User talk:Fomafix

Welcome to Wikidata, Fomafix!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Property:P416

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you first proposed its creation. --  Docu  at 11:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Property:P487 "Unicode character"

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you first proposed its creation. --  Docu  at 17:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Property:P489 "currency symbol"

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. A property for unicode characters (Property:P487) is also available. -- --  Docu  at 07:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Große Kreisstadt

Eine Große Kreisstadt ist nicht als Verwaltungsebene in der Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands aufgeführt. Daher ist meiner Meinung nach instance of (P31) sinnvoller als P132 (P132). --Fomafix (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe mich dabei an die Auflistung hier gehalten: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Country_subdivision_task_force/Germany#Gemeinden . Eine große Kreisstadt "ist ein Begriff aus dem deutschen Kommunalrecht", daher habe ich dies auch als passend mit P132 (P132) angesehen. Wie würdest Du die deutschen Städte bei Property:P132 behandeln?

1. P132 -> Q515 = "Stadt" (immer) wäre eine sehr unspezifische Möglichkeit und sollte man vermeiden laut [1].
2. P132 -> Q262166 = "Gemeinde in Deutschland" in Verbindung mit P31 -> Q515 bzw. Q448801 wäre eine andere Lösung? Damit sind auch die nichtkreisfreien Städte auf Ebene der Gemeinden und können dann durch P31 weiter separiert werden. Gefällt mir momentan ganz gut:-) Müsste man die normalen "Gemeinden" dann auch mit P132 -> Q262166 = "Gemeinde in Deutschland" und P31 -> "Gemeinde" behandeln? Oder wären dies dann eben die Gemeinden auf Ebene P132, die keine Städte auf Ebene P31 sind? --Zuphilip (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bin gerade auf diese Diskussion gestoßen. Städte in Deutschland habe ich bisher bei P132 mit Q515 erfasst und Gemeinden mit Q262166, hatte aber im Hinterkopf, dass Städte vielleicht mit beiden Qualitäten erfasst werden sollten, denn eine einfache Stadt hat in Deutschland neben der Befugnis, sich Stadt nennen zu dürfen, auch keine andere Rechtsstellung wie die Gemeinden in Deutschland. --Brühl (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe einmal ein Beispiel ausgeführt für Vorschlag 2: Q82911 (BTW: werde die nächsten Tage nur wenig bzw. keine Zeit für Wikidata haben.) --Zuphilip (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hhmm, ich denke, Große Kreisstadt und Stadt verleihen einen offiziellen Status und sollten eigentlich mit Gemeinde in Deutschland zusammen bei P132 stehen. So war mein obiger Diskussionsbeitrag jedenfalls gemeint, wahrscheinlich etwas missverständlich formuliert. Bei P31 verbliebe dann vorerst nur Weinort. --Brühl (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bei P132 (P132) stelle ich mir eine strukturgebende Aufteilung vor. Struktur, nach der üblicherweise kategorisiert wird. Für Deutschland wird das unter de:Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands#Übersicht über die Verwaltungsebenen beschrieben. Ein Objekt hat daher hier genau einen Eintrag. Falls beispielsweise bei Berlin keine separaten Datenobjekte für die Stadt Berlin und das Land Berlin angelegt werden, dann können auch mehrere Einträge bei P132 (P132) sein.

Bei instance of (P31) werden beliebige Instantiierungen an ein Objekt gehängt. Für eine Gemeinde in Deutschland können das beispielsweise Große Kreisstadt, Kreisstadt, Stadt (im Sinne von „darf den Titel Stadt tragen“, was nicht unbedingt zu Q515 passt), Großstadt, Millionenstadt und so weiter sein. Diese Version zu Weinstadt passt daher meiner Meinung nach. --Fomafix (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dass sich P132 grundsätzlich auf einen Eintrag beschränken lässt, wage ich zu bezweifeln. Bei meinen Arbeiten an den Gemeinden in Hessen bin ich im Laufe der Zeit darauf gestoßen, dass bei vielen Gemeinden neben der Verknüpfung mit Gemeinde in Deutschland auch auf Gemarkung verlinkt werden sollte, um bei Großgemeinden mit mehreren Ortsteilen diese sowie den Kernort auf einer gleichen Ebene wiederfinden zu können, Beispiel: Stadt Hochheim am Main und Stadtteil Massenheim. Bei Große Kreisstadt ist ferner zu bedenken, dass dieser Datensatz als Unterklasse von Gemeinde in Deutschland erfasst ist. Da würde sich die alleinige Erfassung als Große Kreisstadt unter Verzicht auf Gemeinde in Deutschland empfehlen. --Brühl (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Meiner Meinung nach ist die Frage hier sehr schwierig zu beantworten. Eigentlich verstehe ich beide Argumentation von Euch. Einerseits geht man baumartig durch die verschiedenen Verwaltungstypen und erhält etwa Ketten wie Bundesland - Regierungsbezirk - Landkreis - Gemeinde. Hier gibt es im Prinzip eine Unter-/Überordnung, z.B. das Bundesland hat die Rechtsaufsicht über die Landkreise. Auf der anderen Seite teilen sich einige Verwaltungstypen wiederum auf: Gemeinde = Gemeinde, Stadt, Große Kreisstadt. Dabei ist eine Stadt auch nur eine Gemeinde, hat aber noch einen zusätzlich Status. Entscheidend finde ich die Benutzungsperspektive, die ich aber momentan schwer abschätzen kann. --Zuphilip (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Droga

