User talk:AttoRenato/Archive 1

Hello, why did you removed all links here: Q2305814? If I see correctly there was only one wrong link (it-wiki article). I don't see any reason why you deleted all the links. I restored other links back and added correct it-wiki article. --Stryn (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Q4027805

Why do you remove most of links? Some links you remove had been already correct. --Nullzero (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge.js

Quando usi l'utilissimo merge.js, ricorda di mettere la spunta a "Unisci sempre con l'elemento col numero Q più piccolo". Buon lavoro, --Epìdosis 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[1]

Hi AttoRenato, are you sure the items you have merged there are the same? Best regards -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Just a suggestion for when you make deletion requests: can you please do it in bulk so that other editors don't constantly get edit conflicts when they try and save the page? I've been trying to save mine for a solid 3-4 minutes now but can't because you are flooding the queue. Just a thought! SweetNightmares (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Merges

Please be more carefull with your merges. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the matter? --AttoRenato (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at my last reverts. --Succu (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(I don't understand this way of communicate via user talk page, however...) @User:Succu: I see: sv:Fossaria (Q15411558) is Q1040689 of en:Galba (gastropod) (Q3075506); why dont' merge? if I understand the meaning of Q1040689... I also see: fr:Prunus pumila besseyi (Q3408648), AND vi:Prunus besseyi (Q15624054), same author (Q152366), but the article's name on vi.wiki is I guess incorrect; again: why dont' merge? --AttoRenato (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I started the discussion on your talk page. To keep things together you should answer here. I reverted a bunch of wrong taxa related merges of items of yours before today. You never ask why. So tell me something: what do you know about taxonomy? Then I tell you, why merging these items is not a good idea. --Succu (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC) PS: May be you should have a look at Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy

OK, I understand about discussion, it's a way of doing it (...so about reverting: as admin when I revert a diff I choose: if the reason is clearly bright I simply revert, if it's not so bright I explain, however I've never expected as a normal behaviour other users asking me why I reverted; but no problem, at the end in Italy we have a motto saying - more or less - "country you go, behaviour you find"). Then: I know a little about taxonomy, surely less than about wikidata - or wikipedia - or wikimedia - or simply about logic, and logic with reading capability seemed me till yesterday useful: just yesterday I asked "why?" but you didn't answer. Please, if (I'm not so sure there's a plenty of human contributors here) you think one more user is useful, apply wiki(data)love and explain me the right way of merging those taxonomy-related items. THX --AttoRenato (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to revert a lot of merges every day of people playing the merge game. Merging two items is not allways the best way, often moving sitelinks is a better solution. Items with different ranks should never be merged. Same is true for items above species level, because we need these items to model parent taxon (P171). Prunus pumila var. besseyi (L.H.Bailey) Gleason and Prunus pumila L. have no taxon authors in common. Prunus pumila var. besseyi (L.H.Bailey) Gleason belongs to Prunus pumila L., but is not necessary treated as a synonym of Prunus pumila L. To model synonymy we have some properties: basionym (P566), original combination (P1403), replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) and taxon synonym (P1420). The last one should be use if someone is of the opinion that two taxa have to be treated as synonyms. --Succu (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess dealing with plants it's a bit more complicated than I expected (from wikipedian' point-of-view of treating with inter-wiki-links, I say). I apologize for my mistakes and for my (if any) rude tones. I think I will try to clean the mess only in non-botanical items (excluding vi.wiki from "the game" setting is a good start...). Bye bye user:Succu. --AttoRenato (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Then exclude the botgenerated wikis ceb/war/sv too. And add animals, viruses and so on. ;) There are different code of nomenclature (P944), with different rules. It's a long way to get things right. Regards -Succu (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Q15701550

Hello AttoRenato, I will not delete Scott Wheeler (Q15701550), that you proposed to delete, since this item is currently used in Avalanche Sharks (Q15701545). Pamputt (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

aliases

I see you are removing aliases (like here, here, here, and here). Removing useful information is damaging to Wikidata; don't do this. - Brya (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

True duplicates

Hi Atto! Per the Redirect vs Deletion RFC, true duplicates should not be deleted unless they are younger than 24 hours. Just thought I'd let you know! George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@George.Edward.C:, THX, I will remember, but... is there any help page about these matters? --AttoRenato (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the help pages have been updated, but you can see the RFC (see the conclusion) Oh and one more thing, you might need to remove the sitelink before you merge, otherwise the redirect/merge will fail. Cheers :) George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 20:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@George.Edward.C: Of course! ;) Bye --AttoRenato (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Q10859101

Hello Atto. You have merged copper engraving technique (Q10859101)-chalcography and copper engraving technique (Q18218242)-chalcography ; the first is the technic and the second was the print produced with the technic. So The Sea Monster (Q7762767) had copper engraving technique (Q18218242) for instance of (P31) and not copper engraving technique (Q10859101) which is non-sense. I splitted again the items with the creation of copper engraving print (Q18887969) and fixed bad instance of (P31) ; please don't merge them. Shonagon (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong merge

Please stop merging not identical subjects. Rick (Q450651) is a disambiguation page and Rick (Q18073734) a given name. Correcting your wrong merges is really tiring. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

When I say « tiring » I mean : nearly a thousand editions to repair it. Really, stop merging if you don't understand Wikidata policy. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda: I think instead wikidata's (policy|sysops|software|whatever) dont' understand wikis: THIS is (in en.wiki's opinion) a given name (and you put it again among disambiguations), others are disambiguations (ok, you are right), and THIS is disambiguation AND given name-disambiguation (a third way, in pt.wiki's opinion). Useless to say pages' CONTENTS are similar if not identical (don't make me think that you, french-speaking sysop, take as only reference your native-speaking wiki...) So why losing interlinking among identical pages (which is today the best feature for wiki's users around the world)? Why is not suitable for 'data "disambiguation" AND "given name"? Not all wikis were born following wikidata policy (true: none of them), and is to wikidata to agree to them. Last, I hope I don't understand: I made in your example about "Rick" only ONE edit with a tool, you to repair my edit made a thousand edit instead??? If so, there's more to fix in 'data than policies (shaking head...) AttoRenato (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, no personal attacks please. Talk about the matter, not about the user. This is just the way how Wikidata handles things. For the record, now it's not even possible to merge those Ricks, because enwiki has pages for both of those concepts (a disambiguation page and a given name). And yes, nearly a thousand (I didn't count, but seems to be many edits that were reverted, see this), so it looks like a bot is automatically changing those values after some items have merged. Regards, night, --Stryn (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(argh, edit conflict) Hi AttoRenato. Yes, en:Rick is a page about a given name. The disambiguation page is en:Rick (disambiguation), so the interwikis were wrong and had to be corrected, which was done by @Stryn: in the meantime. Still, even if the English page was at the same time a disambiguation page and an article about the given name, like it was some weeks ago, the merge would still have been a bad idea. Just because a Wikipedia version decides to mix up two concepts does not mean Wikidata has to do the same thing... As for the interwikis, you can still add them the old fashioned way, at the bottom of the Wikipedia articles. And for your last question, the answer is yes: when you merge two pages, a bot corrects all the values of the declarations that uses the item that is transformed to a redirect. If you transform to redirect a page that is used more one thousand times as value to the "Given name" property, someone has to revert it everywhere after unmerging. -Ash Crow (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ash Crow, Stryn: Okkk, got it. Still thinking about 'data's strenght and health, though. And once again I see in 'data nominalism winning against contents. My fault, probably. Bye. AttoRenato (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)