Hi,
A quote from the source : "Segundo Mott, o capuchinho Frei Yves D’Évreux (1577-1632) , superior dos missionários, teve a responsabilidade dessa execução, assim como a descrição minuciosa desse martírio."
( my emphasis )
DarwIn
Joined 23 November 2013
Hello, I don't know if Mott ever wrote that (I don't think so, it's probably a misquote). In any case, the book that describes the incident is very clear that he was no part of it, and there is not any document or reliable source stating the opposite AFAIK. In any case, Mott is himself misquoting from the book he refers there when he says the execution had anything to do with LGBT stuff, when it is very clearly stated there that the (unnamed) indigenous man was executed by request of his own ilk, for being extremely aggressive for them, kind of half men half animal ,and attacking many people. The idea that it is somehow LGBT related is modern and not based on documented stuff.
It is apparently a quote of Mott in his 2013 leaflet, first sentence of page 6, available at https://cedoc.grupodignidade.org.br/grupo-gay-da-bahia/sao-tibira-do-maranhao/
Indeed he wrote that, quoting as source for it the book "História das coisas mais memoráveis acontecidas no Maranhão nos anos de 1613-1614". However, such thing is not written there. And Mott, who lives now, 400 years after the fact, is not a reliable source for stating "facts" that are not documented anywhere, much less in the source he presented himself. He also invented that the indigenous man was a sodomite, even misrepresenting the original source to serve his POV by inserting an apocryphal "[sodomita]" there which is not in the book.
With these quotes, would you still argue that it is incorrect to put "killed by: Yves d'Évreux, according to: Luiz Mott", as I had done originaly ? I understand your concerns about the veracity of Mott's research, and if you find a source criticizing it, we shall of course add a qualifier "disputed information". However, in the meanwhile, it is wrong to supress Mott's judgement from the Tibira page, imho.
BTW, about finding "a source criticizing it": It's Mott who is quoting from a book, and he's quoting stuff that it's not written there, so the original source is more than enough to prove how unreliable the source misquoting it is. The correct procedure is to eliminate Mott from there altogether, since he's provenly not reliable to state that. That's what we usually do.
I doubt that supression is best practice, because Help:Statements says :
Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge. [...] Because statements essentially point to referenceable sources of information and different sources may provide contradicting information, it's possible to represent a plurality of perspectives on Wikidata.
In case of disputes, community consensus determines the value of a property, however other points of views can be added as additional values as long as they include a source and appropriate qualifiers. Ranks can also be used; if a consensus exists, it should be indicated by a preferred rank.
Here is a new proposal to help create a new "killed by" entry that reflects the diversity of opinions :
"killed by:
- Yves d'Évreux, according to Luiz Mott (url reference : https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/direitos-humanos/noticia/2023-05/quem-foi-o-indigena-tibira-o-1o-assassinado-pela-lgbtfobia-no-brasil, https://cedoc.grupodignidade.org.br/grupo-gay-da-bahia/sao-tibira-do-maranhao/ page 6, https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-55462549)
- unknown value (reference: Viagem ao Norte do Brasil)"
What do you think ?
I really can't see how someone making up stuff out of thin air in the 1990s and attributing it to a book vs. what is really written in the book can be seen as a "dispute". The book is a reliable source, Mott is not. I really can't see how a "dispute" can be seen there.
In case you disagree, can you explain why Mott writing in the 1990s onwards should be seen as a reliable and primary source about a fact which occurred 400 years before, let alone when he's attributing it to a book which actually says the opposite?
If you want my opinion, I think that Mott's reading is coherently argumented and relayed by many credible medias. It is not true that Mott is merely quoting Yves, rather, Mott is referencing Yves' text as the basis for his own new claim. Keep in mind that books that are 400 years old are not perfectly reliable sources: their context and subtext has to be analysed by scholars, such as Luiz Mott. This is a widely recognised principle in queer historiography.
I personnaly am not sure either if his judgement is necessarily 100 percent accurate, but it exists and should be mentionned. Indeed, I think that Wikidata should simply reflect outside sources in their diversity, and that what matters is that we correctly attribute the sources so that readers can try to make their own opinions.
Agreed on the latest proposition with two values ?
I understand the point that old facts can be reinterpreted on light of new evidence and new approaches, that is perfectly fine. The difference is that in this case Mott does not explain why he says that, but merely states the claim and says that it's what is written in the book. It's really an unexplained claim out of thin air, and the source given for it contradicts it, which means that Mott had misread it in all probability.
In order to be added to Wikidata as a source, Mott must be considered reliable source for the claim (even if its contradicted elsewhere). That is a basic rule, you don't add crap there just because it exists somewhere in the Internet. Given the fact that the claim is completely unexplained, and sourced to a source that contradicts it, I can't see how Mott can be considered a reliable source. Can you? If affirmative, why?
Luiz Mott is a reliable source because many points of his analysis are corroborated by the main reference on the matter, the 2012 critical edition by Franz Obermeier (for reviews, see https://journals.openedition.org/cal/2908 and https://journals.openedition.org/jsa/12926 or in portuguese https://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/67310). For instance, in note 319 on page 297, Obermeier convincingly argues that Tibira was indeed "a homosexual" (full text freely available at https://macau.uni-kiel.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/macau_derivate_00000180/YvesDigitaleAusgabe.pdf#page=365).
In his introduction to the critical edition, Obermeier mentions Tibira several times, and although he does not state that Yves was responsible for his death, he says that Tibira was killes by the French with the consent of the Ordre des capucins (a third value we can add in our "killed by" statement!): Les Français étaient intolérants envers toute sorte de comportement jugé déviant ou dangereux, même les remarques critiques des Indiens envers les colonisateurs étaient observées. Ils condamnèrent un homosexuel à mort avec l’accord des capucins. Le jugement fut exécuté, les Français le firent tuer par un Indien, son corps attaché à la bouche d’un canon auquel un Indien mit le feu. (Obermeier 2012, page XXXI).
Futhermore, specifically about the unreliability of Yves concerning Tibira, Obermeier says page XXXIV that Yves speaks in "bad faith" (mauvaise foi), meaning that Mott's reading is not illogical : "La disparité des différentes parties du livre d’Yves d’Évreux est peut-être un avantage aujourd’hui. Son bricolage d’historiographie, de guide à l’usage des futurs colonisateurs, d’observations de naturaliste doué et de livre édifiant pour le grand public sur les succès de la mission au Deuxième Traité, nous permet de choisir à notre tour dans son vaste livre des chemins de lecture diversifiés et de le suivre dans cette étrange aventure tout en prenant les distances nécessaires par rapport à ses convictions et, parfois, à sa mauvaise foi quand il fait par exemple un sujet édifiant du supplice infligé à un Indien homosexuel baptisé avant de mourir."
From my own reading of Yves, my takeaway is that he uses the indefinite pronoun "on" a lot, which can also mean "we" (check any dictionary for confirmation of this), so it's not clear if he includes himself among the responsibles for Tibira's judgement.
I hope this answers your question and shows that Mott's analysis is credible since it agrees in several crucial aspects with the only recent scientific work on Yves.
"Tibira" is a name invented by Mott. It doesn't appear anywhere in the book. As for the rest, please note that "with consent of" is completely different from "executed by". The man was executed by another indigenous man who specifically requested the French captain to do it, that's in the very description of the incident, not by Évreux. That's what is written there, you can't replace it with an unsourced modern falsification or misunderstanding and pretend it is based on that book.
Would you say too that Biedermeier's statement about the sexuality of the assassinated person is "a falsification or misunderstanding" ?
I know that source very well and that argument too, it's an interpretation based on the speech of another indigenous man teaching him about the Catholic "Paradise" before the execution. I don't concur with that interpretation, because it has a much easier explanation, and it would apply to the speaker in any case, but it's a possible interpretation. Another completely different thing is saying he was executed because of that , which is an obvious falsification of what is written there, as well as saying it was by Evreux instead of the executioner which is mentioned there.
They are indeed two different questions, I was just asking to make sure that you are aware that your opinions about this theme are not mainstream, to say the least. Indeed, I have not yet found a single modern source sharing your interpretations of Yves' text. Please provide sources and not just thoughts.
Not only do Mott's writings concur with Biedermeier's on important points, Mott's analysis of the Tibira case is also quoted by reputable sources. There are at least two scientific publications citing him on the matter : doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190673741.013.23 and doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53225-7_2. Mutt's reading is also relayed in Devassos no Paraíso on pages 518-9 (of the 4th edition), and that book is a fundamental reference about queer history in Brasil according to this review in a specialised scientific journal (it has been quoted more than 1800 times according to the Google Scholar data). Thus, Mott is sufficiently relied upon by the specialised litterature, and so Wikidata can also rely on him.
The source is the same as theirs, the book. Have you read it? I can transcribe the exact passages which show Mott claims are mistakes, at best, and falsifications, at worst, if you want.
BTW, Mott "version" of the Evreux book informations is from 1992 or so, the rest simply parroted him afterwards most of the time without even caring to check the original book, or else they would have noticed it's anywhere to be seen over there. That's not unusual that he has scores of citations, it's just because those works generally uncritically parrot his claims, which is rather common and widespread, even if reckless, behaviour in the Academy, unfortunately. I don't see how that would serve to contradict what is in the original source of those claims, the Evreux book. However, I would be glad to be corrected, if you find some of the works actually quoting the book where it says Evreux commanded the execution, or that such execution was somehow related to sodomy, instead of proxying it to such a poisoned source as Mott.
And the name "Tibira" itself still is a modern invention (also by Mott), you'll not find that documented anywhere.
Sir, this is Wikidata, not a police station tasked with solving 400 years old murders. Here is not the place for debates about historical truth. I repeat : Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge. You cannot deny that Mott's writings are deemed reliable by almost everyone, including specialists. Please stop supressing his knowledge and start to work on integrating it in the page about Tibira. Or, at least, stop preventing me from doing that. If we still disagree, let's ask for other opinions.
and btw, Devassos says:
"Chamado de “índio bruto, mais cavalo do que um homem”, o Tupinambá sodomita foi caçado e amarrado à boca de um canhão, cujo tiro o estraçalhou, no forte de São Luís, sob os auspícios do missionário francês Yves d’Évreux, que pretextou a necessidade de “purificar a terra das suas maldades”. [...] O frade D’Évreux saudou seu assassinato em tom de regozijo cristão e colonizado."
Who is "Devassos"? Though that sentence also does not say anything even near what Mott is claiming. It just says (in a biased way) that Evreux was happy with the execution, something that is not in the book too, AFAIK, but then that's just an impression by whoever wrote that.
Devassos no Paraíso, 4th edition, as stated in my previous messages. Now you're making me repeat myself.
Whatever it is, it doesn't confirm Mott claims.
Yes, it is Wikidata, we use reliable sources. Not 30 year old forgeries which contradict the very source they pretend to quote.
I don't oppose adding the forgery there, as long as what is stated in the original book is clearly stated there too, and marked as the preferred information.
okay, so you agree with the version with two values... please implement it then.
Ok, I will. Just looked at the source, the executor was Karuatapiran, an indigenous leader. By the way, in the narrative Evreux is desolated by what is happening, not happy. I really don't think it is admissible that based on absolutely nothing but their own POV modern writers change the documented narrative to the opposite of what is written there, fabricating such claims, so that they would fit their own narrative. I will add Mott fabrication, though, with Mott as source, as stupid and out of place as I deem it to be.
I very much disagree with the insertion of such fabrications and fake revisionisms on historical items, though, and am considering this only a temporary solution.
Then, you have to provide a source to state that Mott is not reliable. Your reading of Yves is not sufficient to go against the objective indicators that Mott's ideas are in fact considered valid by virtually all scholars interested in the subject.
Look, this is a serious encyclopedia, we do not work with belief. Again, Mott claims on that early 16th century incident are based on what? What is their source? If you don't know, they can't be used there.
Yes, I think it's incorrect, indeed, because it's giving undue weight to an opinion by an LGBT activist which is not based on anything, distorts a documented historical fact and is actually propagating false information. I knew Mott personally aeons ago, I don't think he did that with some bad intention, but, you know, activism.
Hello! You wrote in the object d:Q109339706 that it belongs to the country Madeira. I am not sure that Madeira is a country. -- ~~~~
Hello @AKA MBG ! Madeira is not a country by the modern definition of the term, for sure, and since 1822 it is part of Portugal, with a special status (now an autonomous region, located in Africa). Before that, it was private property, until 1497, and from 1497 to 1822 (Q104472514) it was an entity separated from the Kingdom of Portugal (the "country", properly), but owned by it, like the rest of the Portuguese Empire. When I modeled that data, I've seen that country is used for these entities that worked like dependent countries, even if the modern definition of country do not apply, so I've used it. I don't know if there was any development since then, do you know?
Sorry, I don't know what will be correct decision here. I found this statement when I requested a list of countries with number of earthquakes (https://w.wiki/8BR3).
