User talk:Ainali

Why revert duplicate classification

Latest comment: 6 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

You reverted Steeg (Q681867) to be instance of (P31) rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801) and municipality of Austria (Q667509). Why did you revert to a configuration that does not make sense?

Given that rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801) is a subclass of (P279) municipality of Austria (Q667509), Steeg (Q681867) already is instance of (P31) municipality of Austria (Q667509) without any need to add this once again. -- Harald Hetzner (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Harald Hetzner Because on the Austrian municipality key property (Q681867#P964), Steeg is listed among the other 2092 municipalities. So at least one item with the label Steeg should have municipality of Austria (Q667509) or we end up one short. What source do you use for it to have rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801)? To me, it seems like you are repurposing an existing and well-modeled item to become something else instead of creating a new item. Should there be two items perhaps? Ainali (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As it is also the case in other countries, municipalities in Austria can be divided into different types of municipalities. Steeg is obviously rural. The capital is a small village in a more remote part of the Lech valley. Therefore, this classification looks appropriate.

For an unknown reason, there is the rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801) item on Wikidata, but no corresponding item for an Austrian urban municipality (Stadtgemeinde) as well as "Marktgemeinde", even though the Wikipedia article de:Gemeinde (Österreich), to which de:Landgemeinde (Österreich) redirects also mentions them.

If you consider it inappropriate to classify an Austrian municipality in a rural area as rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801), which is technically equivalent to municipality of Austria (Q667509) due to subclassing, then the ancient rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801) classification should be removed instead.

Do you consider this the better solution? Harald Hetzner (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You say "obviously", yet you haven't produced a source yet, nor a source that states that it is not a municipality of Austria (Q667509). Are they hard to find? Ainali (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have personally been to the village of Steeg, which is located in the municipality that goes by the same name. The village clearly is a village. The municipality clearly is non-urban mountainside.

Further, I do not dispute that the municipality of Steeg is an Austrian municipality.

Yet, from a logical point of view, it does not make any sense that an item is an instance of another item and at the same time it is an instance of a subclass of the latter item. It is sufficient if the item is an instance of the subclass item. This makes it an instance of the subclass item's superclass at the same time. Harald Hetzner (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You should know that you can't really put your personal observations in the reference field of a statement. However, I take it from your recent edits on rural municipality of Austria (Q1802801) that it shouldn't be used anymore, and that it is a historical class. Ainali (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is not about putting personal observations in some field that can only link database items. However, personal observations of somebody who has actually been on site should take precedence over internet swarm stupidity. Harald Hetzner (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you are calling the source Statistics Austria (Q358870) for internet swarm stupidity, I think we have reached the end of our conversation. Ainali (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maryana Iskander

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, why did you remove the new photographs? Padarquetty (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

First, because rank was used in the wrong way, see Help:Ranking. Second, even though these images were newer, they are objectively of less quality than the professional portrait that was there before. Ainali (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please explain!

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This! This is simply wrong. This child died in the age of 9! She never acted against the Nazis. Did nothing. She was never ever a resistance fighter. Never. This is simply not true. She was captured, carried away and killed. What ever is written in this data base is wrong. We know her biografy. Her very, very short biography. You spread wrong "facts" via this data base. And how should I prrove, that this is wrong and debated? Except you, who provides this wrong "fact", nobody ever before would have founf this. Nobody has cared about it yet, because nobody except you took this as a fact. But blind following even wrong things is a problem for this project. You spread fakes. People like you are poisoning the data. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way: I see, that the book you quote did not feature 101 resistance fighters. No, this book collects 101 biographies of females, whose lives were massively affected and influenced by World War II. A large portion are female resistance fighters, but by no means all. There are also biographies of victims included. And, for example, biographies of forced prostitutes in Japanese camps. But you even list female concentration camp guards (!) as resistance fighters, like Suze Arts Q28064317. You are committing massive falsifications here. Because what you are doing simply does not reflect the content of the book! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh my. Chill a few seconds. What happened to assume good faith? I'll reply later, but I'll let the air cool a couple of degrees since you are already passing the limits of civility and netiquette. Ainali (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hiding behind "netiquette" is always an excuse for those who don't want to face up to what they've been caught doing. I don't care for sugarcoating. It's about facts. If you have a problem with us discussing facts without sugarcoating, that's not my problem. You won't get any American drivel from me. And I wouldn't be so annoyed if you hadn't blindly reverted my edit. Because then I had to figure out what you'd done. The call for "assume good faith" always comes up when someone doesn't want to own up to their mistakes. Besides, I don't even want to discuss this at length. Because there's nothing to discuss. The only thing I want is for you to stop putting demonstrably false information into the data again. Everything I've reverted from you now was removed based on fact-checking. And again: nothing I deleted was supported by the book you cited. I'm done from my end. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Finally about 25 of 101, 25%, a quarter, were not resistance fighter. And there were already before complains and deletions about your wrong categorizations with this book. It seems, you never ever read this book. You blindly followed an idea you had of the book without actually knowing it. And in doing so, you made a huge mess of things. That's simply no way to work. That's just spreading nonsense. A quarter of the information is wrong—that's not a simple statistical anomaly. That's a distortion of reality. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

