Madvin

Please do not ever merge again items which are not strictly identical. For names, we are creating items based on strings. One string, one item. So Іван is not Иван is not Ivan. They are translitterations of each other but should be kept separated. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Harmonia Amanda: ОК, I will not merge them. But a person has both Иван and Іван in his national passport, and Ivan in his foreign passport. It's a common case, what do you suggest,? Should one person have several P735 pointing to different values? --Madvin (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am unable to follow what you have done with the articles, but I see that Ukrainian is the only language in which existing raions have one article, and the raions with the same name have another one (like Ternopil Raion and Ternopil Raion (1940-2020)). Now, Ternopil Raion is not connected to anything, and Ternopil Raion (1940-2020) is connected with the bunch of other articles. This is wrong and should be swapped.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ymblanter: I am not happy with new raions as well. I am strongly against creation of new entities for them. But in wikidata, all previously existing entities are already linked to old raion entities and should be left as they are. A person who was born in 1950 in some town belonging to the old raion cannot be re-linked to the new (2020) raion as it will broke auto categories in wikipedia. A town belonging to the old raion in 1937 cannot be re-linked to the new (2020) raion as all existing wikisource articles are linked to old raions. I short, no entity can be linked to a new raion in any period of time before 2020. This is also correct for old categories — they should not be re-linked to new (2020) raions. A week ago, I tried to contact Tohaomg who did most of those changes but did not receive any answer, so I rolled back changes where old entities were re-linked to the new raions and new entities were created for old raions, as those changes created a lot of mess/broken constraints etc. I still need to roll back all category re-linking. --Madvin (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is probably best to take to the Project Chat. We might need to have even three items for every raion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, i added a topic for this bad edit serie, so it will be propably auto-reverted. ;-) Have a nice day. Matlin (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Matlin: Thank you --Madvin (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Sorry, but your last changes are not correct. This category is related not to historical district, but to existing one. I am changing this to correct link. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ykvach: I'm afraid YOUR changes are not correct. Small example — you re-linked existing "Births in Izmail Raion" to an entity for a new raion created in 2020. Before this change, all the people who were born within period from 1923 to 2020 in places which were under that administrative entity and did not have linked category like that, were automaticallly categorized as "was born in Izmail Raion". After the change you broke that, and this is not the only thing you broke. Each entity for raion has its categories, and if you re-link existing correct entities to newly created ones, you create a mess. If you created a new entity for a new raion, you can create a separate categories for each new entity. DO NOT re-link historical ones. --Madvin (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Не потрібно так робити [1]. У такому випадку в картці громади відображається два райони. Якщо хочете так писати, то треба спочатку виправити картку, щоб вона розуміла, що треба не всі райони.--Ahonc (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ahonc:Тільки так і треба робити, бо це реальні дані. А шаблон картки громади треба виправити, шаблони НП це правильно обробляють --Madvin (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ну так спочатку виправити шаблон, а потім міняти елементи.--Ahonc (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ahonc:Тоді пропоную до виправлення шаблона ставити пріоритет останньому значенню, але не видаляти старі --Madvin (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply