User talk:Sergey kudryavtsev

If you leave a message here, I will answer it here. So check back later.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.

Q590171 и другие

Для уточнения названия надо использовать описание. Уточнения в названии — рудименты импорта из Википедии. Да и на отчествах в описаниях не стоит экономить :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Q15724724 и Q15636293

Пытайтесь, пожалуйста, найти категорию в Википедии, особенно на родном языке автора. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Уже не актуально — в Category:Ludwig Tieck (Q9009162), Category:Ludwig Uhland (Q9009167) они уже есть. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

Hallo Sergey,

I was wondering if you would be interested in being an administrator, so you will be able, amongst other things, to process deletion requests. I have nominated someone from Sweden and I am inquiring a native French speaker if he wants to join the team and I feel a Russian (speaker) would benefit the team as well, for balance and the interpretation of slavic languages. If you would be interested I would be happy to nominate you as well. - - (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but i have not enough time for adminship here. If you need Russian-spoken аdministrator, i guess that Eugene Zelenko is better choice. Additionally he speak Belorussian, Bulgarian and Polish. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion; I have just contacted Eugene. - - (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

from narrative universe (P1080) -> present in work (P1441)

Pourqoui replacez-vous? 1) Quelle est la difference? 2) Quel propriete la meilleur a utiliser pour le personnage de l'univers de fiction? --Infovarius (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

from narrative universe (P1080) link with a fictional universe (item that have instance of (P31) with fictional universe (Q559618)), present in work (P1441) link with a work. I am correcting the wrong uses. If it possible, both properties should be used (for exemple Aragorn (Q180322) has both from narrative universe (P1080) with Tolkien's legendarium (Q81738) and present in work (P1441) with The Lord of the Rings (Q15228)) but most fictional entities doesn't belong to a notable fictional universe, so we can probably use only present in work (P1441).

There was many wrong uses, linking works with P1080 instead of P1441, but I think I cleared most of those. Is that more clear? (I answered in english because you say you understand better english, but as I'm not a native speaker don't hesitate to tell me if I am not understandable). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied my answer to @Infovarius: here, because you say you understand a little english. I hope it clears matters, because I can translate in russion, sorry. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Q18705633

I don't agree. What is the reason for that?--KRLS (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Russian Messenger (Q19577155) is not The Russian Messenger (Q1850566)

Moved to User talk:Juan Mayordomo

Proposal

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for your comment at here. I was wonder if you would consider supporting the proposal to see where it goes. We could work on a more generic solution later. BTW This is more generic and could also be applied to names. --- Jura 08:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's better to use a generic solution immediately. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Q991)

Мне кажется не стоит указывать квалификатороы URL/том/страницы/название для тех словарей, что есть в Викитеке. Лучше их указать в самом связанном элементе. Они там всё равно потребуются, а после включения arbitrary access будут доступны и из основного элемента. -- Vlsergey (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Это я понимаю, но текущая реализация в Википедии шаблонов-карточек требует этого, чтобы создавать ref'ы (URL и том, страницу почему-то игнорирует). А автора действительно можно перенести туда уже сейчас. Кроме того, элементов с таким оформлением пруд пруди — всё равно надо будет преобразовывать ботом… И обратите внимание на мой вопрос к вам на форуме в Викитеке. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Да, текущую реализацию нужно будет менять, как только включат arbitrary access в рувики. -- Vlsergey (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RSL catalog

Hi Sergey, why shouldn't we use RSL editions (P1973) together with RSL scanned publication ID (P1815)? I thought that was the reason why we need a second property? Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Please, read first my discussion with Hazmat2 at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control. Hazmat2 expressed an opinion in regard to "having multiple identifiers for essentially the same thing". If P1815 value 01XXXXXXXXX, then P1973 assumed to be XXXXXXXXX. E.g. The Kiss and Other Stories by Anton Tchekhoff (Q15839163) has P1815 = 01004438677, so P1973 assumed to be 004438677 (004438677 at search.rsl.ru). If some item will have both, the software will have a dilemma. IHMO this is a minor issue. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hazmat2 wrote: "While I don't like the idea of having multiple identifiers for essentially the same thing, I realize that in this case they're not." As far as I understand that means: ok, we can use both properties for one item. @Hazmat2: Any objections? --Kolja21 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have an opinion as you have both read, but want to make it clear that my opinion is not the end-all-be-all, and I'm not an administrator. However, I would hedge toward using both for now as in this specific case, they are two separate pieces of data. I think in the future, if RSL gets its act together, it will be easy to delete one if needed. Hazmat2 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

TeX string (P1993)

TeX string (P1993) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

code postal (Q15079384)

Hello Sergey ! Someone on February named your item Q15079384 "postcode" ! Could you check and write the correct name for it ? Regards --Cquoi (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't known French, so i simply undid this edit and write the name and description in English. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sergey ! OK, I have just added it in French and the name appears now correctly : Sergey Mikhailovich Seredonin (Q15079384).

Издание

Пожалуйста, не используйте edition or translation of (P629) для указания сборника, в котором опубликована работа, как вы сделали в On the Eve (Q144547), например. Это свойство является обратным к has edition or translation (P747) и вызывает ответные правки как в Русском вестнике. --Infovarius (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Согласен. Но вербальное описание свойства (слово "издание") подталкивает к этому, согласны? С другой стороны и Yamaha5 мог бы сначала подумать, а уже потом делать.

Я уже так более не делаю, а использую в этом смысле published in (P1433), это правильно? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Исправил On the Eve (Q144547) Не знаете ли вы инструмента, который бы мог изменить свойство в утверждении, сохранив все квалификаторы? Врукопашную такие изменения делать слишком хлопотно... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Возможно, надо подправить русскую метку. Yamaha5 много не думает, он много правит. Часто его/её за это блокируют. P1433 в самый раз. К сожалению, такой технической возможности в Викиданных нет, чтобы изменить только свойство. А вот инструмент-костыль могли бы придумать, но я пока о таком не знаю. --Infovarius (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ещё было бы удобным аналогичный инструмент, заменяющий P357 (P357) на title (P1476) (и другие пары): если бы в контекстном меню был бы список языков, то преобразование можно было бы произвести всего в один клик. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

p2128

Thank you for your help with flash point (P2128). --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Be carefull in future. ;-) -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Samples

Hi Sergey kudryavtsev,

As you had been working with the samples, you might want to comment on this. --- Jura 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i don't see this disscussion. For me as a programmer, the usage of P1863 (P1863) etc is more clear (for a documentation of the property we don't use the property itself). But from a average man's standpoint, this looping seems more natural. For now i do not have a clear opinion regarding this question. I will vote soon. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters that much. One can easily be converted in the other. IMHO, the approach with specific properties is cleaner. --- Jura 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Q15726745

Недостаточно ли указать один источник даты смерти -Википедия? Чем лучше университетский московский источник — воронежского, указанного сноской в тексе статьи, или ещё какого-либо другого? Nick Fishman (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Википедия сама по себе не должна быть источником для Викиданных. Утверждение imported from Wikimedia project (P143) = Russian Wikipedia (Q206855) вообще не говорит, откуда в Википедии эта эта информация появилась — ссылка на источник должна быть в самих Викиданных. Более того, в w:ru:Бельский, Леонид Петрович дана более точная информация, чем сейчас в викиданных: "Умер в декабре 1916 года в Москве" со ссылкой на www3.vspu.ac.ru. Её-то вы и должны были занести, вместо того чтобы просто удалять ссылку на www.poesis.ru. Leonid Belsky (Q15726745) я поправил. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

DNB

Hi Sergey kudryavtsev

I noticed you did a lot of clean-up on these entries last month. Please see Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#DNB. --- Jura 09:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

DNB2

Please see the note on your bot's talk page. --- Jura 14:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Дизамбиги-фамилии

Какое ваше мнение по поводу проекта Имена? В частности, для Вишневского вы предлагаете восстановить Q21491139 и использовать его (пустой, без ссылок на Википедию) в качестве значения family name (P734), хотя есть вполне подходящий дизамбиг? --Infovarius (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Я к проекту Имена отношусь с подозрением. Возможно два варианта: либо фамилия и дизамбиг — это два отдельных элемента, каждый со своим описанием, либо один и тот же. Во втором случае элемент должен иметь стандартное описание дизамбига, чтобы исключить создание двух одноимённых дизамбигов. Для Vishnevsky (Q1705782) лучше подходит первый вариант, т.к. как минимум w:ru:Вишневский — это именно дизамбиг, а не фамилия, там есть посёлок, и получается что P31 в этом элементе врёт. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Хотя бы один элемент из списка - не человек - "портит" P31 для дизамбига? --Infovarius (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Не понял фразу, что значит «"портит" P31 для дизамбига»? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Я имею в виду, что если в дизамбиге присутствует только список персон, то вы позволяете "это фамилия", а если хотя бы один посёлок (к примеру), то уже не позволяете. --Infovarius (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Да, но даже в таком случае элемент должен иметь стандартное описание дизамбига, а P31 — содержать Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). Альтернатива — выделить фамилию в отдельный элемент. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

interwiki

Why do you remove interwiki between wikisource projects? What is the current interwiki policy for them? At least one of theese edits: [1], [2] should be considered a vandalism. However, I am not sure which one at the moment... Ankry (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: There is no vandalism at all. For now wikisorce use iwikis to link a original text with all its translations and vice versa. Some wikisorcian thoughtlessly move those links to Wikidata item (they not known that Wikidata not able to store several links in one wikis per item). To handle with wikisource text, we should create separate Wikidata item for a original text and all its translations (e.g. Godiva (Q5576668), Q16955052 and Q16956500). For Excelsior (Q5419457) we have at least two Polish translation and two Esperanto translation, and we not able fit it in a single Wikidata item. However, in some cases we can put link foreign disambig into a original's item, e.g. enwikisource and plwikisource in Rothschild's Violin (Q2894408).

What is the current interwiki policy for them? — The rules are explained in Wikidata:WikiProject Books. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry:: You wrote in a undo comments: "do not break interwiki". Where? After altering Excelsior (Q5419457), i repear all iwiki in all related pages... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the change after I noticed that you moved the interwiki to local projects. If interwiki are moved again from wikidata to local wikis it seems OK to me. I am sorry for my violent reaction.

My doubts at this moment is whether implementing the Books project is not too early while Wikisource interwiki interface still prefers direct linking in wikidata... Especially as non-advanced users use only this interface while it exists. They do not want to learn about wikidata. But it is just my 2c. Ankry (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Notability

You have created items for pages in Index namespaces. These are not considered as notable.--GZWDer (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@GZWDer: These items was created for usage as value of Property:P1433 (Wikidata:Notability: 3. It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.). There are no page in main namespace for each volume of the encyclopaedia Geographical statistical dictionary of the Russian Empire (Q4135594), only these indexes for OCR, so i linked wikidata items with corresponding indexes in ruws for easily transition betweeen ruws and wkikidata. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Удаление ссылки на Викитеку

Если вы удаляете ссылку на текст в Викитеке, добавляйте, пожалуйста, ее в статью ВП. В результате вашей правки исчезла ссылка на текст в ВТ из статьи w:ru:Энциклопедия философских наук, и вы не добавили ссылку в карточку. Уже не первый раз замечаю такое. Ratte (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

А я, честно говоря, не понимаю, почему удаляется из элемента. --Infovarius (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Потому что s:Энциклопедия философских наук (Гегель) — это не сама "Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften" Гегеля, а её перевод, у неё должен быть отдельный элемент в Викиданных. Ну а ссылку в википедийную статью я добавил. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ваш статус администратора в проекте ru.wikivoyage

Привет. В 2013 году в соответствии с консенсусом сообщества была принята политика, касающаяся процедуры снятия т.н. «расширенных прав» (администратора, бюрократа, и т.д.). В соответствии с этой политикой, стюарды анализируют активность в вики-проектах, не имеющих собственной политики в отношении неактивных участников.

Вы соответствуете критериям неактивности (нет изменений и никаких действий журналов в течение 2 лет) в вышеуказанных вики-проектах. Так как в этих проектах не были приняты свои собственные процедуры пересмотра прав, применяется глобальная процедура.

Если вы хотите сохранить свои полномочия, вы должны сообщить сообществу вики-проекта о том, что стюарды проинформировали вас о вашей неактивности. Если в сообществе состоялась дискуссия на этот счёт, и в результате сообщество хочет, чтобы вы сохранили свои права, свяжитесь, пожалуйста, со стюардами на их доске объявлений, и дайте там ссылку на обсуждение в локальном вики-сообществе, в итоге которого выражается согласие с тем, чтобы вы продолжали владеть этими полномочиями.

Если вы хотите сдать свои права, вы можете ответить здесь или подать заявку на снятие прав.