Olá, DarwIn. Em Q115527132, diz-se que há um problema com a data de nascimento e de morte do “biografado” (por falta de melhor palavra). Gostaria de saber como resolver. Sou absolutamente novato aqui. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)<
@RodRabelo7 Simplesmente faltava dizer que é um humano, além de outros dados essenciais que dá para tirar direto e já coloquei lá.
Estao confundindo interesses da empresa com rótulos colocados pela imprensa. Interesse da empresa é ligado ao escopo de atuação, não opiniões externas. Raciocine meu caro!
Não, não é isso que a propriedade diz. É obvio que o BP tem interesse especial em negacionismo histórico, o próprio artigo da Piaui q usou como fonte nos outros valores diz isso.
Darwin, estamos no limite de sermos processados por este comprotamento. Veja o que diz a propriedade interesse Property:P2650. Não podemos confundir as areas de atuação da empresa com o que a imprensa diz que ela é. A empresa refuta acontecimentos históricos e é criticada por isso, mas o seu ramo de atuação não é NEGACIONISMO. Interesse são áreas naquilo que ela produz para obter renda. As fontes confirmam o que a imprensa rotula, mas isso não é assunto para wikidata, e sim para criticas e polemicas no verbete. Estão confundindo as coisas e gerando guerra de edição desnecessária. Varios editores já foram notificados e contatados pela empresa, não acho isso nada positivo. ~~~~
Errado, eles já processaram pelo menos um wikipedista, e estão processando a Wikipédia agora mesmo. Mas isso não pode ser justificação para você ir no item e apresentar conteúdos que estão bem referenciados por fonte fiável como sendo propaganda e negacionismo histórico como simplesmente "história" e "política". Isso, para mim, é passar o pano.
Não há como processar a Wikipédia, não somos uma instituição e sim um coletivo. Como falei, o negacionismo é critica, não é area de atuação. Estão confundindo as coisas. Diante desta situação, ficar colocando rotulos desnecessários e incorretos do ponto de vista técnico do wikidata só piora o problema, não contribui com o conteúdo nem com a situação de conflito. ~~~~
Não há, mas foi o que eles fizeram. E o tribunal mandou a coisa para a WMF, q é onde, creio, está agora. É espantoso que você esteja investindo tanto do seu tempo em ajudar uma empresa tão engajada e determinada em atacar a Wikimedia, os Wikimedistas, e todo o conhecimento livre, para nos forçar a apresentar a versão deles mesmos dos factos como se fosse a única, ou sequer a consensual.
A WMF recebeu apenas email de notificação extrajudicial. A WMF não tem representação legal no país, porém os editores que moram no Brasil podem sofrer processos diretamente no momento. Boa parte dos editores envolvidos ali nas edições e aqui no wikidata possuem informações públicas, portanto não há anonimato para proteger essas edições feitas. A empresa possui muitos recursos, eu acho que precisamos agir com cautela e moderação. Minha proposta na wikipedia não foi ocultar nem remover referencias nem criticas, mas fazer as cosias de forma mais condensada e imparcial, pelo menos até a poeira abaixar.
Não entendo o seu medo dos "muitos recursos" que a empresa tem, ao mesmo tempo que se mete aqui a trocar informação bem referenciada por fonte fiável por outra proveniente de comunicados da própria empresa. Se não me engano, você já anda aqui há 16 anos, e é até administrador na Wikipédia em português, já deveria saber que esse tipo de fonte não é fiável. Realmente não entendo porque se está prestando a esse papel.
Aquilo ali não sao areas de interesse/atuação da empresa. As fontes apontam crítica ao conteúdo produzido por ela, não confirma as areas de atuação interesse. O proprio direito de resposta da empresa ganho na justiça contra o Jornal o Globo refuta isso.
Não sei como é aí, mas aqui a obrigação de publicar o direito de resposta sempre independe da validade do conteúdo dessa resposta.
Propaganda não é area de interesse da empresa, ela não faz propagandas como meio de obter recursos, ela usa propaganda como estrategia de marketing, principalmente em redes sociais. Assim como em todas as empresas, investem em marketing.... realmente não estou entendendo essas edições....
O artigo da Piauí que você mesmo citou diz que a empresa investe milhões de reais na divulgação de propaganda política. Eu q n percebo essa sua vontade de tapar o sol com a peneira, ali.
Propaganda não é ramo de atuação da empresa, ela é uma produtora audiovisual de documentários,os investimentos citados pela piaui é campanha de promoção das proprias produções. Estou tentando fugir de rótulos aqui, na wkipedia eu sequer entrei no mérito das criticas e citações por isso, não quero me envolver diretamente em conteúdo qualquer que me dê problemas judiciais de qualquer espécie. ~~~~
A fonte diz que eles atuam no ramo da produção de propaganda, que depois é divulgada em várias plataformas pagas. Qual é a sua dúvida, mesmo?
Fiz uma pesquisa aqui mais aprofundada e realmente, promoção de vendas é uma de suas áreas de atuação. Coloquei novamente no item. O foco não é propaganda em geral, mas sim, "promoção de vendas".
Não é isso que estou fazendo, estou apenas tentando apagar esse incendio. Eu tb fui contatado pela imprensa por este caso à epoca e tentei evitar maiores transtornos. Ja tive que explicar essa história para varias pessoas e jornalistas. Precisamos ser cautelosos aqui para não ampliarmos o problema. Vc sabe que eu não sou um cara de direita nem corroboro com erros politicos. ~~~~
I have a term in several architectural surveys of churches in Brazil: "consistório". It's not the same as the Papal Consistory, this is a meeting room in a parish church--but it's not a "sala da mesa" for an irmandade/Brotherhood.
The term is rarely used in English, but I see "consistory room" and "hall of consistory"--but no reference in the Oxford English Dictionary or the Art & Architecture Thesaurus.
Should I establish a new item with English = consistory room, Portuguese = consistório? The only option right now is "conference room", which is so out of scope. Do you have any reference materials that could help? Thanks always
Hello! I would avoid using the (Getty?) Art & Architecture Thesaurus.for anything related to churches, since they often use terms not in line with the religious usage of the objects, which is what primarly defines them (and not the art). There is an Ecclesiastic Thesaurus around, I think from Universidade de Évora. Have you seen it? If you do not find it, tell me and I would send the link.
(sorry for the delay, I've only seen the message now)
Bom dia DarwIn, vi que criou freguesia (Q104172772), sabe as datas em que esta divisão administrativa esteve em vigor? Pensei por Q28681024 como instance of (P31) de freguesia (Q104172772), mas não sei se as épocas combinam.
Perece-me que na verdade, para ficar direito, todas as freguesias com história anterior a 1916 deveriam ser desmembradas numa 2ª entidade, a freguesia histórica, que em alguns casos daria também origem a paróquia actual
Olá João! Ainda não estudei a fundo essa situação, mas pelo material com que me tenho cruzado as freguesias deixaram de corresponder à paróquia depois da República, o que também corresponde ao que está na Wikipédia sobre o assunto: "Com a reforma administrativa de 18 de Julho de 1835, surge a estrutura civil da Junta de Paróquia, autonomizada da estrutura eclesiástica; os seus limites territoriais, no entanto, eram geralmente coincidentes com os das paróquias eclesiásticas que vinham desde a Idade Média. Com a Lei n.º 621, de 23 de Junho de 1916, as paróquias civis passam a designar-se freguesias (e a Junta de Paróquia passa a designar-se Junta de Freguesia), fixando-se assim a diferença entre a estrutura civil (freguesia) e a estrutura eclesiástica (paróquia)" Pelo que está aí, a data de corte parece ser 23 de junho de 1916 (a reforma de 1835 parece ter mantido a unidade igual, embora separando as administrações)
OK DarwIn. Vou então usar a data de 23 de junho de 1916 e assim usar o novo item para definir as freguesias existentes em 1886-1895. Obrigado.
This property is for robots to grab images and to upload them to Commons. The link you added at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q103815993&diff=1321699958&oldid=1321697715 doesn't look to be compatible with Commons because it's not an image file and it doesn't appear to be free. So I wonder why you added it
Hello. The link points to a source where a free image is available that can be (manually) uploaded to Commons, if someone wants to. All documental-like photos such as that one taken in Brazil up to June 1998 are specifically stated as Public Domain, so there is not the least doubt that that one (those ones) are public domain as well (only the photo, not the text).
I thought that property was for any photo source and for any purpose, if it is specific for bots maybe it should be clearly stated in the description. Is there any that can be used for the purpose I would like to?
If it's free, I would just crop out the image and upload it to Commons. You can use described at URL (P973) to point to locations with more information.
Also, these newspaper photos are not of great quality, but someone interested in using them illustrate an article, or another purpose, can go to an archive and photograph a much better quality photo from an original newspaper and upload to Commons, so I think it is useful to store that info somewhere when I occasionally find it. P973 seems to be a good place for that.
I think I've fixed most of them, how can I check the ones still remaining?
I know, but it takes time and it's a different kind of task, and I just wanted to place somewhere that a free image is available just in case someone would like to do taht in the future.
I think P973 would do the job, thanks!
Just Weselys Worms Miranda Braga (Q104144791) and Paulino João de Souza e Mello (Q104038789) left.
Did you ever try contacting the press archive? We did so in the Netherlands and got beautiful collections like Commons:Category:Images from Anefo and Commons:Category:Images from fotoburo de Boer.
Not for those ones, but I think it's a possibility in the near future, as there is a growing group of Wikimedians in Manaus (not me, I'm Portuguese). But by coincidence I've talked yesterday precisely about that with a person from our local newspaper (Diário de Notícias), one of the oldest operating in Portugal, and there may be something coming in the near /mid future, with non HD res. proofs from their historical collection, which would be really great. Crossing fingers.
Hi,
About Piódão (Q3233), does the database really say Q3233 P131 Q3233? (which is de facto a self-reference, and the only one right now in Wikidata, I removed and/or corrected all the other mistakes)
I'm guessing you need two items there, one for the village (which is also a monument) and one for the freguesia.
Hi!
Yes, you are absolutely right. I actually had that in my mind to review, as I'm not sure the limits of the parish match the ones of the monument (and strongly suspect they do not), so I'll have to look into the legislation. With all probability 2 items will be needed there, as you say. Sorry for the revert, I thought it was because of some misunderstanding with the origin of that database (it was produced from scrapping back in 2011, from the DGPC and SIPA sites, not by direct input, which would probably generate the issue of self-referencing). I removed the parish from P131 for now, until I fix it. Thanks for noticing that!
Olá DarwIn, enviou-me um mail pedindo ajuda no projeto, o que precisa que eu faça?
Olá João! Estou finalizando as listas iniciais de monumentos a partir aqui do Wikidata, assim que elas estiverem seria fantástico se pudesse ajudar a corrigir/actualizar a informação, assim como a colocar algum que eventualmente ainda não esteja
Entretanto, para treinar, criei o item Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas (Q66741789).
E descobri o Wachturm (Q1431556) e a Öland Bridge (Q296799) onde deve ter havido uma troca qualquer.
e o Metro Colegio Militar (Q3356873).
Dado que o DarwIn deve ter mais que fazer, eu resolvi investigar.
Os itens Wachturm (Q1431556), Öland Bridge (Q296799) e Metro Colegio Militar (Q3356873) estão no estrangeiro mas o DarwIn identificou-os como portugueses e com Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186).
Na lista do Wiki Loves Monuments o ID do Wachturm (Q1431556) corresponde a uma Torre de Vigia de Portalegre que tem a página na DGPC desactivada, provavelmente é a Atalaião tower (Q10383759), que já tem outro ID.
O ID da Öland Bridge (Q296799) corresponde à Ponte da Ola em Vila Pouca de Aguiar que ainda não está no Wikidata.
O ID do Metro Colegio Militar (Q3356873) corresponde ao Colégio Militar (Q5150411) de Lisboa.
Sendo assim, no Wachturm (Q1431556) vou desfazer as suas acções, vou criar um item para a Ponte da Ola e transferir para lá o ID e vou transferir o ID do Colégio Militar.
Olá João! Desculpa a demora a responder, mas estava completamente embrenhado a criar as listas de monumentos para virem a tempo do concurso. mas já vi que já resolveste o problema :D Muito obrigado!
É possível que existam mais casos desses, mas agora com as listas criadas é muito mais fácil caça-los
Sim, já apanhei mais alguns.
Obrigado!
Se vires que as listas podem ser melhoradas, e que daria jeito mais alguns tipos de listas, por favor avisa. :)
Hello.
Can you translate and upload en:Science and technology in Azerbaijan, en:Baku State University, en:National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan and en:National Library of Azerbaijan in Portuguese Wikipedia?
Yours sincerely, Matricatria (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry, but currently I don't have the time for that. :\
I understand. Thank you for your reply. Matricatria (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you could request the translations at our Village Pump?
I don't know what that is. Can you guide me? Matricatria (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There are no older topics