You make a lot of assumptions and write a lot for someone claiming not wanting to discuss but at the same time demands explanations. I won't stoop to your level, but take your word for it that yo're done and hence won't try to comply with your contradictions. Done from my side too. Ainali (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

NEED GUIDANCE

Latest comment: 28 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am reaching out because I was improving this item Q7032908 and I saw the discription you added and also the dissolved, abolished or demolished date statement you added, but the organization is still working Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, although it has undergone several name merges Should there be different Items for the different names before this last merge name? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macocobovi (talk • contribs) at 15:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC).Reply

Hi Macocobovi! That's an excellent question. It varies by country and change of the portfolio, and we have examples of both in Wikidata now for various ministries and changes. However it is modeled, it should be clear what the current status is and how it has changed over time either by connecting two items or by using start and end date as qualifiers on the values. Ainali (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Notability

Latest comment: 16 days ago18 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for contributing to Wikidata. I see that you recently created an item that does not clearly indicate its notability. The Wikidata project only accepts items that meet its notability criteria, and your item is therefore likely to be deleted soon. In brief, items must have an associated Wikipedia article, must be needed for statements on another notable item, or must have both identifiers and serious sources. For the last case, a good indication of notability would be multiple articles about the subject in independent publications like newspapers or magazines. You can add such sources as references to specific claims using reference URL (P854), or as top-level claims using described at URL (P973).

Also, this may not apply in this specific case, but you should know that we discourage editors from self-promotion, contributing on topics with which they have a strong personal connection, as this may present a conflict of interest. If you are being paid to edit here, then you are obliged to disclose this. For a longer version, you might find it useful to read the essay "How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted". Bovlb (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC) --Bovlb (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bovlb Was this an automated message? Did I somehow end up on the wrong list by mistake? None of the listed items were created recently.

All the chairman positions are clearly meeting notability criteria, if for nothing else, for structural reasons. The term list is issued by a government agency and already supporting lexemes. Ainali (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for following up. This was not an automated message. I agree that many of these items are fairly old, and I apologize for not bringing this issue to your attention earlier.

Can you give an example of one of these items supporting a lexeme? I wasn't able to find anything. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see that I was a bit unclear, sorry for that. So your list, while long, has two types of items. All but one are items for the office of a municipal chairman (of municipalities in Sweden). Only the last one is a different kind, which is the list of terms, that is currently linked to from a handful of lexemes. Arguably, all lexemes on that list are notable too and should be added to Wikidata as well. Ainali (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK. Are you going to be able to bring these items into compliance? Bovlb (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

How are they out of compliance? Ainali (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

With which notability criterion do they comply? Bovlb (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit of a backwards situation when you first claim that they are not in compliance, and then not answering why you think that is the case. Anyway, they are satisfying criterion 2. Ainali (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

In order to satisfy notability criterion 2 (N2), an item should have both identifiers and sources. Looking at chairman of the municipal council in Nässjö Municipality (Q130582532), for example, I see neither. Could you please clarify why you think this item complies with N2? Bovlb (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll copy and paste the text for N2 here for reference. "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." (my emphasis) It doesn't say that the item needs to have neither identifiers or sources. (However, it is indeed a suggestion for improvement in the ongoing policy reform.) And to be clear, these are the top positions in the municipality, there are hundreds if not thousands of sources even for the tiniest of the municipalities that anyone could add. Ainali (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is indeed an effort underway to improve the working of the notability criteria, as a lot of people seem to be confused by them. Ultimately it's a matter of maintainability. Without identifiers, we can't tell whether two similar items are the same or not. Without references, we can't validate information or add more. Theoretical sources and potential identifiers don't help us in practice.

You say that these items are sourceable, but they were created back in 2024 and still lack sources and identifiers. As creator of the item, it's your responsibility to ensure that it complies with our notability policy. That's a commitment you undertake when you click on "Create a new item". Bovlb (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that is my commitment. And as the policy is written today, I maintain that they already comply with the criterion. (If not, we wouldn't need to propose a change of the wording in the reform discussion.)

However, what confuses me is that you aren't looking at this as a complete set of items. For example, you didn't list chairman of the municipal council in Stockholm Municipality (Q130582562). And to me, it's obvious that if one of these items are notable, then all are. Perhaps we need the involvement of an admin that have some topical knowledge of how Sweden works? Ainali (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

That item has both a reference, in partial satisfaction of N2, and an inlink, satisfying N3. Bovlb (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

We seem to have come to a standstill. I have complied with the policy as written, and you want to add on some extra criteria that still is not an adopted policy. As far as I have understood other Wikidata policies, that is not in the power of individual users to do. Ainali (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please try your best to improve these items. I'll check back in a week or so. Bovlb (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll make improvements when I see articles about office holders being written on Swedish Wikipedia. I'm not holding my breath for that happening in a week or so as I have no automated way to detect it, but you are of course welcome to check as often as you want. Ainali (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the improvements! Bovlb (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply