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @1234qwer1234qwer4:, вроде раньше было липшицево отображение с примесью непрерывности по Липшицу и условия Липшица - и по меткам, и по статьям, я привёл все метки к липшицеву отображению (потому что все метки должны быть об одном, чтобы на элемент правильно ссылались из других элементов), а статьи оставил в том же виде. Чего не так-то? P. S. Подкласс тоже был как у отображения, а не свойства или условия. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • По-моему, правильнее было бы привести как раз к свойству. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @1234qwer1234qwer4:, почему? Если вы про то, что английская статья такая, то это, как мне кажется, менее важно, чем некоторое большинство (8 против 6; считал кириллицу и латиницу, потому что прочие языки переводит плохо, даже не понятно, это существительные или прилагательные) и проставленные подклассы. В лбом случае не вижу смысла сейчас менять шило на мыло. А вам нужно где-то указать "свойство Липшица"? Wikisaurus (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)