I undid your edit in Q425060. Polish "droga" has the same meaning as in en- and ru-wiki. Property Q13421061 is about psychoactive substances – definitely not the same thing. Barcival (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Q425060 and Q13421061 are disambiguation pages. The meaning of disambiguation pages are in all languages the same: to disambiguate the term. The translation of en:Road is de:Straße. But the corresponding disambiguation page to en:Road (disambiguation) is de:Road and to de:Straße (Begriffsklärung) is en:Straße. There are not only roads. The are also other things. The film Road (Q1306876) is named en:Road (film), de:Road (2002) or pl:Road. When there exists more than one article to the films named Road in plwiki maybe pl:Road became also a disambiguation page. Therefor I remove pl:Droga and ru:Дорога (значения) from Q425060. You can put pl:Droga to Q13421061 or to a new item. --Fomafix (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

template /doc interwikis

Hi, these should not be added per WD:N. --Izno (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I cleaned Q5626794 from these /doc links and put them to the separate item Q14393302 to prevent that they come again. --Fomafix (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ع

Hallo, warum haben sie diese Änderungen gemacht? ع , ـع und عـ sind unterschiedliche Schreibweisen des gleichen Buchstabens. --Midas02 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Es ist ein und das selbe Unicode-Zeichen, das nur unterschiedlich aussieht, je nach Kontext. Auf Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P487 wurde gemeldet, dass auf Q222171 mehr als ein Zeichen eingetragen war. --Fomafix (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Babel

Babel lets you view and edit more than one language on Wikidata. Just add e.g. {{#babel:de-N|en-3|sk-1|fr-2|cs-3|it-4|da-0}} to your user page. Best, Littledogboy (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Error

Hello, Fomafix. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Move.js#Error.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

parameter normalization

Hi! I have seen that you are able to detect duplicate parameters. Could you please take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js? One could start with ISNI. Please comment there, Thanks! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

pi (Q167)

hi,

i re-added the π as Unicode character (P487). the information might be redundant with quantity symbol (string) (P416) but nevertheless it's correct. π is both the unicode symbol as well as the quantity symbol.--Shisma (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This leads to notice in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P487 because π is already in pi (Q168). U+03C0 (π) is primary a Greek character. It is just used as a symbol for the mathematical constant. It is not a special Unicode character. U+210E (ℎ) is a special Unicode character for the Planck constant. Here is Unicode character (P487) for Planck constant (Q122894) suitable. Do you also want to add U+0063 (c) to speed of light in vacuum (Q2111) or U+0031 (1) to 1 (Q23108)? --Fomafix (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No answer? I’ll remove Unicode character (P487) for pi (Q167) in 7 days. Maybe notation (P913) is an alternative. --Fomafix (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed Unicode character (P487) π for pi (Q167). --Fomafix (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

URLENCODEbug

Hi! Thank you for your contribution to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js#URLENCODEbug. I replied there לערי ריינהארט (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

please take a look also at Wikidata:Project chat#re:_property_qualifier_source. Thanks לערי ריינהארט (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-SitelinkCheck.js

This gadget was broken long time ago. Can you fix it?--GZWDer (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have it already in my lab (User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-SitelinkCheck.js) but I didn’t change anything important (diff) and didn’t test the function. What was the previous function and what is broken? I can try my best. --Fomafix (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Fomafix

I would like you to accept my nomination. Regards, --Ricordisamoa 04:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If accepted, also a user page would be appreciated :) Vogone talk 10:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. --Fomafix (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

English | español | français | العربية | Nederlands | русский | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our gift is better than the one at Commons or Meta)

You have your gun; now here's your badge: {{User admin}}/{{#babel:admin}} and {{Admin topicon}}. Enjoy!

Fomafix, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particularWikidata:Project chat and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ irc.freenode.net. If you need access, you can flag someone down at @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading, although it doesn't always completely apply here at Wikidata. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (Check Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans (Q14964498).)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

Vogone talk 11:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 12:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And remember to test gadgets before applying changes --Ricordisamoa 19:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Singular proximal demonstrative

Hi, I created a new entry for this and I'm pretty sure it exists conceptually, but I'm not sure if someone else has done it. The problem with the current search is that the English entry for it, namely "this", is already occupied by one of the Wikipedia disambiguation pages. How do I find out if it's a dupe or justify its existence? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the problem. Can you give a link? --Fomafix (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is here, but I don't know how to verify its existence. Wikidata's notability extends to conceptual things (#2) right? This is an example of the word "this", meaning "this thing close to me"; in other languages: in spanish for example it is este, and in japanese it is kore. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand the problem. You created Q15427195 with the en-label “Singular proximal demonstrative”. Special:Search/Singular_proximal_demonstrative finds nothing. Sometimes the search has problems. But Special:ItemDisambiguation/en/Singular_proximal_demonstrative shows exactly your item. Did this help to you? --Fomafix (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But I want to know if what I had created is duplicate of another term that means the same thing, and if I don't have a Wikipedia page on it will it be deleted. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

ReasonatorTools

Hi Fomafix, the ReasonatorTools gadget doesn't work for me after your changes, even though this nearly identical user script does. Can you look into it and see what's causing the problem? Thanks,--Underlying lk (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --Fomafix (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you also add " + "&lang=" + mw.config.get("wgUserLanguage")", so that the Reasonator page will be displayed according to the user's language preferences?--Underlying lk (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Fomafix (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

de-formal

you have a de-formal-language babel on your user page. please don't add labels, descriptions or aliases in de-formal. they should instead be made in de. see Wikidata:Project_chat#'als'/'gsw'? 'de-formal'?. --Akkakk 06:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

done. --Fomafix (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this! I'm importing instance of = human from all birth categories in the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia. Most of it is correct, but some times twins are added, and some times I discover erronuous interwikis (where the nowiki article links to a disambiguation page). Know that I am checking all of these edits to be safe, so there's no cause for concern. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau

wikinews:Michael Zehaf-Bibeau has been deleted. Please do not restore the link to it from Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (Q18339801). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Steinhäuser (Q9311105)

I don't understand your revert... Since when do we have sitelinks to redirects? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This redirect describes exactly the item. When phab:T54564 is fixed it will be possible to add sitelinks to redirects directly. --Fomafix (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I see, but it hasn't been fixed yet (and doesn't seem to have a high priority since it's been open for two years without too many comments), so until it is, I think we should remove it. Also, I see that the redirect on dewiki does have a template pointing to the item, and since it does, it's a piece of cake to re-add it by bot once the task is fixed. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove links to redirects? There is not need to remove links to redirects. --Fomafix (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki wattora and kilowatt hour

Is it possible to connect the page it:wattora to page en:kilowatt hour?

The problem is this: On the English version they chose to write the article on Kilowatt-hour, while on the Italian version they chose to write the article on watt-hour. But the content is very similar. In fact on the English version "watt-hour" redirects to "kilowatt-hour", while on the Italian version "chilowattora" (that means kilowatt-hour) redirects to "wattora" (that means kilowatt-hour).

I tried to fix the issue, but I'm not practised in Wikidata, and maybe I fixed it in a not proper way so you cancel my change. Can you do it in the proper way? --Frank50 s (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You can connect it:wattora with en:watt hour (Q12874593) and you can connect it:chilowattora with en:kilowatt hour (Q182098). en:watt hour and it:chilowattora are currently redirects. You have to change them to articles. Then you can add this links to Wikidata. When the links are there you can change the articles back to redirects if you want. --Fomafix (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Sorry for that. I didn't know wikidata also handled redirections. Where can I read about it? Paucabot (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects for example. This solved problems like the thread above. --Fomafix (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Schwiegerkind

Moin Moin Formatfix, darf ich kurz fragen, warum du die Aliasse aus dem Objekt entfernt hast? Diese stehen im deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel ja drinnen. mfg --Crazy1880 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Okai, bei genauerer Betrachtung komme ich von den einzelnen Artikel im wieder zu Schwiegerkind zurück, aber vereinigt Schwiegerkind nicht dann alle Allisse? mfg --Crazy1880 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In Wikidata können Dinge differenzierter angegeben werden. Daher die Aufteilung. Die Aliase mehrfach anzugeben wäre unnötige Redundanz. --Fomafix (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Okai, danke --Crazy1880 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Formafix,

I agree that it should be possible to add redirects to items, as the community has decided it should be possible. Unfortunately, it's still not implemented, so it's still on the Exclusion list. It has been 2 years by now, and I understand if yor're frustrated that it's still on the Exclusion list. So, even I'm against adding redirects to items I thing the consensus should be implemented and it should become possible and if I can help to change the policy I will. As of you, the policy still is clear that redirects should not be added, so you shouldn't either. Once the policy has changed I know of a lot of redirects that can be added, also on the subjects you were adding redirects to. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with policy? The implementation or a Wikidata rule? --Fomafix (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria states that no redirects should be added. Also Wikidata:Notability indicated:

"Note that a single Wikimedia page cannot have more than one sitelink in Wikidata and that a sitelink cannot point to a redirect."

I know that the community indicated that this should be changed but, for over two years now, it hasn't.

"Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata."

Either it should be checked if the consensus has changed ot the policy should be changed. I won't try to reopen the debate, even though I disagree on the outcome, so I'm all for changing the policy, and implementing the will of the community. But it still has not been done. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria excludes soft redirects – not redirects. Wikidata:Notability contains no rule that forbids redirects – it contains a note of the fact that a sitelink can not point to a redirect and it contains the annotation that the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata. The note is not correct. A sitelink can point to a redirect. The implementation just not allow to add a new sitelink to a redirect because it resolves the redirect and tries to add the target of the redirect. But it is possible to add sitelinks articles and change the articles to redirects and it is possible to restore an old revision with a sitelink to a redirect. So the note does not describe the correct facts and should be updated. As far as I see there is no policy or Wikidata rule that forbids sitelinks to redirects and give you the legitimation to remove sitelinks to redirects.

I'm not clear about what's exacly meant with "soft" redirects, but it seemed irrelevant to me because of the "sitelink cannot point to a redirect" statement. If any of the quotes I states would be incorrect, they need to be changed asap, but "the necessary changes have yet to be deployed" seems correct, as you cannot simply add a redirect (Wikidata will try to add the target of the redirect) and you need to perform a trick, so clearly there's still some work to be on the "necessary changes".

For soft redirects see en:Wikipedia:Soft redirect. Soft redirects are normal articles from technical view.

The sentence “sitelink cannot point to a redirect” is not fully correct as I explained. The sentence “the necessary changes have yet to be deployed” is correct, because the wanted change to add sitelinks directly is not deployed. --Fomafix (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

About "As far as I see there is no policy or Wikidata rule that forbids sitelinks to redirects and give you the legitimation to remove sitelinks to redirects.", that's where we disagree. I clearly do see policies and rules that forbid sitelinks to redirects and force me te removed them, and it puzzles me greatly that you don't. I got me wondering whether you don't want to see it, because you support the addition of redirects, but you may have wondered about my point, because I oppose adding them. I don't think we gain much in discussing this point much further, as the community gave a clear indication they want the situation changed from not having them allowed to having them allowed; we just seem to disagree on which stage we currently are within this transition. The end result will be the same, unless the communities oppion would change, and I don't think that will happen in the forseeable future. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I can not see a forbid in the quoted rules. But maybe there are other rules or the rules are missing. For example where is there a rule that force to remove sitelinks to deleted articles? --Fomafix (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

With your change interwikilinks between projects get lost. Either restore them as old interwikilinks in all the linked projects or restore the sitelinks to the redirects in Wikidata. You can also exchange the redirects with small articles in the local languages, but I guess that they will be changed back to redirects because of local policies. --Fomafix (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I will do so as soon as the policy has been changed, and I will follow up with some additions as well, but the policy needs to be fixed or clarified, some technical issues need to be addressed, and the quoted pages have to be updated first. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. For not loosing the interwikilinks you should at least add them as traditional interwikilinks in the projects like before Wikidata. See three threads above about the interwikilinks for exactly the items where you removed the sitelinks to redirects. Or do you see another solution? --Fomafix (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Irena

Hello, Fomafix! How are you today? ;) I am very sorry; I didn't see message before! Thank you, you did exactly what I wanted to do with hr:Irena Komnena Anđelina. I am new here, so I made a mistake because I didn't know then how to do it properly.--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You can also answer on you talk page to keep the discussion together. But now the discussion is here so lets continue here.

Is there an existing item or an article in another Wikipedia language for hr:Irena Komnena Anđelina? If there is is nothing then you can create a new item. --Fomafix (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you remove my contribution?

Why are you undo my contributions — this and this? They aren't articles, but only redirects!!! --Treisijs (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In dewiki Perihel and Aphel are described in one common article de:Apsis (Astronomie) because of avoiding redundancy. de:Perihel and de:Aphel are redirects to this article. Perihel and Aphel are not missing and should linked to get the Wikidata information and the sitelinks to other Wikidata languages to get the interwikilinks between the languages. --Fomafix (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Gadget-Move.js conflict detection

Hi, could you check please, why edit conflicts aren't detected with this, Special:PermanentLink/304420085 (not final)? --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood the function. It works well. It reports error only on conflicting changes. I will post an edit request. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Micah Xavier Johnson

Hi Formafix, how did you manage to add a redirect page to Q25707181? I desperately tried to add en:Micah Xavier Johnson, but it doesn't work, keeps saying "The link enwiki:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers is already used by item Q25631175. You may remove it from Q25631175 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic.")? --SI 15:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to an article, added the sitelink and switched back to an redirect. When phab:T54564 is solved this would be possible to add it directly. --Fomafix (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Gadgets

Thanks for all of your work, have you seen https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/1278/ though? Maybe there are some things you can help with. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm already member of this Phabricator project. --Fomafix (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh right! There is not much activity though (besides reporting). :( Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for simplification: consistency, gender-neutrality and age-neutrality

I am sorry for ignoring your earlier warnings. I stopped mass editing articles and I have started a discussion here to reach consensus first. Did I place it on the correct location? And could you please take a look? Thank you. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Since when is it changed that redirects should be linked, even if they don't have individual pages, and where can I read about it? TherasTaneel (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Notability#cite note-5. --Fomafix (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, have you misinterpreted the above note? It reads "Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata." Has this changed in the meantime? I cannot see any note about it. AFAIK sitelinks to redirects are still not supported. If this has changed, it should be documented somewhere. Cheers. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no change on technical side in the last time. This means that you can not directly create a sitelink to a redirect but you can restore a sitelink to a redirect and you can change a redirect to an article, make the sitelink and change the article back to a redirect. --Fomafix (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Two Q's to one language page