Если вы не ответите в течении месяца, стюарды будут вынуждены снять ваши права администратора и/или бюрократа. В тривиальных ситуациях стюарды будут оценивать ответы и направят решение на возвращение в местное сообщество для их обсуждения и анализа. Если у вас есть какие-либо вопросы, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со стюардами. --Rschen7754 03:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

julian dates

Do you know whether ruwiki poeple are aware of this change in data model that makes ruwiki interpretation of wikidata julian dates invalid. As rowiki follows new model, we have big mess with julian dates. See also discussion here. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: This diff is unintelligible — is the storage format changed or not? Today's date display format in Wikidatа mislead everybody. June 6 1799 ^Julian (See date of birth (P569) of Alexander Pushkin (Q7200)) definitely will be interpreted as June 6 1799 in Julian calendar model. It should be like May 26 1799 ^Julian / June 6 1799 ^Gregorian. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: There are mess with julian dates not only in Wikidatа, but in a real world too. Personally i add sourcing circumstances (P1480) = unspecified calendar (Q18195782), if a source is not point out caledare model explicitly. E.g. date of death (P570) in Michał Hłuszniewicz (Q12666077). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Unspecified calendar is OK as there's no mess in interpretation here. According to the Mediawiki documentation pointed above (and the referenced ticket in phabricator it has been implemented already (try to enter February 29 2000 ^Julian: it works. However a lot of "Julian" dates were entered before the change: I doubt anybody cares to troanform them; I even doubt it is possible to check which ones have already been checked and transformed and which were not... Ankry (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

PS. I see, now ruwiki conforms new schema, unlike few days ago... Ankry (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, according to current Data model your changes here are incorrect and break date dislaying on wikis that follow new model (eg. rowiki. Ankry (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: But i can enter a February 29 2000 ^Gregorian too! And Wikidata still shows February 29 2000 ^Gregorian, not March 1 2000 ^Gregorian. This is a bug: there are no 29th February in Gregorian 2000th year. So your example explains nothing...

I does not understand former "Interpretation of dates follow ISO 8601" section:

Presently dates refer to the (possibly proleptic) Gregorian or Julian calendar, as specified by the calendarmodel field. Any future extension to other calendars is likely to require a drastically different format for the time field when used with such other calendars.

Before changes all was absolutelly clear:

All dates refer to (possibly proleptic) Gregorian calendar.

I does not understand: depends a "time" field's interpretation upon "calendarmodel" field by the new rules? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And after you set them try to edit both: gregorian/julian... (gregorian is normalized to Mar 1 2000 and julian is not) Ankry (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, gregorian is not normalized to Mar 1 2000. It stays February 29 2000. See Sandbox-TimeValue (P578) in Wikidata Sandbox 1 (Q4115189). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Internally value February 29 2000 ^Gregorian is stored as ([3]):

{
1: {
  "mainsnak": {
    "snaktype": "value",
    "property": "P578",
    "datavalue": {
      "value": {
        "before": 0,
        "time": "+2000-02-29T00:00:00Z",
        "timezone": 0,
        "precision": 11,
        "after": 0,
        "calendarmodel": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1985727"
        },
      "type": "time"
      },
    "datatype": "time"
    },
  "type": "statement",
  "id": "Q4115189$8fad7600-49db-02cb-5900-ae3beaa10033",
  "rank": "normal"
  }
}

This is definitely a bug. As in russian proverb: "К бабке не ходи". -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong language

Hello.Please keep in mind to add data in the right language.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not misstake. English alises helps minimaize swithch keyboard layout while typing. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

English aliases work automatically with the other Languages.Please remove your aliases and try.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not works. I tryed to enter "Zitat" (P1683's German title) while add a new qualifier, but P1683 is not found. Try yourself. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

German title not works.only English: I mean that if you are removed your aliases and tried to add the English aliases (quote, quotation or excerpt) Using the Russian interface, You will find the property can be added.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this works for English. But why only for English? Exceptional language... ;-) In contrast to this, Special:Search use all languages to search. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You can ask here to make aliases work in all languages.Greetings --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource works are editions, not books

Within the edit set you added a wikisource link to a "book". I believe that Wikisource links are meant to be instances of "editions" (Q3331189), not to instances of "book". In this case I have been able to modify the instance to make it align as there is no WP article attached.

On a related matter, can I ask why you have put titles of the articles as something like "DMM / Mozart, Wolfgang" with a description "encyclopaedic article". I would have thought that something "Mozart, Wolfgang" and "encyclopaedic article in DMM" or ""encyclopaedic article in Dictionary of Music and Musicians" would have been more in line with the naming guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@billinghurst: Hello! A Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1900 (Q16011749) is an edition item of course. All props before my edits was stated about an edition, not a book. But I don't remember why I not changed P31 then.

The naming like "DMM / Mozart, Wolfgang" is used in "WEF : Links" gadget, when it create wd-item. Therefore i named DMM article in this way too. All encyclopaedic articles in ruws is named with prefixes. I can rename DMM articles as enws-comunity wish. ;-) -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am not fully around WEF, so that is my homework for tonight. To labels, I read the English language version of Help:Label to indicate that the labels should be simpler and to take any disambiguation into the description, such as my example above. It also means that if we want to pull the label, we are pulling the simple version. I would be comfortable with the DMM / ... being used as an alias. For me when searching within WD for a link less typing is my preference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@billinghurst: There is an example: Lavigne, Antoine (Q27971251). Is it OK? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Magic! Looks like a good tool that you are using.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:-) All others done with QuickStatements. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Q22039235 и Q28806233

См. User talk:Henry Merrivale

Данные "статьи" из ЕЭБЕ, не статьи, а перенаправления. Они ничго не описывают и, следовательно, объекта не имеют. Соответствуюшие свойства должны находится (и находятся) в объектах соответствуюших статей на которые перенаправления перенаправляют. По большому счету, надо бы вообще удалить все элементы Викиданных для перенаправлений в ЭСБЕ, ЕЭБЕ, итд. Перенаправления не есть энциклопедические статьи! Спасибо, Henry Merrivale (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

User P805 as qualifier for P1343, instead of using P248

Hi. There was a conversation on Wikidata:Project chat a while back about the use of stated in (P248) as a qualifier, as that property is specified and has a constraint for it to be used within references only. The direction was that P248 still should only be used for references, and where we need to qualify described by source (P1343) that we should use statement is subject of (P805). I have flagged that at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books as a required change, and I suppose that I should now just update the documentation. There is the need to do lots of conversions of misuse, however, thought it worth flagging to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, for flagging. statement is subject of (P805) is more sutable then stated in (P248) for this using. For now LUA-modules in ruws and ruwp is using P1343 on several thousand pages. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I changed behavior of s:ru:Модуль:Другие источники to use P805 instead of P248 (diff). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Словарь топонимов Армении и прилегающих областей

По поводу этой правки — словарь издан в пяти томах. Не знаю, стоит ли создавать элементы для каждого, поэтому отмечаю и номер тома. с уважением - Kareyac (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kareyac: ;-) Ну, тогда понятно, вы вместо P478 по ошибке использовали P248. Я просто не догадался, что это номер тома... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

P2093

We only use author name string (P2093) if author (P50) is missing or is not known. But if author (P50) in on the item, then do not use author name string (P2093). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Please, point my edit which you don't agree. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

For example: here. You merged and correctly removed creative work (Q17537576) [4], but you should also have removed author name string (P2093), since it was only added by the bot until an author could be found. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Ok, I just didn't notice P2093 in a long claim list. ;-) When I want specify author's abbreviation (of known or unknown author) in a concrete work, I use object named as (P1932) as qualifier for author (P50), e.g. here. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't come across P2093 very often. It's usually put there as a temporary label on pages created by bots, such as the page that you merged. If you're using code for editing (and I think you are), it's good to check for P2093 any time you merge pages. If the page has both P50 and P2093, then the P2093 claim can go. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

P2093 on Q5

Hi,

I noticed that you used author name string (P2093) on human (Q5) (I did a first revert and then I saw that there it's not only on one item) but this is not at all how this property should be used (if anything the "author" of a human being are its father and mother, not a string of characters). I'm not sure to understand what information you wanted to store but you should probably do it with an other property.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Reverted. This means: Dmitri Mendeleev (Q9106) was sign his articles in Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358) as "Δ". P2093="Δ" with qualifier P642=Q602358. It's obvious. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: It's possible to migrate to contributed to creative work (P3919) with qualifier author name string (P2093). But P3919 emerged well after P2093 and many statements like in Q9106 already was added... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

PS2: And I congratulate on French team's victory yesterday in Moscow! -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok... It was not obvious at all, thanks for the explanation.

I think we should definitely migrate has author name string (P2093) is nothing even close to « sign his articles » (and is forbidden to be used on human beings). contributed to creative work (P3919) could be used (or maybe a more suitable property, why not notable work (P800) ?) but with subject named as (P1810) or object named as (P1932) as qualifier (but not author name string (P2093), it's not the good meaning and it's not meant to be used as qualifier). Would you and could you do it?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Calendars

Please be extremely careful with any date before 1 March 1923 (the date the last country using the Julian calendar converted to the Gregorian calendar). In the case of Rome, the Roman calendar was used before 1 January 45 BC. Historical records are not usually good enough to allow accurate conversion between the Roman calendar and the Julian calendar. The only two calendars supported by Wikidata are the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar.

You may see the term "proleptic" used with calendars. This means the date is before the calendar was established, so some date after the calendar was reliably established is chosen, and the days are counted backward using the rules of the calendar to the date one wishes to represent.

The related edit was to "Augustus". Jc3s5h (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: I know all that. In that edit i pointed the source which claims the date 23.09.0063 BCE - 1885's dictionary published in Saint Petersburg. At that time in Russia was used Julian calendar. So i recover my edit in Augustus (Q1405) with qualifier sourcing circumstances (P1480) = unspecified calendar, assumed Julian (Q26877143). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h:We use good sources reflecting modern scholarship. An 1885 dictionary does not fit that description. Modern scholarship just can't do this conversion, unless additional ancient sources are discovered to clarify the conversion. The only two plausible explanations for the dictionary entry are that (1) it isn't a very good dictionary, or (2), the dictionary authors presumed their readers were sufficiently familiar with ancient calendars that the readers would know it is a Roman calendar date. Either way the edit should be reversed. If you don't, I will pursue dispute resolution. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: We use good sources reflecting modern scholarship. - You don't note any better source. I consider that Friedrich Lübker's dictionary is much better than NY times article (see source for P569 = 63 BCE claim). Either way the edit should be reversed. — If the date 23.09.0063 BCE ia a invalid, the claim may be marked with rank=deprecated, but should be reversed. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sought dispute resolution. See Wikidata:Project chat#Improbable birth date added for Augustus. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have found a modern scholarly source which confirms 23 September 63 BC is a Roman calendar date. I have posted the details at Talk:Q1405‎. On the strength of this source I have removed 23 September 63 BC as a birth date, leaving 63 BC. I will add the source as an additional reference for the 63 BC date. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Why is a 1885 Russian dictionary not allowed to be used for a statement? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Work and edition

Hi,

Work and edition should never be on the same item, that's why I did corrections on Q4517655 (including reverting you). The Wikidata:WikiProject_Books give some details and explanation. Feel free to ask if needed.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Q64066904

For the items like Q64066904 please use correct instance of (P31): cross-reference (Q1302249), not encyclopedia article (Q13433827). Thanks, Henry Merrivale (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC).

Please don't merge items for disambiguation pages and stirpes

Items for disambiguation pages like Claudius Marcellus should not be merged with items for stirpes like Claudii Marcelli. Articles for stirpes are not always disambiguation pages and some Wikipedia projects may have pages for both things.*Treker (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Do not create duplicate items!

You have created the item Q28003049 when the item Q12154238 has already existed. Henry Merrivale (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC).

Галогениды/галоген-ионы

Добрый день. Скажите, так ли уж необходимо было разделять ссылки на вики-страницы (например, 1 и 2), при том, что ни в одном из языковых разделов нет отдельно статей про соли (фториды/хлориды/бромиды/иодиды) и соответствующие ионы - в соответствующих статьях описываются как ионы, так и соответствующие соединения. Собственно, хлорид-ион, например, в ру-вики - это перенаправление на хлориды. Разница только в акценте или первостоящем определении. В результате Ваших правок, чтобы перейти из русской или украинской статьи, скажем, на английскую, нужно воспользоваться поиском или перейти на страницу элемента Wikidata и там разбираться.--Leon II (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Добрый день. Не я создавал отдельные элементы для этих понятий - иона и соответстующей соли... А раз они оба существуют, то ссылки должны быть правильно рассортированы по элементам Викиданных: про ионы отдельно, про соли отдельно. Для понятных для меня языков я это сделал. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Добрый день. Ещё раз: нигде нет статей отдельно про соли, отдельно про ионы. В результате межязыковые ссылки разорваны. Элементы же прекрасно существуют и без ссылок на статьи, тому уйма примеров.--Leon II (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Sergey kudryavtsev,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits.

Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Q24335467

Please(!!!) do not use "unknown value" to indicate your own lack of knowledge or your own inability to find the corresponding WD element. Thank you, Henry Merrivale (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC).

@Henry Merrivale: Объясните, почему. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Потому что "unknown value" не означает что нет такого элемента викиданных или что вы не смогли его найти. "Unknown value" означает что данных не существует в известных источниках, как например неизвестны (и 99.99% никогда не будут известны) даты рождения фараонов 12 династии, или как неизвестен год рождения папы Линуса, и тому подобное. See Wikidata Primer(!) here. Cheers, Henry Merrivale (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC).

@Henry Merrivale: Процитирую этот Wikidata Primer: Unknown means that the property has a value, but it is unknown which one -- e.g., Pope Linus certainly had a year of birth, but it is unknown to us. Мне кажется, что вы не правильно интерпретируюете здесь слово "us". Я его понимаю, как неопределённый круг лиц, включая меня самого. И это согласуется с тем, как я это значение использую. Вы же его, видимо, понимаете, как всех людей в мире вообще. Вполне допускаю, что я не прав, а вы правы, потому что для меня английский не родной язык а тут речь об тонких оттенках значений слов. Но мне кажется, что я ближе к истине, потому что как же можно отвечать за всех людей в мире!?..

Далее идет: This should not be mixed up with the notion that it is unknown whether an item has a value for a specific property, e.g., if a person had children. Я её понимаю так: Не до́лжно путать это с ситуацией, когда не известно, имеет ли элемент значение определённого свойства или нет, например: имеет ли некий человек детей. Ну, и правильно, для такого случая нужно третье особое значение вроде "none or unknown". К моему употреблению unknown это не относится, как и последняя сентенция этого абзаца: Both none and unknown are also not to be confused with the respective string: having the name "unknown" is different from having an unknown name (which is again different from it being unknown whether the entity has a name).

Потому я и остаюсь при своём мнении. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Викиданные не есть собрание мнений "неопределенного круга лиц". Викиданные - база данных из разных источников. В принципе, кажное добавленное утверждение должно опираться на АИ. Добавили дату рождения - напишите откуда, и так далее. Конечно, к сожалеию, не все участники понимают и соблюдают это. Особенно в начале, когда большинство утверждений было импортировано из проектов Викимедии. Понимание этого основополагающего принципа делает понятным применение "unknown value". "unknown value" не означает что кто-то чего-то не знает. "Unknown value" означает что в авторитетных источниках сказано что значение не известно. Если вас смущет "us", посмотрите здесь, где это слово не используется.

Следуя вашей "интерпретации" и вашему "мнению" вам тогда надо немедленно проставить "unknown value", для начала, в свойство P921 для десятков тысяч элементов статей ЭСБЕ, ЕЭСБЕ, БСЭ1, и так далее. Ведь Вы их не знаете (и не узнаете, если не поищете). Да и кроме Вас, их точно не знают миллионы редакторов ВД во всем мире. Но а если кто-то и знает или может узнать, разве это важно? Вы же не можете отвечать за всех людей в мире. А потом можно ставить "unknown value" просто везде. Возмите все элементы для персоналий у которых нет даты рождения, даты смерти, имени, фамилии, числа детей итд итп - и проставьте "unknown value". Потом возьмите все геграфические обьекты и проставьте "unknown value" везде где нет геокоординат. Пределов для "творчества" и "вклада в ВД" в вашей "интерпретации нет. Спасибо, Henry Merrivale (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC).

Коллега, я привел Вам ссылки на правила. Если вам не ясны мои обьяснения спросите и уточните на Wikidata:Project chat. Последуюшие действия основанные на неверной интерпретации будут направлены к администраторам. Спасибо, Henry Merrivale (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC).

SKbot

Hi Sergey kudryavtsev, The last edit by your bot SKbot dates from November 21st, 2016. I would propose to remove its bot flag due to inactivity. Do you oppose to that? --Lymantria (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Oppouse, of course. My bot has not any scheduled task. I use it irregularly, for ad hoc tasks in Russian Wikisource. Sometimes this is a data gathering from Wikidata without any changes. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean oppose or consent? Your explanation seems to hint the latter. Thank you. --Lymantria (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Oppouse. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Lymantria (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)