User talk:Infovarius/Archive/2017

Hi! I saw that you removed a good chunk of the work I did on Alanis Obomsawin's Wikidata page (which I did so then I could figure out how to correct the error you pointed out). Yesterday I had no luck in doing that but did not want to delete the changes as I was going to focus on that today. Do you have a recommendation on what would be a more suitable descriptor for all of the documentaries and shorts she did? Because "directed" does not exist, and trying to input it under her role as director results in messy data. I'd appreciate your support.

Morinjam (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Issue has been fixed (very easily). Now I'm going to try to find references for what you inputted yesterday.

Morinjam (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morinjam: Values of list of works (P1455) should be lists ("filmography" for example). Values of director (P57) should be humans (this property is for film items). I am afraid that there are no properties which can do what you want. And it is logical because 1) it is redundant as all this facts are already at appropriate film items (see below at https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q637195); 2) some creators have so many creations that it would be impossible to list all of them at one item. --Infovarius (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@infovarius I reverted previous (directors) to facilitate moving to the new listing (list of works). I uploaded this keeping in mind that some people are not literate in reasonator (like myself). Some people just want to scroll and see the data. It may be illogical to you, but I'm thinking more about accessibility of data here, thinking from the perspective of someone just learning how to harness it. Additionally, (I'm unsure if this shows up in reasonator, Alanis also has a music album, which currently does not have a wikidata item or wikipedia page. I'm currently working on fixing that and am planning on adding it into the "list of works" I was working on. While Alanis does have 50 films out there, I'm sure you've noticed only a small percentage of those films are actually represented on Wikimedia, which is why the ones I added in were in that list - they highlight the most well-known works by her. Once I have finished revising the article (and publishing it) I am planning on reverting your edit.

I would much rather join forces than do this constant delete-revert, wouldn't you?

Morinjam (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting, User:Morinjam, but Wikidata is naturally constructed for machine readability not by humans. And the data you are talking about is accessible by machines as it is presented in linked items. Anyway you are using wrong properties and you would be reverted by someone else. If you still insist on adding this information to Q637195, please try to create new properties for this. This is bad news. But there are good news also: you can add full list of her works without creating Wikipedia articles! You should just create new item per each of her work and enrich those items with appropriate items (and then you see a full list in the Reasonator). --Infovarius (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this edit you made. Do you feel that prose (Q676) should not be regarded as a genre? ~★ nmaia ^d 23:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:NMaia. Yes, but may be I can't to explain it 100% well. It's like animated film (Q202866). They are both forms (the Q676 is a form of text, the second is a form of film), not stylistic genres. Also Q676 is marked as subclass of genre, so it is not a genre itself too. --Infovarius (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день! Данный элемент - о направлении в искусстве/творчестве вообще, а fiction (Q8253) говорит сама за себя. Я её в качестве противоположного элемента как раз и поставил в non-fiction literature (Q27801). --INS Pirat (t | c) 05:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

А, вероятно, в элементе смешаны литература и не только литература. --INS Pirat (t | c) 05:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Кстати, спасибо, забыл об этом аспекте. Но в Q8253 действительно смесь... Fiction означает не только литературу. --Infovarius (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius,
about this revert:
Category:Manis (Q9754908) is a category corresponding at the genus Manis (Q25397).
Manis (Q2659251) being a subgenus, it is only a part of genus Manis (Q25397) (and not a synonym).
A genus can contain hundred of subtaxa (the possible rank being: subgenera, Sectiones, Series, species, subspecies, varietas, forma).
category's main topic (P301) should contain the exact taxon subject, not all its content (Imaging for "Animal", it would contain millions of items ;-))
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it, thank you. There was some inconsistency in Q2659251 and sitelinks in Q9754908, that was the reason. I've fixed it. --Infovarius (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same with [1]:
Category:Hippocastanoideae (Q8270304) is a family and Hippocastanoideae (Q163489) a subfamily (and they are not synonyms).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again there was a problem with Category:Hippocastanoideae (Q8270304) because it contained a mixture of family and subfamily. But thanks to User:Brya we've fixed it now. --Infovarius (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after these changes and according to this query only magnesium (Q660) appears to be using part of (P361)period 3 (Q211331) while other elements use subclass of (P279)period 3 (Q211331). I don't know which one is right but I think they should be kept consistent :) --Ricordisamoa 13:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricordisamoa: Yes, I understand it. There's also an inconsistency of labels in period 3 (Q211331)-like items. Russian (and not only) articles are about periods which are parts of the table. In advance: but I don't want to create items about periods :) --Infovarius (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asked at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Elements and periods --Ricordisamoa 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic waves aren't same thing as electromagnetic radiation. --Treisijs (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But redirects are about waves. --Infovarius (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then need create redirects in all languages and add this page. Why only these languages had redirects?!?! If my English would be better, I will give some examples, why redirects are bad idea not only in this case, but also another, too... --Treisijs (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both items need to merge?!?! --Treisijs (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remove only Latvian redirect, because in this case definetly that is wrong redirect. In article about eletromagnetic radiation (in Latvian Wikipedia) at this moment is only one sentence about waves... --Treisijs (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I dont fully understand why you reverted film series (Q24856) [2]. I wanted to remove them from constraint violations. Do you know better solution? JAn Dudík (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JAn Dudík: Because it's not exact: it's not a one film. Why not to add it to allowable types? television series (Q5398426) is already there. --Infovarius (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that based on (P144) is the right property for what you want to express with Christianity (Q5043) based on (P144) Judaism (Q9268) as based on (P144) is restricted to work (Q386724) and Christianity (Q5043) is not an instance of work (Q386724). What about separated from (P807)? — Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P807 sounds good for me. But I am ready to consider Christianity (Q5043) and Judaism (Q9268) as work (Q386724) (of human brain). --Infovarius (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. why did you revert me?--Mikey641 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because administrative territorial entity of Israel (Q1550119) is about full hierarchy of division: not only ‏מחוזות but also ‏נפות‎‏‏‏ and more. And what did you mean when adding first-level administrative division (Q10864048)? --Infovarius (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. I'm sorry. The hebrew label in administrative territorial entity of Israel (Q1550119). The hebrew label says that it's just about the "מחוזות" but it's not. Thanks--Mikey641 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Can we please use the talk page of this entity for this issue ? As already evoked, there is a noticeable conflict in the vicinity of astronomical object (Q6999), and the subclass you reverted could be part of it. There probably needs to be a clarification on the intent of this entity as a whole, and changes to be made around it (either on astronomical object (Q6999)'s subclasses themselves, or on a bunch of other entities pointing at it). Right now, astronomical object (Q6999) stands as both a non-specific (not only natural) entity AND a natural-only entity (eg. satellite (Q1297322)), which is problematic for definition purposes. Eledeuh (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Я удалил все эти обозначения со словами в скобках, ибо так их никто не называет. Это только уточнение в названиях статей. Хорошо, со словом «буква» в начале ещё ладно. По поводу [3]: что такое «зе»? Если уж, то «зэ». Ну да, произношение букв тоже можно вносить. И строчные тоже. Но в декапитализации диграфов не вижу смысла. Зачем? — 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Возможно, некоторые уточнения лишние. И лучше "зэ", чем "зе", да. Но моё мнение, что название статьи в Википедии обязано присутствовать если не в метке, то в синонимах - так определённее поиск будет. Насчёт диграфов, я не вижу смысла в капитализации диграфов - это же не имена собственные, да и чаще они встречаются в середине слова. И ещё, насчёт "предыдущий-следующий". Это зависит от языка, т.к. не все буквы кириллицы есть во всех кириллических алфавитах. Поэтому я изначально не стал проставлять эти свойства. Если уж быть точным, то надо их добавлять одновременно с "часть от: алфавит Х-го языка" (одно из этих свойств должно быть квалификаторов другого). --Infovarius (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

То есть, буквы вы капитализируете, а диграфы нет? Название статьи в Википедии: хорошо, буду его оставлять. А про предыдущий-следующий: да, добавлю «русский алфавит» в часть от. —1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Да. В буквах капитализация имеет значение: употребляются и В и в, причём узус различен. В метках для диграфов важно лишь отметить последовательность букв. Как вариант - можно наоборот все буквы диграфа капитализировать, но капитализировать только первую нелогично. Кстати, а что за символы вы добавляете в синонимы? У меня браузер их не распознаёт. --Infovarius (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

В синонимы добавляю архаичные формы, например: Д — Д с длинными ножками, Ъ — высокий Ъ и т. п. См. w:ru:Расширенная кириллица — C и [4]. — 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! According to this thread and this edit by Pigsonthewing. --Adert (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius, I think there is a contradiction:

vector physical quantity subclass-of physical quantity subclass-of magnitude

but surely a vector can't be a magnitude of a physical system or of any object because it is not "a property by which the object can be compared as larger or smaller than other objects of the same kind". A vector merely *has* a magnitude such as its "length" in geometric terms. DavRosen (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is some inconsistency. But I don't know how we can (and if we at all should) to resolve it. --Infovarius (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: When I did this edit I interpreted the statement as "prime number is the opposite of 1", which is obviously not correct. I now realized that you probably intend this to be interpreted together with the other "opposite of" statement like "the opposite of a number being prime is that it is either composite or 1 (which is true as long as you restrict the numbers to positive integers). I suspect, however, that this is not the correct use of "opposite of" as it results in a violation in the constraint report. /Pontus (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, may be it's not ideal so better to remove both. --Infovarius (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In my opinion only Pallas (Q3361501) should have named after (P138)Pallas (Q2276869). Athena (Q37122) already has said to be the same as (P460)Pallas (Q3361501), so named after (P138)Pallas (Q2276869) may be redundant. Do you agree? Best, --Epìdosis 20:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redundant. But another point that Athena (Q37122) is not about the name "Afina" or smth. but about goddess which has several names. --Infovarius (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have reverted my edit. The Polish category „Kategoria:Przysłowia indiańskie” refers to North American Indians, not to India, and the English "Category:Indian proverbs" refers to India, not to North America. Please, restore my edit. NoychoH (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoychoH: Yeah, sorry. Changed. --Infovarius (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Прошу объяснить, почему вы отбросили в свойственной вам манере написание имени с большой буквы в birth name Mark Twain? Или уже имя в рос. Вики пишут с маленькой буквы? samuel? Или это начало преследования конкретного пользователя? --Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Шкурба Андрій Вікторович:, извините, это я откатывал вандализм анонима, но что-то пошло не так... или я был невнимателен. Конечно, ваши подозрения не имеют оснований. --Infovarius (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо за объяснение. --Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius!

Please stop redirecting the Wikiversity Charges lecture to (Q1111) Electric charge! The lecture is about much more than the physical quantity of charge! Also, please discuss your suggested changes first on the item Discussion page! --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallsumter: Can you please explain what does this lecture include other than electric charge? There is words "responsible for electrical phenomena" in the introduction, and there is nothing about other charges (e.g. color charge) inside, so I believe that it is only about electric charge. --Infovarius (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: The lecture is about the origin of charge not about quark theory! And thanks for checking out the lecture and leaving it at Q28728293! --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallsumter: I still want to merge this lecture with some Wikipedia item. Explain me which charge do you mean? General physical charge (which is at charge (Q73792)) or electrical? --Infovarius (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: Wikiversity is not Wikipedia! The charge I'm lecturing about is not covered by either! Please leave the Wikiversity lecture where it is! Also, your attempts to understand are much appreciated! Please feel free to add them to the lecture's "Discuss" page! --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallsumter: can you be more specific? What do you plan your lecture to be about? Summarize it. --Infovarius (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I sorted out some articles and made some changes so that articles about the same thing was linked to the same item. You reverted my changes. Why?
--Item Q1271511 now linkes to one German and one Norwegian article which is about the same thing as item Q1329540. I did check the English and the French article and they are the same as the Norwegian and the German in item Q1271511.
-- The German article (w:de:Maßverkörperung) you connected back to item Q1271511 is a different thing. w:de:Maßverkörperung is a subset of w:de:Normal and should be linked to its own at present nonexistent item
-- The English article w:en:Standard (metrology), the French w:fr:Étalon (métrologie), the Norwegian w:no:Normal (metrologi) and the German w:de:Normal should be linked to the same Wikidata item. It is clear from the content of the articles.
-- Please bring the order that I tried to bring to Wikidata back. --Dyveldi (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged "everything", again. One of the items was marked as a subset of the other which was clearly wrong as they are the same thing. w:de:Maßverkörperung is now without an item and this is a subset of all of this. Please to not revert my changes a second time. --Dyveldi (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyveldi: Why have you done this? w:de:Maßverkörperung should have an item and it will have it, so anyway we'll have two items. And we had them. We just needed to sort sitelinks and statements. Can you make structure of 2 items with all prescribed sitelinks so as I can check it? P.S. Sorry for not answering before, I just have little time for analysis... --Infovarius (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now w:de:Maßverkörperung has an item all of its own which is not connected to the old item(s) which were merged because they were the same. --Dyveldi (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep care of your wording within edit comments. --Succu (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am just stating the fact. You've said that commons:Category:Birds is a redirect, but it is not. --Infovarius (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't know what a lie (Q4925193) is. I erred because I had another diff in mind. I think the removal of c:Category:Birds by Liné1 was correct, because this cat did not correspond to the taxon. --Succu (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From checking the en cat for Category:Dictyoptera (Q8376194) it was not obvious how it was different from Category:Dictyoptera (Q14953429). Would you please be able to put a criterion in place that makes the decision more overt. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One is a genus, the other a superorder. - Brya (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why en? There is no en in Category:Dictyoptera (Q14953429). All should be clear from statements (compare category's main topic (P301)). --Infovarius (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question: "but what should be a highest class for all (anti)particles?)". We have "quantum particles" but this includes non-matter particles like photons as well as antimatter particles and matter particles. We have ordinary quantum particle (not of antimatter) (Q28726955), which includes both matter and non-matter (but not antimatter) particles -- this item might not have really been necessary but I'm not certain. I may have made a mistake when I changed quantum particle of antimatter to elementary particle of antimatter -- I may have been too hesitant to create a new item for the latter since your message on my talk page :-) Maybe I should change that one back to being the highest class for all antimatter particles (bound systems of (only) matter particles? i.e. would technically even include macroscopic ionic crystals?), and maybe also change "quarks or leptons" (formerly baryons or leptons) to "quantum particle of antimatter" (highest class for particles of antimatter). I'm not certain whether or not we would really still need two classes for elementary particle of matter and elementary particle of antimatter, but I think maybe we still would and these could be new classes.

ALSO: another topic: I had created material substance (matter or antimatter) (Q28728771) because I thought matter (Q35758) excluded antimatter, but I'm no longer certain since both matter and antimatter have mass and and equally "take up space". I see two options if we don't want to consider (Q35758) to be in the strict sense of matter composed of quarks/leptons and not anti, and create a new item for matter in the strict sense excluding antimatter:

1. we could leave matter (Q35758) as conceptual/multidefinitional (like their wikipedia articles) and leave material substance (matter or antimatter) (Q28728771) as-is
2. Or perhaps merge material substance (matter or antimatter) (Q28728771) with matter (Q35758) ??

Come to think of it, maybe we should leave elementary particle of antimatter (antiquark or antilepton) and quark or lepton as they are so you don't have to change the Russian labels again?  :-)

A sitelink cannot point to a redirect.See Wikidata:Notability.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل : It can and it is allowed. See remark there. --Infovarius (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius, I've added discussion about its property "subclass of elementary particle of antimatter" but you keep re-adding it without joining the discussion. I said there: antibaryon is not an elementary particle so it can't be an "elementary particle of antimatter". Unless... are you are suggesting that we revert "elementary particle of antimatter" to its original label of "particle of antimatter" and treat it as such? The other alternative would be to create a new item for "particle of antimatter", and the present antibaryon would be a subclass of it. Do you have a preference between these two alternatives? DavRosen (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don’t object to cswiki’s link moved to organized crime group (Q4335775), but I guess dewiki’s de:Bildung krimineller Vereinigungen should be moved as well in that case? IIANM this is basically the same topic as the article on cswiki? --Mormegil (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Я предпологал Q8142 как legal tender и lawful money. currency (Q8142): "generally accepted medium of exchange for goods or services"

Исходя из этого:

• Georgian maneti (Q935678) не может быть валютой т.к. признавался только в 19-24 годах в уже несуществующей стране.
• Irish pound (Q270642) не валюта даже в Ирландии.
• Australian pound (Q783373) не валюта в Австралии.

"валюта" и "платёжное средство" это отъемлемая часть монет и денег.

Золотые монеты будут валютой, пока золото - обменное средство.

Приветсвую более точные определения с экономической т.з. d1g (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Infovarius: I don't understand edit here: 1.

How can Australian pound (not a dollar) or Irish pound claimed as current currency or generally accepted medium of exchange?

English and Russian Wikipedia quite clearly states them as currency in the past, not in present. d1g (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@D1gggg: Currency - is not necessary "current" :) Мы тут и историю описываем, если что. Так что можно добавлять "это валюта", имея в виду прошлый факт. Можно квалификатором добавить даты существования факта. --Infovarius (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius:, посмотрел как сделано у стран в Q713750 и Q34266: у обоих используется и историческое и суверенное государство.

В случае валют есть только "исторические" и обычные; "государство" у Q713750 и Q34266 не указано напрямую, только через 2 подкласса, поэтому я и указывал только "исторические" по примеру стран.

Остаётся вопрос нужно ли поднимать ранг у "историческое государство" на "рекомендуемый"? d1g (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@D1gggg: я бы поднимал. Если в свойстве содержатся исторические данные (особенно с датами окончания), то актуальная информация должна иметь высший ранг. --Infovarius (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? 91.197.junr3170 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit: Yes, I think that adding coordinates to mountain ranges is wrong. At least it is very imprecise. Mountain ranges normally cover large areas, that cannot be represented by a single point. The better way to find their position is to map all the mountains belonging to this range, like this query. You can compare it with the results of the coordinates attribute, the first one gives a lot more information (even though the mountain ranges hierarchy does not look complete, it should be continuous). It would also be possible to find the coordinates of the highest mountain if we really need to represent a mountain range by a point, but explicitely giving them a coordinate is at best a duplication of data and at worst misleading. Koxinga (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokinga: Yes, I think that all geographical objects should have coordinates (even oceans and countries do have). Of course, it is imprecise. So we should use least possible precision for example. Query is really good! If it were only possible to add it instead of coordinates! Actually there are very few really point objects on the Earth, so almost any coordinates are not precise and can be regarded by you as misleading :) --Infovarius (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius,

Thanks for your efforts but you have made mass changes in those items which I worked to fix just day or two before.

• Susanna and the Elders (Q28790008) was about Susannah - the biblical character (GND identifier). commons category - Category:Susannah. (the item before you have changed it).
• Susanna (Q756861) was about literary work included in the Book of Daniel. Has wiki articles (w:en:Susanna (Book of Daniel)) and commons caegory - Category:Susanna (Book of Daniel). (the item before you have changed it).
• Susanna and the Elders (Q16930210) was about specific artistic theme "Susanna and the Elders" see also works in VIAF. commons category - Category:Susanna and the Elders (artworks). (the item before you have changed it). Geagea (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Don't you think adding information on preceding/succeeding group members would be more useful for users than removal of information on element order? Szczureq (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Szczureq: This is enough. Because precedence depends on a sequence, e.g. for being part of Q428818 there are different preceding/succeeding elements. --Infovarius (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now and you're right. Szczureq (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Являются исключениями которые не смотря на всё измеряют в третийских унциях. d1g (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• en:XAG: "XAG/USD" means the price of 1 Troy Ounce Silver in US Dollars.
• http://www.investopedia.com/university/commodities/commodities18.asp
• http://www.apmex.com/spotprices/silver-prices - Silver Price Per Ounce, Silver Price Per Gram, Silver Price Per Kilo

I see that you have restored the Swedish interwiki link. Do you have any comment on Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved/2017#Giraffa (Q862089)/Northern giraffe (Q15083)? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Infovarius, you reverted part of my work on wind orchestra (Q881942) and concert band (Q762048). The former item is intended for all kinds of wind orchestras and ensembles. The latter is for larger orchestras with both wood and brass instruments (symphonic band or orchestre d'harmonie). I put the Italian article Banda musicale in Q881942 because it also discusses marching bands, fanfare and brass bands. The Galician article (gl:Banda de música) was first attached to the item for brass bands (brass band (Q3244156)), which was plainly wrong since the mentioned orchestras and the picture also have clarinets etc. It is a stub article, so categorization is difficult, but I thought the more general item was the best choice.

In this comment, you asked if I think Q881942 and Q762048 are the same, because I removed the statement that they are not the same, but instead I thought that different from (P1889) should not be used when there is another relationship between two items, like symphonic wind orchestras being a subclass of wind orchestras. Sincerely, Bever (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius,

I saw that you made a lot of edits dealing with Cryptogramma, like this one. These Cryptogramma names are just that: names. They are scientific names, formally established. They are not taxa. And as far as I can tell, it is unclear if they are synonyms of anything, let alone to which genus they should assigned.

The proper form is this. - Brya (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius. Additions such as Special:Diff/311127278, Special:Diff/251722090/254061222 or Special:Diff/252668348/Special:Diff/311128932 are worse than adding nothing, because you failed to add all atoms. Could you please fix those and also all other items with incomplete elements caused by your additions? --Leyo 20:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo:, I am sorry for these cases. Actually I was running the task for all elements (by included categories), so they should be full usually. I've fixed these three. --Infovarius (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which “included categories” are you referring to? Haven't you considered the chemical elements in chemical formula (P274)? --Leyo 14:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested to read your answer. ;-) --Leyo 10:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: I was using subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element (Q7158409) in Russian and probably English wikipedia. Chemical formula is an important indicator but I don't know how to use it. --Infovarius (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Infovarius --

I noticed that you reverted a March 1st change I made to the concept (Q151885) WD item, removing its subclass link to the mental representation (Q2145290) item. The difficulty here, and the reason for my edit, is that as it stands, Q151885->Q2145290 forms part of the following cycle:

 concept (Q151885)subclass of (P279)mental representation (Q2145290) subclass of (P279)representation (Q1272626) instance of (P31)concept (Q151885)

Not only does this chain create an indirect self-reference, but it also seems to imply that Q151885 is both a first- and a second-order collection (it's a subclass of the first-order Q2145290, but also has the first-order Q1272626 as an instance).

Breaking the cycle at the point of the concept (Q151885)subclass of (P279)mental representation (Q2145290) link seemed to me a relatively low-impact way to address the situation, but perhaps you could suggest an alternative solution to this imbroglio?

Thanks, Bill DeSmedt

@billdesmedt: I took the liberty of reformatting your assertions. Bovlb (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dab page about anything name like the title. Thus, it is not a subclass of something from Kazakhstan. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q364858&diff=365656833&oldid=365509599 85.182.8.26 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you find anything in these pages which is not about Kazakhstan? --Infovarius (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing the dab page. An dab page is not a subclass of a district of Kazakhstan. You have been told, you did it again. 85.181.191.148 02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss? --Infovarius (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do, you don't. Instead of proving that the initial two sentences are wrong, you only ask "Really?", which can be answered with "Yes, really" and you ask an unrelated question. Some clarification: "This is a dab page about anything named like the title. Thus, it is not a subclass of something from Kazakhstan." - because the title does not contain "of Kazakhstan" 77.180.36.209 12:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages also can be on some specific topic (see Wikipedia:Set index articles (Q24068417)). And here are the very examples. As for the title, not all properties are derivable from a pure title. For example, 12 (Q175014) doesn't contain "film" in its title but it nevertheless is. To summarize, don't be so formal, if practically some pages have some obvious properties rules should not prevent us from using them. --Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius, I thought it would better to have it in the unambiguous "positive integer" (Q28920044), but I haven't done so yet. One could argue about the correct meaning of Natural Number but the fact is that different people use it in both ways.

disjoint union of: values as qualifiers: of: 1: prime number: composite number

DavRosen (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Я по поводу отмены моей правки — удаления элементов из элемента Punto Switcher (Q4047648). Для чего вообще хранить историю о прошлых версиях? Считаю вообще ненужным занятием: если нужно, можно всегда посмотреть changelog от автора. — Dimon4ezzz ^(обс.) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

А для чего вообще хранить номер версии, если можно посмотреть его на оф.сайте? Это базовая информация, которую мы можем, а значит будем хранить. Конечно, достаточно иметь timeline для основных версий (первая цифра). --Infovarius (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius. You reverted my edits regarding the Tullimonstrum genus and the Tullimonstrum gregarium species. You may have not noticed that there's only one single species in the genus Tullimonstrum and, thus, all of these articles share exactly the same subject, they deal with the very same item. Consequently, they have to be reunited in one single item in Wikidata. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius - Thank you for separating genus from species. Some Wikipedias match their articles to the exact taxon, and linking an article to the wrong taxon causes errors if Wikidata-data is dynamically used in the article. 78.55.212.36 22:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, head of state = Governor, head of Government = Chief Minister. In Q1159 So both governor and CM cannot be placed under HOG. Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Mdmahir (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdmahir: May be. But head of state (P35) is incorrect too. It is only for countries. --Infovarius (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is that [5]? 78.55.212.36 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is taxon suspected in containing more than 1 species. --Infovarius (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The reason why I created a separate item was because s:ru:Швейцария is a disambiguation page, not a page about Switzerland. --Gikü (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gikü: it's a disambig about Switzerland like en:Switzerland (disambiguation) is too. --Infovarius (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Тайных советников может быть несколько, так? Я полагаю что отмечать это нужно subclass of (P279) civil rank of the Russian Empire (Q28745974).

Представителем Q718660 является каждый человек с таким титулом (Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky (Q4264611), только вместо P31 используем occupation (P106), правильно?

Версию Q718660&oldid=453289910 не совсем понял: почему instance of (P31) использован? d1g (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Дело в том, что civil rank of the Russian Empire (Q28745974) - это метакласс, т.е. как бы отмечает типы должностей (ведь ставим же мы для профессий P31=профессия). P106 в некотором смысле похоже на P31, да, поэтому смотрите: Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky (Q4264611) будет (~P31) тайным советников и, по транзитивности, если сделать Q718660 подклассом, будет также гражданским чином. Но ведь Алексей Александрович не гражданский чин, а человек, имеющий данный чин, правда ведь? Поэтому я считаю, что все чины должны стать P31 Q28745974. --Infovarius (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: речь о синекдохе по профессии:

если в книге написан "статский советник" то мы делаем вывод о human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568)

а уж "Алексей Александрович" ли он - это третье дело.

представители State Councillor (Q677455) как класса это неназванные личности - либо это следует делать по-другому?

"лесоруб" или "дровосек" как классы не следует использовать? d1g (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Пожалуйста, без синекдох в классификации :) Как класс советников (и лесорубов, дровосеков) я, полагаю, можно рассматривать (другие против, но я ещё поспорю), правда не подклассом civil rank of the Russian Empire (Q28745974), а например подклассом human (Q5) (или персон). --Infovarius (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: без них не обойтись, так язык работает:

observer (Q28973077) - явно "кто-то", а не просто "существующий объект".

Подсолнухи следящие за солнцем в Q28973077 подходят?

"возможная синекдоха о" свойство всячески поддерживаю.

Про глав завтра прочитаю. d1g (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For information, I always delete generic languages names items ("Korean name", "Ukrainian name", etc.) as a secondary P31 when the other P31 is more specific ("given name" or "family name"), after verifying that the language is correctly present in language of work or name (P407). It's for maintenance purposes, because these generic items are subclass of "name" and not of "given name" or "family name". It makes it more difficult to spot the items using a family name as a given name for example.

These items weren't created because they were needed in the ontology but only because some wikipedia have articles about it. I have yet to find an item like that without sitelink. When no sitelink exists, no one bothered to create items like that because the information is already correctly here with language of work or name (P407).

I don't usually delete correct-level-alternate-P31 (like "Ukrainian given name") because that doesn't mess up the queries but I don't think we should use them actually. I'm all for a more generic system we can reliably query no matter the language. But that's not exactly the same question than the name-level one, and something that we should probably discuss sometimes on the project. Granularity is always worth discussing :).

Either way, I deleted dozens of these redundant-non-correct-level-alternate-P31 and you reverted me on one, so I thought I would explain. I always verify the language is present on the item before deleting, so no data is lost. Have a good day! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go File:Landscape at Night (Malevich, ca. 1900).jpg ready to go back on d:Q15918830 per your request. Thanks for catching that, however, in future, message to my talk page, not on the deletion requests. Nothing is to be added to closed deletion requests. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) PS ping for attention.[reply]

Ok, thanks! --Infovarius (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q165115&diff=460851325&oldid=456290717 - NO! 77.180.29.207 14:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so rude. There was no vandalizing in adding an appropriate image. Infovarius (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, this change

ESL narasimhan is not head of government. He is head of state (governor). So I edit such a way. I can't get the info about violation. You can check other Indian state for similiar data. ie. Head of government and head of state. Thank in advance--Arjunkmohan (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjunkmohan: The problem is that head of state (P35) corresponds to state (Q7275) and not to federated state (Q107390), so this is a wrong property. This restriction is written in head of state (P35) and any misuse is logged at constraint violations page (to which I gave a link). All violations should be cleaned sometime (and if you say about all Indian states, they too). But another problem is that I don't know another appropriate property for your statements... May be it should be created?.. --Infovarius (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. How can we create a property which entitle 'head of federal state'. Its very common post in federal republic. I like to work on it. Thank in advance--Arjunkmohan (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius,
About this revert:

• commons:Category:Starfish is a subcategory of commons:Category:Asteroidea. So there is no added value to have both.
  • if we add subcategories in Commons category (P373), contributors will also add categories like Category:Families of Asteroidea‎...
• On wikicommons we recommand to link to scientific names categories (not vernacular names cat) because:
  • we prefer scientific terms: vernacular names are imprecise (biologists always avoid vernacular names)
  • vernacular names cat are named in one language (here english) which is not liked on wikicommons (Can you imagine the debate 'why not a russian category?' with the argument 'this species is endemic to russia')
  • Even in english there are many vernacular names for the same taxon
  • most of the times the 'vernacular names cat' contains garbage (pictures of unidentified species (which are also in a scientific named cat commons:Category:Asteroidea))
• the 33000+24000 entries of commons:Category:Biology_pages_with_wikidata_link have only one value in Commons category (P373)

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Infovarius. The property / spouse from Ludwig van Beethoven has "no value" (oder auf Deutsch: Das Feld Ehepartner hat "Kein Wert"). Greets, Harry Canyon (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry Canyon: Ja, welche Probleme ist es? --Infovarius (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius, about your revert:

You confused impresario (Q943995) with empresario (Q1049924). Sergei Diaghilev was an impresario.

Empresario means: a person who had been granted the right to settle on land in exchange for recruiting and taking responsibility for new settlers.

Please, correct your mistake, Csurla (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are right, thanks. --Infovarius (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not know about this property. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

..za catalog (P972): Wikipedia:List of 1000 articles each Wikipedia should have (Q5460604) . Otchen helpful. 85.180.174.34 15:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Пояснение (в ответ на комментарий «почему нет» к откату моей правки (ссылка)):

Удалил из элемента викиданных «Википедия:Консенсус» (Q4654351) добавленную мной же чуть раньше ссылку на статью русского Викиверситета v:ru:Викиверситет:Компромисс потому, что добавилось не то, что я хотел добавить. А хотел я добавить ссылку на другую статью v:ru:Консенсус. Но такую ссылку добавить не удалось, поскольку она уже входит в другой элемент викиданных «Консенсус (Q202722)». И при попытке добавить ссылку на «Консенсус» автоматически подставлялась ссылка на «Викиверситет:Компромисс». Поначалу думал, что эти элементы неплохо бы слить. Но потом понял, что они не совсем об одном и том же. По крайней мере, относятся в РуВики и в РуВикиверситете к разным пространствам (статей и правил). И сливать элементы никогда раньше не пробовал. Поэтому и удалил неправильно введенную мной ссылку из элемента «Википедия:Консенсус» (Q4654351).

Просьба: Если Вы умеете объединять элементы, и если объединение этих двух элементов в данном случае возможно и целесообразно, то сделайте это или помогите мне это сделать. Victor Manohin (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Manohin:, насколько я вижу страница v:ru:Консенсус всё-таки об общем понятии и его свойствах, а совсем не только о правилах конкретного вики-проекта (о чём Q4654351 и v:ru:Викиверситет:Компромисс). Поэтому мне кажется, сейчас обе страницы Викиверситета на своих местах. Infovarius (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Согласен, что и статьи, и ссылки на них в Викиданных сейчас как раз на месте. Пусть пока так и остается. Просто названия статей почти об одном и том же правиле в РуВики и в русском Викиверситете, которые теперь связаны интер-вики-ссылкой, зачем-то были сделаны немножко разными: Консенсус в правилах Википедии и Компромисс в правилах Викиверситета. И в этом тоже ничего страшного не вижу (Компромисс - частный случай Консенсуса). Причем внутри РуВики статья правила Консенсуса не только опирается на соответствующее общее понятие, и даже прямо ссылается внутри Википедии на соответствующую тематическую статью обычной ссылкой. Но она не связана интер-вики-ссылкой с этой тематической статьей, и тем более не связана такими ссылками с аналогичными тематическими статьями в других проектах.

Проблему (техническую) вижу в том, что невозможно установить между статьями разных проектов более одной интер-вики-связи даже с помощью Викиданных. И невозможно создать интер-вики-связь между статьями внутри одного проекта (например с одним и тем же названием или на близкую тему, но в разных подпространствах одного проекта). В этой технической невозможности я теперь почти уверен. Но если ошибаюсь, то поправьте меня, и покажите способ установить более одной связи между двумя проектами. И покажите способ (если он таки-есть) установить интер-вики-связь между двумя статьями внутри одного проекта. Тогда я связал бы между собой многими ссылками все компромиссы и все консенсусы. А получившаяся у меня ненароком связь между правилом Компромисса и правилом Консенсуса (пока их не назовут одинаково) осталась бы дальше такой как получилась.

Понимаю, что интер-вики-связи внутри одного проекта не особо-то нужны. Технически возможно вставить в статью правил (Консенсуса или Компромисса) обычную ссылку на соответствующую тематическую статью того же и даже другого проекта. Кстати, внутри РуВики такая ссылка в правиле консенсуса на статью об общем понятии консенсуса есть. Причем добавить туда же еще одну ссылку на соответствующую тематическую статью Викиверситета технически возможно, но для этого пришлось бы внести изменение в правило РуВики, а это уже организационная проблема. Причем для меня на данный момент именно в РуВики просто неразрешимая (моя учетка в РуВики бессрочно заблокирована за ОРИССы). Но и в Викиверситете, все не так-то просто, во-первых, формально название тематической статьи (Консенсус) отличается от названия статьи правил (Компромисс). Во-вторых, правило должно опираться на что-то устоявшееся, а не на незаконченное и не рецензированное исследование. И в-третьих, изменение правила уже само по себе (по моему личному горькому опыту, приобретенному на правиле цитирования в РуВики) дело довольно муторное и неблагодарное.

На этот мой комментарий можете не отвечать, если я правильно понял упомянутые в нем технические ограничения Викиданных на установление дополнительных связей между статьями. Victor Manohin (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q144&diff=474883328&oldid=474727475 - Q144 is P31=common name, but Canis lupus familiaris is not the common name. Why do you so frequently vandalize ia/iawiki content? 92.228.158.143 18:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is to make mistakes in languages without good dictionaries.

Please create an account, so that you can indicate your levels of proficiency in languages. d1g (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Замысел на Википедии не могу уловить.

"Ресторан" сильно недописан по сравнению с "Restaurant".

Мне нажется что "предприятие общественного питания" впихивают в "restaurant" и не парятся от отличиях. d1g (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Мне больше волнуют отличия "ресторана" от "restaurant". Да, мне тоже кажется, что "restaurant"="предприятие общественного питания" в некотором смысле. В том числе и бургерные и макдональдсы, которые в России бы ресторанами не называли, я считаю. --Infovarius (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ещё User:Edward какую-то деятельность по пересортировке провёл, надо его спросить. @Edward:, can you please comment, how do you relate ru:Ресторан and ru:Предприятие общественного питания vs en:Restaurant? --Infovarius (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak Russian. Q19316447 has the English label 'high-class restaurant', do you think this translation is reasonable? I think Q19316447 is a subclass of Q11707 (restaurant). Edward (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Infovarius (about [6]). A sentence can not be substituted by two items on Wikidata, I try a binominal notation as a compromise. Sometimes I need two items for a meaning, but originally it is only one Greek word. I want to count them someday, as well. Examples: halite (word), milarite (naming locality), iowaite (naming state), surinamite (naming country), shibkovite (two people), rruffite (organisation), yanomanite (ethnic group), neptunite (deity), banalsite (acronym), clinoclase (compound word), etc. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Навигация |Викисклад={{#if:{{wikidata|p373|{{{1|}}}|plain=true}}|Category:{{wikidata|p373|{{{1|}}}|plain=true}}|}} |Тема={{{2|{{PAGENAME}}}}} }} --Arjunkmohan (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or can you forward to other Russian Wikipedians and retreat the code. This template code is not in my wiki. Help me!--Arjunkmohan (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjunkmohan: May be such:

{{Navigation |Commons={{#if:{{wikidata|p373|{{{1|}}}|plain=true}}|Category:{{wikidata|p373|{{{1|}}}|plain=true}}|}} |Topic={{{2|{{PAGENAME}}}}} }} But you will also need Module:Wikidata copied. --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re:

My intuition was that Q20055913 was the same tool as items I edited recently. I did several attempts but was unable to spot functional difference from "решётка для гриля".

Feel free to object this talk about Q20055913 or my suggestion at P279 about almost the same items. d1g (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Да, с богами есть сложности. Но в данном случае (моя правка) вроде проще: Q3773693 явно более общее понятие, чем гриль. --Infovarius (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

В Q20055913 была одна португальская ссылка grelha (решётка 30 на 60 см), я её объединил с Q390409.

Грилей в любом языке два: один как технология grilling (Q264619), другой - установка по этой технологии barbecue grill (Q853185)

Решетки и шампуры (и ухваты, которые я потерял) относятся ко второму в качестве вспомогательных объектов. d1g (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you reverted my edit of lowest point (P1589) in Poland, so I thought we can talk about it. I could not find any references for the claim about Żuławy Wiślane being the lowest point in Poland, while Central Statistical Office of Poland the most respected institution in Poland charged in keeping track of stuff like that, listed Raczki Elbląskie as the lowest point in Poland. I followed the reference "English Wikipedia" to check if they had a reference for Żuławy Wiślane claim and w:en:Poland also lists Raczki Elbląskie as the lowest point. So unless we can find some references for it I would rather keep it out. --Jarekt (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt:, thanks for writing me. I've found an article about this valley in Russian geographical encyclopedia, it says about -1.8 meter, so I've added the reference. --Infovarius (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have Undone you edits as The Electro magenetic radiation is the suitable topic for மின்காந்த அலைகள். Don't be confused and Hope you'll ping me while replying!--Shriheeran (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shriheeran: isn't this article about electromagnetic waves? I see many parameters of waves are discussed there. --Infovarius (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is about Radiation--Shriheeran (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius

A courtesy note ot let you know that I have modified some of the changes that you made to Metrolgy-related defintions ("Unit of measurement" and "English system of units". After you made your changes, I reread the article on the differences between "is an instance of" and "is a sub-class of" and found that I had made a few errors. I have also reverted one of your changes, but only after consulting these documents. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, User:Martinvl, but I don't understand your changes in statements... --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am quite confused about these two items. Would you please explain to me what is the difference between them? Regards, --Sintakso (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We all agree to the "one string" / "one item" system for names. We agree that "Leonid" isn't the same name as "Леонид". We also know that right now, thousands of item are mixing several names. Can you please split the names instead of just adding another P1705 and writing system? In all cases, we need to correct: labels, descriptions, and uses so that they are correct with the P1705/writing system. I know Jura decided many mixed name were in fact Latin-script ones, but I really don't care if you keep that or not.

But I care when you only half-correct these items, adding a Cyrillic P1705 and Cyrillic writing system without correcting labels, descriptions and uses. Either you create a new Cyrillic item or a new Latin item; I don't care at all which one, if in the end we have only clean items (labels, descriptions, properties and uses). When you only "correct" the P1705 without cleaning up the rest, we have German people with the name "Леонид", which is as much wrong as Russian people with "Leonid" was. We should strive to make Wikidata better, not replace mistakes by other mistakes. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harmonia Amanda: I appreciate your work and attitude but statement that "Leonid" isn't the same name as "Леонид" is doubtful for me. They are like different forms of one name. What should we do if a person with name "Леонид" is widely referred in Latin-alphabet sources as "Leonid" (which is logical as it is the only transliteration)? "Latin" speakers know him as Leonid, "cyrillic" speakers know him as Леонид, but these are the same. Or do you think that we should add to each person all transliterations of their name into all scripts? --Infovarius (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius:. No, "Leonid" is not the only transliteration of Леонид. For example, in French, it could be "Léonide". A person should have only their name in their language; multiple values for people who emigrated, for example. So a Russian person would only have Леонид, and a German one Leonid. That's the only correct values. We split variations of the same names since 2013; Jules is the French variation of the Spanish Julio, and of the Italian Giulio, etc. A string, an item, that's the system chosen for years. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harmonia Amanda: There's logic in your word... But I don't feel fully comfortable with this system. Couple of issues: 1) if we split Q6081128 into Latin and Cyrillic items where commons:Category:Alexandra (given name) should go? It fits both as Commons doesn't separate names of different scripts yet. 2) Again about belorussian names. E.g. Ihar (Q16831923). Let's take for example Igor Lapshin (Q1657767) - he was a soviet man, so obviously he has Russian name (Игорь). But he was born at city of modern Belorussia so it has given name (P735) Ihar (Q16831923). I don't know about his main or tongue language, but he has official Russian name "Лапшин, Игорь Олегович". Actually be:Ігар=ru:Игорь and they are used interchangeably in Belorussia. Should we use both forms of name? --Infovarius (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: I don't know for Commons, we should probably ask a Commonist what they want to do. I don't usually move Commons categories around if they are linked to a credible item. It's like any other case of Wikipedia talking about several subjects at once, except this time it's Commons. We created many items "name" just for the sake of enwiki which is talking about both given names and surnames in its articles; we could probably create items like Andrew and variants (Q389) just to handle Commons if they don't want to clean up.

For Belarusian people during the Soviet times, they had both names legally, no? I would add both names, Ігар and Игорь, since both were true. Like all Alsacians people who became Germans in the 1870s and suddenly had their names changed; both names were true (or when the reverse happened after World War I). I think it's exactly like an Icelandic or Czech person in France; we would most of the time use their names in Latin-script "normally", including such signs as Þ or č they have in their native languages, but if they became French, their names would be "normalized" with only signs existing in the French alphabet. In Wikidata, we would add both form of their names. Or like for Indian people, who speak several languages, whose languages can be written in several writing systems…

There are also two-scripts languages, like Japanese. Most names are in kanji, but all names can be written in kanas, and the same kanji can be written several ways in kanas (but each combination kanji-kana is a different name, and the same person will always write their name the same way): we created items for each combination. Like Yomo (Q27242665) and Nishikata (Q27242666) are actually written the same way in kanji, but are not at all the same name. Everyone with a kanji name have a kana form of their name; but the reverse is not true…

I think human names are really complicated and we can't have a perfect system which will work every time. The world is to big a place for that. But I think the "one string, one item" offers the most easy way to handle most cases. So that we can know if someone was really named "Aleksiej" or if he was named Алексей and it was a Polish person who transliterated… --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Infovarius, wegen deiner Bearbeitung an der Bundesautobahn 6 siehe Hinweise unter Help:Label/ru#Неоднозначность. Die russische Bezeichnung habe ich von Q9042 = А20 kopiert. --Labant (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Labant: und was muss ich da sehen? "Метки могут быть неоднозначными"? --Infovarius (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Und darunter ein Beispiel:

Titel des Artikels in Wikipedia: Russland (Theater)
Label in Wikidata: Russland
Beschreibung in Wikidata: Theater in Moskau

--Labant (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So "A6" ist besser als "Автомагистраль A6", nicht war? --Infovarius (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genau passt --Labant (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрьій день! Касательно Q17281079... А не могли бьі Вьі присоединить туда перенаправление uk:Доктор хімічних наук? А то я пьітался, но не смог... --Олег.Н (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Олег.Н:  Done --Infovarius (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ein kleiner Hinweis:

• gemäß Wikidata:WikiProject Roads/Typical properties ist bei instance of (P31) immer road (Q34442) einzutragen
• bei transport network (P16) ist autobahn in Germany (Q313301) eingetragen.

Siehe auch Wikidata:WikiProject Roads/Germany/Bundesautobahn. --Labant (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear for me... I don't see any road network (Q358078) in autobahn in Germany (Q313301) but I see subclass of (P279) controlled-access highway (Q46622). --Infovarius (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the statements:

Bundesautobahn 6 (Q9016)transport network (P16)autobahn in Germany (Q313301)

autobahn in Germany (Q313301)part of (P361)road network in Germany (Q1683114)

road network in Germany (Q1683114)instance of (P31)road network (Q358078)

--Labant (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you make this revert? I split the items ru:Хейфец and en:Heifetz following these guidelines. There is another rule in wikidata to make separate items for pages that are disambiguations and pages about surnames thar contain lists of people with this surname. --Jarash (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarash: I don't like separation of surname-disambigs from surname item, but here was also another problem: there were three items about Heifetz! --Infovarius (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your edits, I was testing a tool, and I pressed the wrong button without noticing it! Martinligabue (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean ru:Шаблон:Кинопремия

| метка4       = Место проведения
| викиданные4  = P276

- Kareyac (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kareyac: Sometimes using autofilling from infoboxes can be wrong, but here... May be you're right. It just looks not ideal property for me (how can award be located somewhere?) --Infovarius (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, award can't be located, but only award ceremony. Maybe significant event (P793) → award ceremony (Q4504495) with location (P276) when physical location (Q17334923) is permanent looks some better? - Kareyac (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used part of (P361) instead of part of the series (P179) there because I was fixing the constraint errors from The Hunger Games (Q11885031). The way you fixed it displays a constraint error in the property of The Hunger Games (Q11885031). If instead of part of (P361) I should be using part of the series (P179) then there should be a way to specify in has part(s) (P527) that the inverse could be any of part of the series (P179) or part of (P361). -- Agabi10 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it's a problem. But part of the series (P179) is subproperty of (P1647) of part of (P361) so it should be allowed as a reverse of has part(s) (P527)?.. --Infovarius (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zh.wikipedia "蠵龟" is just a redirect (is even not using R from XXX templates) to zh:赤蠵龜, why do you think that such redirects are permanent duplicates? on-going RFC? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't want duplicates-redirects. I don't know why it was, may be zh:蠵龟 was deleted after item creation? --Infovarius (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your edit. Russia (Q159) is an item for articles about concept of "Russia" which started in 862 (see w:ru:Россия#История). It is not an article about "Russian Federation" that started in 1991. You can create a new item for each stage of Russian history if you need to differentiate them. --Jarekt (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: There are items about all stages of Russian history. Or do you believe that Russia (Q159) includes periods of Kievan Rus' (Q1108445), Russian Empire (Q34266) and Soviet Union (Q15180)?? Do you think then that Kyiv (Q1899) can be called Russian city as it was in Kievan Rus' (Q1108445), and Warsaw (Q270) is Russian because it was in Russian Empire (Q34266)? Even if so, it is better to use more exact term, and practically Russia (Q159) is used as "Russian Federation". See Template:Constraint:Period at Talk page, for example. --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, what do you mean by Commons Creator page (Q24731821)? There exists commons:Template:Creator (unfortunately not at this item), but I couldn't find such template in Tchaikovsky pages... --Infovarius (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

自行车运动的第一句是：“自行车运动常指借助自行车（或称单车）开展的各种运动的总称”，明确说明了该条目仅指自行车运动。对应于 Cycling 的中文应该叫做“自行车骑行”之类的。 -- Ma3r (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am sorry, Google Translate seemed bad for this. Please do as you know. --Infovarius (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imfovarius! I reverted this edit of mine, because I thought that there wouldn't be much sense for the name of a mythological person in a native language, as it's not a real person, and thus it doesn't have a native language. On the other hand it makes sense to give as native name the name in the language in which the person was first fictionalised or had a great influence. So I guess in this subject 2 native names should be given, one in Ancient Greek and not Greek, and one in Latin, as Aeneas was also referenced in Roman mythology. I am all ears to listen to your opinion! SucreRouge (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SucreRouge:! Of course, it should be Ancient Greek and not Greek, I missed that. And you are right about Latin, I think. It's interesting opinion about language of first fictionalizing, I have to think about it, at least I have no objections now. --Infovarius (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made these 2 edits, so we are clear for now. Happy editing!SucreRouge (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, SucreRouge, but one more thing: Ancient Greeks used aspiration (Q320433) (one of 2 types) necessarily when a word starts with vowel, so it should be corrected here. --Infovarius (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Привет, у тебя, случайно, нету бота, которым может поудалять неверное утверждение для набора элементов? Около 5 тысяч элементов я случайно запортил, и руками править как-то тяжко. ShinePhantom (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Да, я могу, что нужно сделать? --Infovarius (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShinePhantom: sorry for not pinging... --Infovarius (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeing this diff, I'm not too sure what you mean: if it is an item about the family (and not the family name), then the instance of (P31) → family name (Q101352) must be removed, along with most of the statements, but the item cannot have the two P31s at once: it is either a family (ie a group of people related by blood, with a founder, members and so on) or a family name (ie, a string, with a writing system, a language, etc.) -Ash Crow (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ash Crow: it's difficult to differ. The article is about surname, with its history and variants of spelling (writing system doesn't matter, surnames are usually transliterated and translated frequently). But all persons having this surname are from one family which (of course) is described in the article, with its head and kinship. --Infovarius (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

головка чеснока не плод, а луковица

Я такую правку делать не стал, потому что исключений много может быть, особенно среди редких растений (съедобные листья?) d1g (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

i removed link to en.wikt, because it's a list with all languages contained in English Wiktionary. At de.wikt or lb.wikt there a statistics about languages. At mi.wikt is no comparable content. At csb.wikt there is a list with languages containing languages which are not in csb.wikt. Do you now understand why i deleted en.wikt? Maybe there are more links, which are not like de.wikt, lb.wikt or nds.wikt containing statistics. Best regards --Yoursmile (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, thanks for the analysis. By the way, mi and km are just translations of en, so they should fit. But pl is about phrasemes, I'll move it. I'll think how to divide en-group and de-group. --Infovarius (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand why you reverted me [7], list of Middle-earth animals (Q2700354) is a Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) that should not be used to "define things" with P279 or P31 (it is the same for Wikimedia categories). This a constraint violations of P279 [8]. There is has list (P2354) to link to Wikimedia list. For dragons of Middle-earth (Q2014788) there are already Middle-earth race (Q989255) and fictional species of animal (Q15702752) as instance of (P31). Akeron (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sh:Safavidska Monarhija from the main item. Article is about both dynasty and empire, like English and majority of other articles. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: but the problem is that items in Wikidata should be clearly about one topic. And we have Safavid dynasty (Q161205) for dynasty, and Safavid Iran (Q18234383) for state. What do you think is the best choice for sh? --Infovarius (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why do you revert my deletion of Sturm und Drang (Q207741) as a genre (P136) ?. What Sturm und Drang (Q207741) is, a movement (P135) or a genre (P136) ?. One of them, but no both properties. In my opinion is a movement (P135), as WP articles say. Disagree ?, tell me why. Otherwise, please delete the one you consider is wrong. Thank you.--Amadalvarez (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume, you agree. I go ahead. Thanks --Amadalvarez (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadalvarez: oh, I haven't noticed movement (P135) with the same value. Then it's ok. --Infovarius (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a little more information. Is there a guide for how to link Wikidata items with Wiktionary pages or should I just not bother. The information at Wikidata:Wiktionary may be useful for regular Wiktionary contributors, but there is nothing there I can parse as instructions for how to proceed; if that information is there, it would definitely be useful for someone to make it easier to understand. — OwenBlacker (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenBlacker: there is not so much information at all, I suppose. I can say that now we are linking categories, templates, indices, appendices and rhymes (if the latters are relevant at all). Articles in main space (words/phrases themselves) are not linked through Wikidata now, the work is going to maintain them but this will be very different from usual sitelinks. You can find a scheme at Wikidata:Wiktionary but honestly I don't understand it completely yet. On the other hand, different articles from language editions of Wiktionary are linked automatically now, just after creation, e.g. en:check to de:check. --Infovarius (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{Ping|Infovarius}} It sounds like I might want to avoid making any edits related to Wiktionary for now, at least. Thanks anyway :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Коллега, мне кажется семантика этих свойств следующая: imported from Wikimedia project (P143) - это место, откуда информация была взята (википедия, freebase, любая другая база данных, которая может быть, а может не быть reliable source), а stated in (P248) - это как раз reliable source, т.е. то что может быть сноской в википедии. Разве нет? --Ghuron (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghuron:, да, конечно. Извините, невнимательная правка была. --Infovarius (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made this edit is to distinguish integer (Q12503) the set of integers from integer data type (Q729138), one integer. It's correct to link the latter to http://schema.org/Integer, but not the former.

Why do I think integer (Q12503) refers to the set of all integers: because it's denoted Z and it's "instance of: set". So not only its label, but the description should also be changed. And "different from integer data type (Q729138)" should be added --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: Please comment on the above! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why these two edits? paraphyly (Q208755) is currently defined as a subclass of taxon (Q16521), and parent taxon (P171) is a subproperty of subclass of (P279). --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Infovarius. I removed the durarion in some films because in some versions of Wikipedia (such as the Spanish) we use various infoboxes for different uses. For example, when we are talking about the soundtrack we can't see the duration of the soundtrack album (not the film) because the parameter in Wikidata understand the durarion for all infoboxes in the same article. I think is a data that anyone can find easily in IMDb, for example. Will there be any problem? Thanks. --5truenos (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@5truenos: I think that this is a specific problem of Spanish Wikipedia, because in Wikidata we tend to separate different objects into different items. So soundtrack is always at different item from the film. You can load data for soundtrack into the article using some Lua functions through statements in item for film. So I insist on keeping the durations in film items. --Infovarius (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you reverted my edits. I merged islamic prophet and you revert this. please sir revert edits to my last rivision. thanks --BukhariSaeed (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the statements for Q174907 (SPICE) were incorrect for the SPICE electronic circuit simulator that it is supposed to describe. Several others had previously tried to remove them, since they kept affecting the English Wikipedia article on that program, but you added them again. I have just removed them once more, with an explanation on the item's Talk page. Whoever originally added those statements confused the SPICE electronics simulator with an unrelated program, the SPICE remote-display system. The latter is written in C++ and has a source-code repository on freedesktop.org, as well as a Gentoo package under app-emulation/spice. These have no connection to Berkeley's SPICE electronics software, which was only written in Fortran and C, and long predates online source-code repositories (though source archives do exist). --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Douglas Howell: I've moved statements to Simple Protocol for Independent Computing Environments (Q1557101). Is it right? --Infovarius (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, thanks! That should solve the problem once and for all. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день! Мы не ставим ссылки на перенаправления, в s:ЭСБЕ/Моль только и говориться, что "моль" — это тоже самое, что и "грамм-молекула", но нет никакого объяснения, что это такое. Поэтому нет никакой пользы в этой связи. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergey kudryavtsev: Почему нет? Польза хотя бы в том, что мы честно показываем, что есть статья с одноимённым названием, пусть и недостатья. Кстати, а все элементы для ЭСБЕ-перенаправлений имеют общий класс (типа Wikipedia:Soft redirect (Q7200789))? --Infovarius (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed occupation (P106) from Ilf and Petrov (Q262816) because it violates subject type constraint (Q21503250), and the occupation (P106) statement is present on Ilya Ilf (Q471443) and Yevgeny Petrov (Q714739). Danmichaelo (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but how should we mark that this is specifically writers duet? --Infovarius (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to do just one merge, as juk (Korean: 죽(粥)) is a Korean name for congee Please see that the Chinese article zhōu 粥) and the Japanese article gayu 粥(かゆ) that are linked with congee use the same Chinese character as juk. The English article congee also contains juk as its Korean name. Other dishes in en:List of rice dishes are not the same case. --Azeite (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Azeite: oh, such a trouble with these cultural differences in cuisine! The problem was that ru/uk/some others articles were not about juk (and may be not about congee), so I was against your moves. Now after rethinking I created a new item: rice porridge (Q35661296) and moved some links and statements there. You can check please. And now I am doubt that ms/id articles are the same as congee (Q878624)... --Infovarius (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

( https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q30250598&oldid=prev&diff=530867958 ) Because it’s not really a useful property. That do not match what it’s supposed to represent. What is meant is that the solar system is fully partitioned into « inner » and « outer part ». But this vaguely works because there is only two parts that « complements » each other to form the solar system. This is nowhere close to be able to express that france is partitioned into its regions. This is why I think that while full of good intentions the « opposite » solution is a bad attempt to represent something real. We should create a property to represent that. I think of a property similar to disjoint union of (P2738) but for the whole/part relationship. author  TomT0m / talk page 22:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikidata:Property_proposal/fully_divised_into

Ok, may be "opposite" is a vague property here (you mean the next diff, I suppose?). But I don't feel the need in new property, it's enough to put all possible (all known) constituents in e.g. P527 and we will mean that they form a full set. Better may be to create (or use some) item for "etc." meaning that the set is not full. --Infovarius (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand why you are engaging in an edit war on Vučetić (Q4128453) to insert a constraint violation. Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) pages lists entries that share a common thematic. Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) pages lists entries that share a common name. Both are subclasses of list (Q12139612), but they don't have the same purpose. If you consider that all disambiguation pages should be doubled as list pages, this would be a major change, so please first obtain a project-wide consensus on the project chat. -Ash Crow (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User_talk:Liuxinyu970226#Moving_my_comment_about_Chinese_conversion_.28Q15630179.29_into_a_thread_about_Geonames_.3F
--- Jura 16:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This statement was deleted, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q838948&diff=prev&oldid=537270330 , because to be subclass of (P279) implies to have *all* the caracteristics of the parent in heritage and it is not the case. Not all artworks are items of collection or exhibition. Some examples of artworks, among many, which have no collection (P195) : Fallen Astronaut (Q1161218), Fresco of Saint Christopher of Saint-Sorlin-en-Bugey (Q19318054), The Sun (Q18891206), Flammarion engraving (Q1426992), JAS minnet (Q10538835). Furthermore, as described in the item page, if an item is an instance of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) or subclass, it implies that the work has ou should have the property inventory number (P217) and it will not be possible for all work of art (Q838948). Therefore work of art (Q838948) should not be subclass of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264). Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shonagon: I'd say that item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) mean "it can be in collection or exhibition". May be I'm wrong.

Hello Infovarius . item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) doesn't mean "it can be in collection or exhibition" but "it is in collection or exhibition" not only in descriptions (French, English, German, Spanish ...) but ontologically too with the properties for this type (P1963) that implies inventory number (P217) and collection (P195). As explained, that doesn't correspond to many instances of work of art (Q838948) so logically this item should not be subclass of (P279) of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264). I just want to aware you about two things on which I am worried here: first, an explicit and strange vision of the world that artworks are necessarily linked to collection or exhibition; secondly, the consideration that subclass of (P279) could be used approximately without any specific need. An exemple of perverse consequence of the second: if we want to look for item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) (and subclasses by inferences) missing inventory number (P217), tere will a big lot of false positive of artworks. Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the vandalism - testing band infobox harvesting, and apparently someone linked the role instead of the member's name.
--Ejegg (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your reversion, as I understand it couldn't be together swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8022145) and 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8613), because second one includes the first one which is redundant. I deleted swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8022145) to be coherent with the level of the other values from previous games. Probably, the item to keep should be swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q8022145) because it's more specific and also change the other values to their correspondance (swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Q193735), etc.). Do you agree ?.--Amadalvarez (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: I assume you agree. I proceed, thanks.--Amadalvarez (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadalvarez: I agree. The more specific the better. --Infovarius (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what wiki is Q5678860 a disambiguation page? In both, EN and SR, the pages seem not to describe a particular data structure, but list some lemmas, known as "Hash trie". So I would consider them as disambiguation page, even if the do not use the according categories. --jmkeil (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that User:ValterVB wouldn't agree with you :) --Infovarius (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only my idea :) You can start a discussion on Wikipedia and ask if there is agree to change the page in a disambiguation page. --ValterVB (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are undoing my edits? BukhariSaeed (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BukhariSaeed: because Wiktionary articles should not be linked to usual items. Only Wiktionary categories/appendices/templates and so on. The reason is that they are linked to each other by Extension:Cognate now, but which word (of which language) to link with a notion is a random choice so it is wrong. But don't be afraid, they will be linked to Wikidata soon - through special type of items: Lexemes. Read carefully Wikidata:Wiktionary. --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't know about that and thanks for explanation. BukhariSaeed (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard (Q1249148) Peter (Q2793400)

• Питер
• Ричард

Не понимаю почему речь о произношении когда в метках написание в первую очередь.

Для произношения IPA свойства нужны. d1g (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Дело в том, что это не русские имена, а Richard и Peter. Нельзя однозначно сказать, каким русским словам они соответствуют, поэтому нельзя дать однозначную метку. Я бы предпочёл вообще оставить оригинальное написание. Другой аргумент: разве Richard Wagner (Q1511) - Ричард? --Infovarius (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ну никак не "Ричард/Рихард/Ришар Вагнер"; через дробь - самый проблемный вариант для множества задач.

@Infovarius: в описании можно первым словом "Richard - англоязычное, мужское" d1g (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@D1gggg: не вижу, чем плохо через дробь. А какую метку вы предлагаете? Кстати, это не только англоязычное - остальные не готовы разделять английские и прочие (французские, напр.) имена, если они имеют одинаковое написание. Хотя можно попробовать надавить в этом вопросе. Бразильские/португальские/испанские уже некоторые разделены. --Infovarius (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: никакую либо Richard

В любом поиске "Ричард/Рихард/Ришар Вагнер" это 0 результатов и без подсказок.

Смысл не только вводить, но и пользоваться потом без лишних движений.

"Richard Вагнер" подсказывает варианты d1g (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Infovarius, I noticed your edit and added the Coat of arms of the Russian Federation (1992-1993) to the gallery to make it complete. Hopefully that was not a bad move. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ş = spoken sch! Yours Avernarius (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is spoken "шакшука" :) but sch or sh - it depends on language. --Infovarius (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read en:Drama - you'll see that this is only a part of fiction - along with epic and lyric. So "historical drama" isn't equal to "historical fiction". --Infovarius (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOU should read it carefully. As I said before (and said in the article you mention), Drama has two different senses in English :

• the one you admit ("Considered as a genre of poetry in general, the dramatic mode has been contrasted with the epic and the lyrical modes ever since Aristotle's Poetics (c. 335 BCE)—the earliest work of dramatic theory." or "The use of "drama" in a more narrow sense to designate a specific type of play dates from the modern era. "Drama" in this sense refers to a play that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy")
• and the other one, broader, means "fiction" : see the first sentence of the article ("Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance.") or "In English (as was the analogous case in many other European languages), the word "play" or "game" (translating the Anglo-Saxon plèga or Latin ludus) was the standard term used to describe drama until William Shakespeare's time—just as its creator was a "play-maker" rather than a "dramatist" and the building was a "play-house" rather than a "theatre"."

Concerning Historical period drama, it is clear that the second sense is use : "The term, historical period drama (also historical drama, period drama, costume drama, and period piece) refers to a work set in an earlier time period" and "It is an informal crossover term that can apply to several genres"...

Elfast (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Привет. Это не понимаю точно: [9]. Если для эти две звания употребляется P155, потом - есть это хорошо, что для народный артист РСФСР и народный артист СССР употребляется P156? --Okino (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Okino: Не говорю 100%, но по-моему P155/P156 употребляется не всегда однозначно. Здесь их можно понимать как "следующий по времени существования награды" или "следующий по этапу присуждения". --Infovarius (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте, Infovarius. У меня возникли сомнения на счет https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4530918&oldid=553390272. Нужно ли вообще указывать все "реинкарнации" вымышленных персонажей? В случае, например, некоторых зарубежных персонажей в шапке "instance of" может быть по 7 (!) и более элементов (animated character, comic character, film character, game character, television character и т.д.) просто из-за того, что франшизы обрастают фильмами, комиксами, мультфильмами и прочим.

Есть ли какие-нибудь правила на счет этого? Выглядит это все не очень, из-за чего я склоняюсь к тому, что лучше оставлять в "instance of" только те элементы, которые относятся именно к оригинальному персонажу (в случае Электроника — это элемент "literary character", "film character" же уже вторичен). Не говоря уже о том, что при такой практике "instance of" в элементах персонажей будет сильно разрастаться. --Russian Rocky (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

А что делать? Если элемент реально о персонаже всех этих жанров, то нужно указывать. Другое решение - разделять персонажа на несколько элементов (один из книги, другой из фильма и т.д.), но он мне не всегда нравится. --Infovarius (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Т.е. каких-то четких правил, как я понял, нет?

На счет же разделения персонажей, то это уже чрезмерно. Конечно, если это не отдельный случай, вроде Кларка Кента (Супермена) из "Тайн Смолвиля", который имеет собственную статью: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q774772

Как вариант, для всех сопутствующих воплощений персонажа франшизы (animated character, comic character, film character, game character, television character и т.д.) можно использовать отдельный элемент. Заметил подобную практику в отношении списков персонажей, например, в случае списка персонажей Винни-Пуха: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1153462 Хотя, пока я не могу судить насколько адекватен такой вариант.

Было бы, конечно, намного лучше выработать какой-то консенсус по этому поводу. --Russian Rocky (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Участница Valentina.Anitnelav уже по факту разделяет некоторых персонажей - особенно выделяет диснеевских. См. например: Snow White (Q2739228) vs Snow White (Q14153484). Да, и Винни-пух тоже, причём не пойму, куда лучше воткнуть связь с нашими мультиками в Q1427030 или в Q188574.

Так что пока стандарта, наверное, нет. Надо пробовать и обсуждать всем вместе. --Infovarius (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you classified Q1752346 as type of meeting? I reverted https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1752346&diff=496829498&oldid=481126783 as it implied that "organization that uses parliamentary procedure to make decisions" is special type of meeting. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because in en-wiki: "A Deliberative assembly is a gathering of members". --Infovarius (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello, sorry for bothering. but could you elaborate ob why you think algebraic structures shouldn't be marked as instance of (P31) algebraic structure (Q205464)? i presume it's not only regarding group? because its used for many algebraic structures, and i didn't start it. i don't particularly care for for their instanceof value, i'm just curious and open for improvement. thanks. :) --opensofias (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opensofias: do you know the difference between instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279)? There are several groups for example, and all of them are algebraic structure (Q205464) I suppose. So group should be subclass of (P279) algebraic structure (Q205464). --Infovarius (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert in card game (Q142714): subclasses of this item are used with the sport (P641) property, thus this item somehow should be subclassing sport (P641) — or you need to repair all affected P641 claims as well. I spend a lot of time to keep the constraint violations list at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P641 short, and you shouldn’t break things up like that. Thanks and regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's sufficient to add some sport subclass to card games which really are. I've worked out CoVi report a little bit: tinyurl.com/ycpdabv9. What are you specifically unhappy now about? --Infovarius (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you explain why you reverted this edit please? It's also relevant for Q4053951, and I'd like to understand how we should be representing the country of things in this area at the moment (and how we can ingest that into location maps in infoboxes on the English Wikipedia). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a state and it is violating property constraints. As status quo I suppose we just mark both countries for current Crimea objects. --Infovarius (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Something like this? Mike Peel (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: Yes, and it can be refined further. --Infovarius (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Maria B. Ospina (Q38304648) was wrongly merged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) is not a human at all... --Infovarius (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Good, spot, thanks. I wonder how that happened? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I can't help - I don't know which tool you've used. --Infovarius (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand your changes at [10], you are saying that the given name (P735) of Konstantin Päts (Q299114) was in Cyrillic script (Q8209) rather than Latin script (Q8229)? Do you have a source for this, as that seems rather unlikely? --Oravrattas (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oravrattas: He was born in Russian Empire and lived in USSR so he is likely to have passport (or other official documents) in Russian as official language of these countries, but I cannot prove this by good source. And ok, Latin form is probably was used too. --Infovarius (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in Estonia, during the period of the revival of the Estonian language, and before the period of Russification, so it seems highly unlikely that his documents would have been in Russian, at least at birth. And as the founder of an Estonian language newspaper, and a leader of the War of Independence, etc., it also seems highly likely that, even were his documents bilingual, he would have very strongly preferred the Estonian language version. --Oravrattas (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that bilinguality of documents would be enough for using Cyrillic too. --Infovarius (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you rb, why you consider Black Sea part of Atalantic ocean? Is part of Mediterranean Sea. --ValterVB (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, can you prove that it is a part of Mediterranean Sea? --Infovarius (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте! Я заметил, что 15 сентября вы создали свойство Mariya. Нашёл я его по использованию в утверждениях к объекту https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4225826. Но ведь уже есть свойство https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q325872 Maria, оно очень похоже на созданное Вами. Если я правильно понимаю, то Вам надо удалить похожее свойство, если я прав? -- NEW ZENIT (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NEW ZENIT: проблема в том, что Q325872="Maria" & Q39897333="Мария" (разные алфавиты). Это если кратко. --Infovarius (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: понятно. А есть где-то объяснения на эту тему? А то не очень очевидно, зачем для одной сущности создавать несколько страниц, хотя для этого есть "In more languages". --NEW ZENIT (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NEW ZENIT: Если немного подробнее: 1) "Мария" может транслитерироваться на латиницу по-разному: Mary, Maria, Marja и т.д. и все эти формы могут считаться разными именами у них. 2) В англовики создаются разные статьи под разные варианты и в результате не избежать нескольких элементов... 3) вообще добро пожаловать на Wikidata:Project Names и тамошнее обсуждение. --Infovarius (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: food ingredient (Q27643250) - food (Q2095) is defined (by us) as "any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for the body...", so yes, I am sure that starch (Q41534) is covered by that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте. Вижу, что вы участвовали в обсуждениях об именах Константин, Сантош и т.п. Можете вкратце по-русски объяснить, как это тут устроено, и почему существуют разные items для одного и того же имени. Я вот столкнулся с Q30724063, Q21654787 и Q933726, которые судя по статьям ВП на разных языках - суть одно и тоже. Dmitry89 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Определение "фонтан" я из ГОСТа взял.

• geyser (Q83471) - в геологии и добыче ...

Другие выходы воды в природе отличаются по происхождению:

• hot spring (Q177380)
• hotspot (Q105131)
• spring (Q124714) - без давления

Выход лавы отдельное являение: может "фонтанировать", а может медленно растекаться.

Разные слова по разному происхождению "фонтанов". d1g (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Смысл "фонтан = столб воды" (или жидкости или газа) не отрицаю, но на "городских" фонтанах он не усместен. d1g (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This because it is redundant w.r.t. data transfer rate (Q495092)--Horcrux92 (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? --Horcrux92 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Horcrux92: Oh, yes, sorry. --Infovarius (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

На каком основании Вы отменили мою правку в Q8559959? Это категория для статей о клещах из рода Ixodes, которая как раз входит в категорию Иксодовые клещи. В русском языке разделяют эти понятия. --VladXsmall (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VladXsmall: Пусть разделяют. Но это же монотипное семейство? Так почему нельзя называть Ixodes также именем "Иксодовые клещи"? Я же просто синоним добавил. --Infovarius (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Не монотипическое (19 родов). 2) Согласно :ru:ВП:ИС/Таксон на любое рус. название нужно АИ. У Вас есть АИ, что Ixodes = Иксодовые клещи? --VladXsmall (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VladXsmall: Я имел в виду подсемейство. Но да, раз в семействе "Иксодовые клещи" есть несколько родов, то нельзя отождествлять только Ixodes с ними. Убираю. --Infovarius (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that an "intensive physical property" is not a "physical property"? It sounds weird. --Horcrux92 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Horcrux92: It was not-exact English label that embarassed you, I suppose. "Intensive physical quantity" is a "physical quantity", of course. --Infovarius (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The english (and italian, and spanish, and so on) label came from intensive or extensive property (Q911916) and I think it was the correct one. I think we should create four distinct items for "intensive/extensive property" and "intensive/extensive phisical quantity", making the first ones subclasses of the second ones. --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Horcrux92: Oh, the problem is deeper, I see. intensive or extensive property (Q911916) also has different labels in en and ru - "property" against "quantity". Reading en:Physical property I see a sentence "Quantifiable physical property is called physical quantity." But the page (and discussion page) is quite stale, and it doesn't contain energy or velocity as an examples of physical properties (but I insist that they are physical quantities nevertheless), so I don't know what to think... --Infovarius (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you reverted my edit on Saint George, you must have access to some kind of information that has escaped the rest of the informed world. His alleged live and death is based on legends and speculations about possibilities. Please state your sources. --Orland (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate my message on User_talk:Ovagner? I think he doesn't understand English, keep fixing this every day. Thanks in advance. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Infovarius (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, answering to your 'Why not' revert comment, setting fictive characters as author (P50) values is considered a constraint violation, and rightly so in my opinion: if we start to mix authors and narrators in the same property, that's gonna be a hell to sort them apart later :) -- Maxlath (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange CoVi. Because P31 fictional book (Q74574) is allowed but who is the author of it? In my opinion we can allow any class of authors. For some authors we can't even tell if them fictional or not (or could not some time ago, e.g. Ossian (Q15837802)). Sorting them is not so hard actually. --Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the merging? Steak (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steak: because I've investigated that one category is about individual remarcable trees (instances) and another is about classes of trees (usually species which are grown in this country). If you suppose that any sitelink is placed wrongly you feel free to move it. --Infovarius (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Steak (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed again Latin from the official languages of Vatican city. Vatican city has only Italian as official language. Latin is the official language for the Holy See, which is a different entity from Vatican City.

Tcp-ip (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unit of account" in Russian is "Денежная единица" (now redirect to "Валюта", currency) or "Мера стоимости" (now redirect to "Деньги", as one of money functions, measure of value). "Счетная денежная единица" or "Счетно-денежная монета" means "Coin of account" (de: Rechnungswährung). "Условная единица" is local russian form of unit of account. --Kalashnov (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Не обратил внимание, что русский для вас -- родной язык. Могу все это изложить еще раз по-русски, так будет точнее. Есть некоторая путаница в интервиках, которая начинается с понятия "Условная единица". Это российское явление, точного мирового аналога я не нашел, поэтому интервику у него пока не нужно делать. Сейчас же она направлена на "Coin of account" (Q354091).

• "Coin of account" (Q354091) -- это русская "Счётно-денежная монета" (а сейчас это "unit of account" (Q747699))
• "unit of account" (Q747699) -- в зависимости от контекста это русские "Денежная единица" (сейчас редирект на "Валюта") или "Мера стоимости", одна из функцией денег (сейчас редирект на "Деньги"). Чаще русскому "Мера стоимости" стоимости соответствует английское "Measure of value", поэтому лучше делать соответствие между "unit of account" и "денежная единица". --Kalashnov (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with categories, not pages with categories. There's already the link to the Commons category on the Aria (band) Wikidata item. If the item is about a page there's the property P373 to add the Commons category -- Blackcat (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Categories with categories, and pages with pages. --Infovarius (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please construct an English-language description for Q1211272, to aid clarifying exactly the distinction you wish to maintain between it and Q24841283? Thank you! Also, based on the German-language Wikipedia article linked from Q1211272 and the English-language Wikipedia article linked from Q24841283, I have restored the AAT and LCSH terms to both Wikidata records. --TimK MSI (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! About your rollback on this item, in italian we use to capitalize the word "Stato" for avoiding ambiguity ("stato" is also the past participle of "essere"). See for example it:Stato. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed unit from Titanic (Q25173) because the property definition for P1093 clearly says "Gross tonnage (GT) is a unitless index related to a ship's overall internal volume", examples have no units and most of the actual uses have no units. Having just a couple of values with units just adds confusion. If you think there should be units, then the property definition should be changed and units added to all uses. Also, having net register tonnage (Q6998519) and deadweight (Q1332978) as units on gross tonnage (P1093) does not look right - if these are quantities different from GT, they should have their own properties. Q6998519 doesn't even have instance of unit. And Q1332978 does not have any useful unit definition - if it's unit of volume, how much cubic meters is it? Without this, it is not useable as unit - you can not compare it with other units of volume. And the point of units is that they are convertable and comparable. So I don't think putting units on this is the right way to go - at least without adding more properties and/or changing the definitions. Laboramus (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The links in the given names items prevent the merging of the two items, so there is actually no need at all to add a link from the family name to the given name. If a need arose, like for infoboxes or such, some people thought about creating a property "given name identical to this surname". So if you have a real need, talk to them? There seems to be absolutely no case where different from (P1889) would make sense. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте! там не только про войну на востоке Украины, но и про вторжение в Крым (посмотрите интервики). Так что я поправил определение. --Шмурак (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care which way given names are cleaned up when the original item was a mix of several names, I usually go with the easiest way to clean. And I let them with clean labels, descriptions, aliases, properties and uses. We can disagree on what the easiest way to clean was and what given name should have the dubious honor to "keep" the original Qid. As I said, I don't care.

But what I care about is that when you start to revert the clean-up because for some reason you want to change the Qid (no idea why, by the way), you should do it entirely: clean up labels, descriptions, properties and uses. Because otherwise you are leaving a mess worse than what things where at first. You repurposed the "Vlada" I used as a Latin-script name as a Cyrillic name, cleaning the uses but not all the descriptions, labels and aliases, which most certainly ensure it will be wrongly used in the future. If you change the properties and the uses please correct the labels/descriptions/aliases too. That's part of the work.

(And for information, most Slavic names will have several perfectly valid transliterations in the same Latin language. So yes, it's perfectly normal to have several label/aliases in French to the same Russian name for example, all correct.)

--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change the meanings of different Влада now, but I consider the current situation wrong. 1) Actually it's you who repurposed Q22806785 (and now completely demolished it) - it was created as Russian name "Влада" (but with ambiguous latin labels "Vlada" as it was no problem then. Note that you also not cleaned uses of this redirect. 2) Now Q21531807 has inadequate Latin labels, as for Belorussian part of the item, because it usually transliterated as Ulada. Look at 2016's edits of Jura1, which are now demolished. P.S. But I don't let you to change from Vlada to Ulada in the item. 3) I don't know if User:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў will be happy with merging of Russian and Belorussian names. --Infovarius (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your remarks: you said that Vlada (Q21531807) was at first a Cyrillic name and... it still is. All people wearing this name really wear the Cyrillic one and not the Latin-script one, even people who are linked to the redirection right now (because a bot correct the uses of redirections to the correct items, so it would be a problem if in reality their names were in Latin script but since they are in Cyrillic and using a redirection to the Cyrillic name it creates no problems).

For Vlada (Q7938169) I agree with you that the current form is problematic. There are two way to deal with it, either consider that "encompassing" items like that should have a writing system as they are only here to has part(s) (P527) the correct existing given names, which would mean deleting native label (P1705) and writing system (P282) from the item, or to specifically restrict it to one native label (P1705) same as all other names, which would mean deleting has part(s) (P527)/part of (P361) to the Cyrillic name. Frankly both types are in use in the project right now for encompassing items (we have several for different Japanese sharing a transliteration for example) and I'm not sure which way would be better. I'm mostly of the mind that we should delete string information from encompassing items because content articles are usually about several names but I'm not deeply convinced it's the better solution and we should have a collective discussion on the project about it. Right now Vlada (Q7938169) is both about the string "Vlada" and all names either written or transliterated as "Vlada", which we both agree is absurd.

Please don't ever use Jura1's edits of 2016 as an example of serious work about transliterations. These edits were made based only on one label, without taking into account the original string. He used the English label for all latin-script languages even when these languages don't share at all the same transliterations systems. He did it not only for Cyrillic but also for Korean or Armenian, etc. There were talk at the time to just massively delete all his contributions because most of them were terribly wrong. The only reason why it wasn't done is that we didn't have the necessary tools then to only delete his "work" on transliterations and keep his other edits. But they are still wrong for the most part. Vlada is the most frequent transliteration of Влада, even in its Belarussion version, in all languages I checked, Ulada being another less usited one. And yes, I checked, instead of just copying it mindlessly from language to language.

We create one string, one item, regardless of how many languages use the same string. So Улада (which by the way is most frequently transliterated as "Ulada") would be another item than Влада. Aliaksiej (Q19412966) (Аляксей) is not the same as Alexey (Q29014670) (Алексей). But when Belarussian and Russian names are written stricly the same way, I don't see whey they shouldn't share an item? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the different sitelinks in Category:Euclidean plane geometry (Q6770414), I realised there could be a problem. In several languages (like German, English, French, Italian, or Spanish), planimetrics (Q1133157) refers to either the study of plane measurements or to the representation of space or surface in a plane; however, in Russian and Ukrainian at least (could be many more languages), the sitelinks in planimetrics (Q1133157) appear to correspond with Euclidean plane geometry (Q3760348). It seems to be a case of words with the same root, but having evolved into a different meaning. Could you check them up please? Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 01:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreasmperu: I am not sure that I understand the difference between planimetrics (Q1133157) and Euclidean plane geometry (Q3760348)... --Infovarius (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! А как правильно отчества указывать? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! Да не указываются они в виде утверждений (пока?). И элементов специально для русских отчеств я не находил, и свойство patronym or matronym for this name (P2976) предназначено для связи имени (а не человека) с отчеством (например, Johansson (Q1699018) для Johan (Q10989273)). --Infovarius (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius,
About [11]: On wikicommons for biology, for many taxon there is 2 categories:

• one named with the scientific name (Animalia). These are recommanded because scientific name use a latin form which is international
• one named with the vernacular name (Animals).

Venacular name categories are not to linked to:

• They are only tolerated because named in a single language (compared to international 'scientific name'). We fear that contributor will create cat for other languages (we already have some chinese cat)
• It is a kind of trash were photos of unindentified species
• Vernacular name cat are always placed inside scientific name cat. So access to Animalia give you direct access to Animals
• Currently 100% of taxon have only one Commons category (P373): the scientific name (I enforce it with templates which put the bad wikidata items in wikicommons:Category:Pages with biology property incorrect on Wikidata)
• If we want to use Commons category (P373) in templates, it is simplier if they contain only 1 value

When we try to hide it, you want to promote it.
Please, let me remove it.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: I can cite the articles linked to semi-continuity (Q955072). Altough there is no such thing as semi-continuity (Q955072) as an indipendent concept (semi-continuity (Q955072) is the property exhibited by semi-continuous function (Q43304466)), many pedias have articles named after the first that instead talk of the latter. To avoid potential flames caused by moving all those pages, or controversely defining semi-continuity (Q955072) as a subclass of function, the statement has characteristic (P1552): semi-continuity (Q955072) for semi-continuous function (Q43304466) seemed to me a good compromise to connect those Qs. --Ogoorcs (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The discussion on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books#Language property had been a bit hijacked (sorry about that). So I come here directly to be sure, is it clear to you now? Do you need more explanations? (I can give you, no problem, don't hesitate to tell me if I'm not clear )

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: I must admit that I was more comfortable with using P364+P407 in edition (Wikisource) items as it shows both original language and language of a translation. Often there are no "original" item and sometimes it is even unknown (so it can't be or shouldn't be created)... --Infovarius (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand one can find it easier to have all information on the same item but in the long run, it is a very bad idea (especially for books with many editions, it leads to duplicate the same information other and other instead of centralising it on the item about the work). And true sometimes the item about the work doesn't exist but the solution is then to create it (and if needed to create the page on Wikisource, I create a lot of those on frwikisource). I may be wrong but I feel you are mixing the item about the original edition (which is indeed sometimes unknown) and the item about the work (which is always known and quite easy to create). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infovarius. Schießpulver is the same as english gunpowder, so please don't revert my correction. Or do you really understand Alemannic? --Holder (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? The way I read it, Schwarzpulver is gunpowder, Schießpulver is more general. - Brya (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, may be you're right. So I think it would really be the best to merge de:Schwarzpulver and als:SChwarzpulver with en:gunpowder. Thanks and best regards. --Holder (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Brya (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece, East Blue (Q334877) is both "a list of episodes" and also "an anime tv series season", since its article en:List of One Piece episodes (season 1) also describe the details of the season, not just list the episodes. "anime tv series season" is subclass of "anime tv series", so One Piece, East Blue (Q334877) is an "anime tv series" (or "tv anime" (anime television program (Q11086742)) in short). --Ans (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not think he had a twin :( --ValterVB (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the correct definition, bro. And I don't know why you think my edit is suspicious - I am a patroller and rollbacker in Chinese Wikipedia and I also hold one global right due to difficulties... --1233 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1233: I am sorry, I have used Google Translate and it showed complete nonsense. Can you please translate here your description to English? --Infovarius (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius:: Both means a general description of a geographical location which is slightly higher than the surrounding areas.--1233 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Infovarius, could you please reasonably object at Talk:Q31645, or revert your revert in multisport race (Q31645)? The entire process to optimize the situation around this item is stalled since your revert. Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infovarius. You obviously want to keep the narrative functions (protagonist, antagonist, etc.) as a qualifier on present in work (P1441) and you started to remove the direct claims. It is ok for me to keep the qualifiers, but I'm against removing the uses as main properties.

First: I also think that subject has role (P2868) should be mainly used as a qualifier. But it is/was not restricted to the use of a qualifier. It is used on taxa quite a lot as a main property (75838 results) and I think that it can be useful to indicate the narrative function(s) of a character in this way, too.

The narrative function is the kind of information about an entity that should be expressed in a direct claim: It is a significant trait if a character appears anywhere as a main character, it is useful for lists and categories like Category:Video game bosses (Q8218450) and the only way to be able to qualify the narrative function (e.g. via sourcing circumstances (P1480)). To be a foil (Q5563727) means to be a foil with respect to another character. One would need to express this via another qualifier (see Christian Buddenbrook (Q42324815) - I admit that the qualifier I used here may not be the right one).

I started to remove the qualifiers to avoid redundance and make it easier to maintain. If you still want to keep them I will leave them there. But please give reasons for removing the direct claims. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's keep both for a moment. I think that at least it should be possible to query qualifiers too. I don't know if it is possible now. @Magnus Manske:, how about full support of qualifiers in Reasonator (list of linked items through qualifier, for example)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Вы вот спрашиваете "зачем удалять?", отвечаю: затем что эти даты означают одно и тоже. Зачем заставлять редакторов сопоставлять даты разных календарей, это ведь черевато ошибками. К чему ваше "это вообще должно быть первоосновой" я вообще не понимаю. Представление даты в источнике я указываю в quotation (P1683), взгляните на статьи ЭСБЕ в referenc'ах для грегорианских дат. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergey kudryavtsev: Одно и то же, да. Но какой формат нужнее? Современный григорианский для удобного использования или юлианский для оригинальной даты? Я не уверен, что можно выбрать единообразно и раз и навсегда... --Infovarius (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't happy with moving this property to qualifiers. How would you model restrictions like (P518)/(Q295299) and sources for the command?

well, I see your point. This is a restriction with Wikidata's data model.

There are three options.

1. How you had edited them (separate TeX strings). This (A) allows for qualifiers to the TeX strings, but (B) does not allow for associating TeX strings to specific case/form/variant. (\varsigma vs \sigma vs \Sigma)
2. How I had edited them (TeX strings as qualifiers). This has the opposite pro/con.
3. Both qualifiers and properties for TeX strings. This (A) preserves all information, but (B) may have redundant and/or conflicting information.

I think the last one (having both) might be a good idea. What do you think? If you like, please feel free to edit them as you see fit. Merry Christmas. Osteologia (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Osteologia:. I understand that #3 could be an option. But I suppose #1 also allows to associate TeX strings to specific variant (by qualifiers!). --Infovarius (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]