Hi, you added a redirect link to Hofmeister Brothers (Q1497201). In this situation we have two items linking to the same de-page. This causes errors when writing to the API (I am using addwiki) as it seems not allowed in the system to have two items linking to the same page. I am also curious as why you even want two Q-items to the same page as those are different entities (a person versus a group of persons) --Hannolans (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are three items: Hofmeister Brothers (Q1497201), Theodor Hofmeister (Q18377255) and Oskar Hofmeister (Q18377256). Each item have separate properties and separate sitelinks. The sitelinks point to different lemmas in dewiki. In dewiki the two person are described in one article to avoid redundancy. For the two persons exists redirects with metadata and categories. When there is a technical problem then the problem should be fixed instead of loosing information. Please restore the sitelink to the redirect again. --Fomafix (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I restored the sitelink to the redirect again. --Fomafix (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello. Redirects shouldn't be linked in Wikidata. It's primarily misleading and completly useless. Eurohunter (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not useless and not misleading. It leads exactly to the place where Waterfox is described. Sitelinks to redirects are explicit allowed, see Wikidata:Notability#cite_note-5. --Fomafix (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I expect separated article only instead of section in other article. It's misleading. It never worked like that. Possibly redirects could be featured as green links at the bottom of interwiki list. Eurohunter (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The object Waterfox is described in an other article to avoid redundancy. The link https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox directly leads to this text.

It would be nice when sitelinks have the same style as local links: class="new" for redlinks and class="mw-redirect" links to redirects. --Fomafix (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't even own section. We could link thousands redirects of this kind, what doesn't makes sense. As I said possibly it could be featured as green links at the bottom of interwiki list instead of how it's is now. It shows like there is an separate article, which I looking for but it isn't. Eurohunter (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

When you think the redirect is not right because the target article has not enough content for the object then create a deletion request to the redirect in dewiki. When you want to have an own article then create an own article in dewiki. The redirect is linkable in dewiki like a own article therefor it should also have interwikilinks like a normal article. This also allows to reach the German text in dewiki from wikis in other languages. --Fomafix (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Simply I deleting any redirects from interwiki because them should be include articles only. It's way of proceeding we had in last years so its abolutely misleading now and wrong. Eurohunter (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Links and Interwikilinks to redirects are in use even before Wikidata. Sitelinks to redirects are explicit allowed. Deleting every sitelink to redirects is unwanted. --Fomafix (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. It's exactly the opposite. Eurohunter (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The community in dewiki and other communities too want to tread some redirects that describe a separate item like normal articles: The redirect should be linked instead of the target of the redirect, the redirect contains categories and templates for metadata like coordinates, personal data and interwikilinks. The interwikilinks should be moved to Wikidata as sitelinks to redirects. When you remove these sitelinks then you are working against the community. --Fomafix (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm suprised if community supported such an idea. Could be it at least respectively marked in interwiki list? I'm sure it would be perfect solution for both sites. Eurohunter (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The redirect Waterfox is marked with de:Vorlage:Wikidata-Weiterleitung which sets __STATICREDIRECT__. --Fomafix (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not marked in interwiki list, it stays as normal article. While I'm on English version and I look on interwiki list I don't know interwiki to article on German version is just redirect, not a article. Eurohunter (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently no technical support for displaying redirects or redlinks in a different style, but it would be nice to have as I already mention above. On the other hand it is not intended to differ between links to articles and to links to such redirects, because it is intended to link the redirect. --Fomafix (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

dead links

Why do you completely remove dead links instead of marking them as historic, e.g. with a qualifier Property:P582 and a date?--Reseletti (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The weblink was removed and you added them again although the weblinks are dead. You can add them with a qualifier. --Fomafix (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hello! Unfortunately, your admin permissions were removed due to inactivity (not making 5 actions in the last 6 months). Thanks for your contributions to Wikidata! --Rschen7754 02:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated javascript module

Hey, use of wikibase.RepoApi{,Error} is deprecated in favor of wikibase.api.RepoApi{,Error}, please update User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-FindRedirectsForAliases.js otherwise it'll break by next week. Amir (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Fixed in 980643174. --Fomafix (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

wbEntity config value to be dropped on July 24th

Hello,

We are about to drop the mw.config.get( 'wbEntity') config value, that is deprecated for two years. Starting on Wednesday, July 24th, scripts that use this value may encounter issues.

I noticed that the following scripts are still using this value:

• User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js
• User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-FindRedirectsForAliases.js
• User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-Move.js

I suggest that you update it, for example by using the hook wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded (see an example here).

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a comment under the related task.

Thanks for your understanding, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. I'll update my local copies of the gadgets to a newer version. --Fomafix (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Crib

Hey, thanks for reverting my changes, the software isn't really doing what I want. Can you help me adding en:Crib_(cryptanalysis) to crib (Q27451376)? For some reason it doesn't want to add the redirect, but known-plaintext attack (Q700583) links to a redirect on dewiki without any problems. -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You have to convert en:Crib (cryptanalysis) to an article, create the sitelink and the revert en:Crib (cryptanalysis) back to a redirect. --Fomafix (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

ǃ (Q3594554) and de:ǃ

Hi Fomafix. ǃ (Q3594554) is about the letter and symbol ǃ, de:ǃ redirects to de:Klick (Phonetik) which is about click sounds. Sure clicks sounds are represented by symbols, but symbols and what they represent are not the same thing. I don’t think me removing the de:ǃ redirect page from ǃ (Q3594554) was inappropriate. If de:ǃ was redirecting to a page about symbols used to represent click sounds, that would be fine. Imagine this was about the letter "a" and a redirect to an article about vowel sounds. --Moyogo (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an issue in dewiki. The redirect from de:ǃ to de:Klick (Phonetik) avoids redundancy. If you think the direct from de:ǃ to de:Klick (Phonetik) is not adequate then request a deletion of the redirect on dewiki. But as long the redirect (or an article) de:ǃ exist it should be linked from ǃ (Q3594554). --Fomafix (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. --Moyogo (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Artikel über die Charaktere der Simpsons

Guten Tag. Bezüglich der Annullierung meiner änderungen möchte ich sagen, dass Umleitungen zu wikidata unangemessen sind. Wenn ein Artikel aus einem oder mehreren sprachabschnitten der Wikipedia nicht vorhanden ist, weil er gelöscht oder umgeleitet wurde, sollte wikidata diesen Link aus den sprachabschnitten der Wikipedia entfernen. Aber Sie entscheiden, ich sage, wie es ist und was ich für notwendig halte. ̴̴AntonBanderos (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Weiterleitungen zu einem Begriff, auf den sich ein Datenobjekt bezieht, können in dem Datenobjekt verlinkt werden. Wenn eine Weiterleitung nicht sinnvoll ist, beispielsweise weil der Abschnitt aus dem Zielartikel gelöscht wurde, dann sollte die Weiterleitung und den Sitelink auf die Weiterleitung gelöscht werden. --Fomafix (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Windows 3.1 move

Hello. Sorry about the edit on Wikidata for Windows 3.1. It just did it automatically when I moved the page. Thanks, Belwine (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata currently resolves redirects on sitelinks. This is sometimes bad. With phab:T54564 it is requested to allow to link redirects without workarounds. For page moves it would be good to have a checkbox to disable the resolving in Wikidata. --Fomafix (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Metre of water

Hello, I merged the page Q2042279 from the Wikipedia article Metre of water, which is a redirect to Q103451781. The problem is the English Wiki has a terrible title for that article: you cannot title a page in such a vague manner, [Unit of measurement] or [unit of measurement]. It automatically comprises all the other multiples and submultiples. It must be changed. --Aytrus (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Exact: The problem is the terrible title in the English Wiki. Therefor Q103451781 (en:Centimetre or millimetre of water) and Q2042279 (en:Metre of water) is not the same. Either the redirect en:Metre of water gets added to Q2042279, the redirect en:Centimetre of water gets added to Q1247300, the redirect en:Millimetre of water gets added to Q13479685 and the article en:Centimetre or millimetre of water is linked with Q103451781. Or the title in enwiki gets changed to en:Metre of water, then Q103451781 can updated and merged to Q2042279 and so the article gets linked with Q2042279. Your merge is bad, because it links de:Meter Wassersäule with en:Centimetre or millimetre of water and adds two Property:P527 which only matches to en:Centimetre or millimetre of water but not to the other languages. @Aytrus: Please revert the bad merge and solve the problem in one of the two ways. --Fomafix (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Änderungen

Bitte ändere nichts, von dem du offenkundig keine Ahnung hast. Die Wissenschaft ist die "Klassische Archäologie", nicht die "klassische Archäologie". Die Wissenschaft ist nicht "klassisch", das Gebiet mit dem sie sich befasst indes schon. Solche Änderungen sind einfach nur frustrierend. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

primatologist

Concerning your revert of Q16825962, the wikidata tag is not accurate for what we have on Simple. We do not have anything about a person. All we have is a redirect to an branch of science. The tag is an instance of a profession. our page is not a profession any more. The original page (which was a profession) has been changed and is no longer described by that tag. It should be tagged as a redirect now. Creol (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It is helpful to add the badge intensional sitelink to a redirect to sitelinks on redirects (phab:T235420). But for technical reason (phab:T54564) is it not possible add this badge on a sitelink to a redirect. --Fomafix (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Gemeindeteile und Wikipedia-Verknüpfung

Hallo Fomafix!

Da ich sehe, dass Du bei Schellbronn schon mal erfolgreich einen Wikipedia-Link gesetzt hast, wende ich mich an Dich: Schellbronn ist ja nur einer von vier Gemeindeteilen Neuhausens; die übrigen drei habe ich soeben erstellt: Hamberg, Steinegg und Neuhausen. Allerdings lässt das System nicht zu, dass ich die jeweiligen Wikipedia-Weiterleitungsseiten de:Steinegg (Neuhausen) und de:Hamberg (Neuhausen) (für den Gemeindeteil Neuhausen gibt es keine Weiterleitungsseite) mit den zugehörigen Wikidata-Objekten verknüpfe („beabsichtigter Seitenlink zur Weiterleitung“). Die seien schon mit Neuhausen verknüpft. Mache ich etwas falsch oder kann man das nur als Admin? Danke schon mal für Deine Hilfe!

