User talk:Clemens Dulcis

Madamebiblio (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in maintaining Wikidata. I have a small suggestion to improve your future work. If you notice two items with similar names and you suspect they might be duplicates, please check them thoroughly before merging them. See Help:Merge for more information on how to merge items. Thanks!  Madamebiblio (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greek is language code el, or grc for ancient Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Clemens Dulcis (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Madamebiblio. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent description edits didn't meet the Wikidata description guidelines. Descriptions should appear as though they were in the middle of a sentence, typically start with a lowercase letter, and written from a neutral point of view. For example, "pop singer" would be a better description than "He is the best pop singer." If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  Madamebiblio (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please give an example of my mistakes. Clemens Dulcis (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clemens Dulcis, here: Pindaric ode (Q124423958). Madamebiblio (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought: proper name; and so it is written in J. A. Cuddon: Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, page 536... analogue to "Pindarics" in Wikipedia... Clemens Dulcis (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary is copyrighted, can be used as a reference. It is necessary to paraphrase in your own words following the conventions of the community for descriptions. Madamebiblio (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you meant the description, not the initial capital letter: "Pindaric ode: ode consisting of two identical stanzas (ode and antode) and a metrically different third stanza (epode)": Don't worry, the description is a simplified paraphrase in my own words (mainly based on the German dictionaries Wilpert and MLL-2). --- What is formally wrong? Please improve. Thank you for your interest. Clemens Dulcis (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clemens Dulcis. Could you please support the creation of the following property: Pocket Oxford German Dictionary: German-English ID. Thank you. Soufiyouns (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clemens Dulcis. Congratulations and a big thank you for your crucial support for the creation of the property German-English Dictionary ID (P12904) which I hope will be useful for the entire German-speaking community in Wikidata. Could you now support the creation of the inverse property so that we can have a bilingual duo: Pocket Oxford German Dictionary: English-German ID. Kind regards. Soufiyouns (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Probably canvassing. Thank you. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, but enWS has separate disambiguation pages for human names (see en:ws:John Armstrong vs en:ws:Author:John Armstrong) Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me a different from (P1889) statement that benefits from director (P57) or author (P50) as qualifiers. Swpb (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q28019112 Clemens Dulcis (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

different from (P1889) statements are not the place to make statements about the object item; those belong on the item itself. Swpb (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the search becomes easier Clemens Dulcis (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) In what way? Are you talking about a search box search for one of the alternate items? How would those qualifiers help? 2) Using qualifiers this way on this property is, IMO, a deviation from the intended purpose of the property, and before these become allowed qualifiers on it, I would like to see a consensus for such (on the property talk page, or project talk). Swpb (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Clemens Dulcis, ich habe deine Änderung im Item Mitte gesehen [1]. Berlin-Mitte ist der Ortsteil Mitte des Bezirks Mitte von Berlin und kein Berliner Bezirk. Wahrscheinlich wäre es am Besten, das Label in deutsch auf "Bezirk Mitte" zu setzen, bei den anderen Sprachen wäre Mitte (Berlin) ggf am einfachsten. Schöne Grüße Singlespeedfahrer (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted some of your edits. Hope it is ok:

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q163966&diff=2230483513&oldid=2228870451 Best wishes Singlespeedfahrer (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klar, ist i. O.; pardon, dass ich die Redundanzen eingeführt habe; aber zumindest in Latein und Rumänisch wird nun der Bezug zu Berlin aus Name + Beschreibung klar... Clemens Dulcis (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that leaving out the Russian award was incomplete in terms of the nature of the award, so I edited it to read: "Russian campaign medal of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.". I'm thinking about how I can shorten it even more could be: Russian campaign medal. Alex Tayler (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, which one will be more reasonable and complete the meaning of the award? @Clemens Dulcis Alex Tayler (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the question; I think it is very good to characterise the medal as a campaign medal; the reference to the Ministry of Defence is less important, but also interesting Clemens Dulcis (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have given DNB edition ID (P1292) a constraint of requiring edition or translation of (P629). I don't think this is correct, and it is causing entries to be wrongly flagged. The description "DNB edition ID" - presumably chosen to distinguish it from some of the variant descriptions of GND ID (P227) - is probably itself misleading, as this database includes entire runs of periodicals and part-works as well as specific editions and translations of single works. Two such runs - Q1668564 and Q1202222 - are given as examples of P1292, and are now being flagged for violation of this constraint; as are various scientific journals I have recently added (e.g. Q31864866). Can you reconsider this constraint, please.--Keith Edkins (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion; you are right. I have deprecated the constraint. Clemens Dulcis (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]