--Luthermütze (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ich habe es verknüpft. Es geht leider nur, indem erst die Weiterleitung in einen Artikel gewandelt wird und danach wieder zurück. Siehe meine Bearbeitungskommentare. --Fomafix (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ach so! Ich dachte, dazu müsste man womöglich Admin sein. Dann kann ich das nächstes Mal ja auch ;) Vielen Dank für die Hilfe!

--Luthermütze (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comte de Gérone

The redirect fr:Comte de Gérone should be linked from the Count of Girona page. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Fomafix (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The redirect es:Conde de Pardiac should be linked from the Count of Pardiac page. Should be a similar redirect at the Russian Wiki, but I don't know Russian. And while we're on the topic, a reader should be able to find fr:Liste des comtes de Paris from en:Count of Paris. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I created the sitelinks es:Conde de Pardiac and fr:Comte de Paris. For Russian a similar sitelink is probably possible. Fomafix (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Bitte beherzige...

... meine Hinweise. --Succu (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Bitte entferne keine sinnvollen Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen gemäß Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects. --Fomafix (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Succu: Deine Rückgängigmachung ist nicht nachvollziehbar. Solche Hauptkategorie-Links und Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen existieren zu zigtausenden. Solltest Du keine klar nachvollziehbaren Gründe nennen, werde ich Deine Änderung wieder rückgängig machen. --Fomafix (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

All diese Wikiprojekte „wünschen” diese Art der Weiterleitung? Woher weist du das? --Succu (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Statt klar nachvollziehbaren Gründe nennen nennen stellst Du Gegenfragen. Wikidata ist nun mal dafür da Interwikilinks bereitzustellen. Fomafix (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Exakt! Für „sitelinks“, aber nicht für „redirects“. Aber ich vermute du kennst die komplexe Geschichte dahinter. Im Bereich der Taxonomie schaffen WLs mehr Probleme als sie lösen könnten. --Succu (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sitelinks sind Links auf Einträge in andere Wikiprojekte. Dabei ist es im Prinzip egal, ob das Linkziel ein Artikel oder eine Weiterleitung ist. Für das Setzen eines Links auf einen Eintrag in Wikipedia ist auch keine Erlaubnis erforderlich. Wo siehst Du im Bereich der Taxonomie Probleme durch Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen? --Fomafix (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirs verweisen auf irgendetwas. Die WL Petropedetes newtoni in Petropedetes newtonii (Q2244942) leitet auf Petropedetes johnstoni (Q2245099) weiter. Das ist verwirrend. Wieso sind diese beiden Datenobjekte auf genau diese Weise miteinander verbunden? --Succu (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW: „Individual Wikimedia projects have their own rules about which redirects they consider to be worthy.“ (Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects). --Succu (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Offensichtlich wurden in der französischen Wikipedia die beiden Begriffe fr:Petropedetes newtoni und fr:Petropedetes johnstoni in einem Artikel zusammengefasst. Das ist eine übliche Vorgehensweise um Redundanz zu vermeiden und eine Entscheidung des jeweiligen Wikiprojekts und auch nicht spezifisch für den Bereich der Taxonomie. Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen ermöglichen trotzdem die Verlinkung zwischen allen Wikiprojekten, auch wenn ein Wikiprojekt zwei Begriffe in einem Artikel zusammengefasst hat. --Fomafix (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Aus dem bestehenden Artikel Petropedetes newtoni (=Petropedetes newtonii (Q2244942)!) ist eine WL zu Petropedetes johnstoni (=Petropedetes johnstoni (Q2245099)) geworden. Die Gründe sind nicht nachvollziehbar. AmphibiaWeb (Q47263042) akzepitiert beide Arten. Die WL auf WD macht keinen Sinn.

User:Poleta33 hat den Artikel in eine Weiterleitung gewandelt mit dem Kommentar syn, vermutlich für Synonym. Ob das nun richtig oder falsch ist spielt für den Sitelink in Wikidata keine Rolle. Meiner Meinung nach ist bei Petropedetes newtonii (Q2244942) ein Sitelink auf fr:Petropedetes newtoni sinnvoll, egal ob dort ein Artikel oder eine Weiterleitung ist. --Fomafix (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wenn man der Meinung ist, der Buchstabe "A" ist mit dem Buchstaben "B" identisch, dann ist das sicher OK? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wenn jemand in frwiki ist den Buchstaben A und den Buchstaben B in einem Artikel behandelt, indem von A eine Weiterleitung auf B gemacht wird, dann kann trotzdem in Wikidata A und B separat verlinkt werden, wobei der Sitelink auf A ein Sitelink auf eine Weiterleitung ist. --Fomafix (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

„in einem Artikel” trifft hier aber nicht zu. --Succu (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ich kann Deinem unvollständigen Satz nicht sicher folgen, aber ich vermute, Du meinst, dass eine Weiterleitung angelegt wird, ohne dass im Zielartikel der Begriff erklärt wird. Das ist zurecht ein Problem. Aber nicht ein Problem des Sitelinks auf die Weiterleitung, sondern die Weiterleitung selbst ist das Problem. --Fomafix (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Das bezog sich auf das Beispiel Petropedetes newtoni / Petropedetes johnstoni und deine Argumentation. Die WL ist schlicht falsch. Es ist übrigens kein Einzelbeispiel das eigentlich heterotypische/subjektive Synonyme einfach aufeinander verschoben werden. Übrig bleibt ein WL von der niemand sagen kann was genau sie bezwecken. Auf WD werden solche Datenobjekte gern zusammengelegt und alle Eigenschaften, die das eigentlich verhindern sollen, entfernt. --Succu (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Das sind alles Probleme der Weiterleitungen selbst, aber nicht die Probleme von Sitelinks auf diese Weiterleitungen. Falsche Zusammenlegungen von Wikidata-Datenobjekten sind ebenfalls ein Problem. Aber gerade gegen dieses Problem helfen sogar Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen, denn es kann nur ein Datenobjekt pro Ziel geben. Wenn zwei Datenobjekte Sitelinks für das gleiche Wikiprojekt haben, dann können sie nicht fälschlicherweise vereinigt werden, auch wenn ein Sitelink nur Sitelink auf eine Weiterleitung ist. Wichtiger Hinweis: Es sollen selbstverständlich keine Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen zu Namensvarianten oder Schreibvarianten angelegt werden. --Fomafix (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Anderes aktuelles Problem: Die ceb-WL auf Toxolasma texasiense (Q3796699) führte zum Artikel Toxolasma texasiense der mit dem Datenobjekt zu Toxolasma mearnsi (Q3789578) verknüpft war. Das Verschieben des ceb-sitelinks ist erst nach manuellem Löschen der WL möglich. Erst jetzt stimmt die Zuordnung. Die WL auf ceb existiert natürlich weiterhin. Die WL auf WD verkompliziert die Problemlösung. --Succu (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hier wurde in cebwiki der Artikel umbenannt und hier wurde in Wikidata die Änderung nachgezogen. Umbenennungen mit einem Wechsel der Bedeutung sind immer problematisch. Daher ist es für Wikidata eigentlich immer nur sinnvoll den richtigen Begriff in der entsprechenden Sprache zu verlinken, unabhängig ob das nun ein Artikel oder eine Weiterleitung ist.

Warum ist ceb:Toxolasma texasiense nicht mit Toxolasma texasiense (Q106020246) verlinkt? --Fomafix (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Succu: Deine dargelegten Beispiele für Probleme im Bereich der Taxonomie durch Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen sind meiner Meinung nach keine Probleme, die durch Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen verursacht werden. Vor allem sind es keine Probleme die spezifisch für den Bereich der Taxonomie sind. Deine Rückgängigmachung hat Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen zu ranghöheren monotypischen Taxa entfernt. Sieht Du bei Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen zu ranghöheren monotypischen Taxa konkrete Probleme? Was ist nun für die Rückgängigmachung Deine nachvollziehbare Begründung? --Fomafix (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:@Succu: Da nach einer Woche keine nachvollziehbare Begründung gekommen ist, habe ich Deine Änderung rückgängig gemacht und die Sitelinks auf Weiterleitungen zu ranghöheren monotypischen Taxa wiederhergestellt. --Fomafix (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Phlebologist

Thanks for fixing Phlebologist, forgot it moved it automatically! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata updates the sitelink on a page move automatically. On a change of the meaning like en:Phlebologist to en:Phlebology this is a bad behavior. It would be nice if MediaWiki allows to select a different strategy on en:Special:MovePage/Phlebologist for this use-case. --Fomafix (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Q30715223

Hallo @Fomafix, der Grund meiner Revertierung für Q30715223 ist, dass ich gerne diese Methode Q30715223 von einer spezifischen Maschine https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorptionsk%C3%A4ltemaschine getrennt haben würde.

Es fehlt in Wikipedia ein Artikel zu einer technologieagnostischen Beschreibung der Methode. Sobald es diesen fehlenden Artikel gibt kann natürich sofort auf diesen von wikidata aus verlinkt werden. Maschine und Methode sind jedoch nicht das selbe. freundliche Grüße, scoid Scoid (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Q19896779

This element is about the term while de:Großer Vaterländischer Krieg is redirecting to de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg (Q189266), not to the term. These are two different objects Unikalinho (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In dewiki the two terms are described in one article with a redirect. --Fomafix (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wenn auch so, wir haben hier in Wikidata eine falsche Weiterleitung. Das heißt, ein Leser des Artikels, z.B. es:Gran Guerra Patria oder uk:Велика Вітчизняна війна, der in Interwiki de:Großer Vaterländischer Krieg sieht und es lesen will (dabei denkt er, dass es um Termin geht), gerät stattdessen auf den Artikel über den Krieg. Meiner Meinung nach, ist das schädlich--Unikalinho (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Neija, wenn der Begriff de:Großer Vaterländischer Krieg (Q19896779) im Artikel de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg (d:Q189266) beschrieben wird, dann passt meiner Meinung nach die Weiterleitung von de:Großer Vaterländischer Krieg auf de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg und auch die Verlinkung von de:Großer Vaterländischer Krieg in Q19896779. Offensichtlich ist Infovarius der gleichen Meinung. --Fomafix (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)