User talk:Jdforrester/Archive 1

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024.

Merge

Good evening Jdforrester. One other contributor told me about these 2 gadgets : merging and deleting. Like you said, it is very easy to use and it is also faster. So if you look t my contributions page, you can see that the only time when I requested a deletion this way was because I requested the deletion of the page which was with all the information in it. So I did it manually. I hope you keep going. Good night.
Nezdek (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nezdek: You can use the tool even if the target page has all the information - it won't duplicate. This makes things easier for you. James F. (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I'll do that. Thanks for the tip.
Nezdek (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

When merging, shouldn't we keep the item with the largest edit history?

Hi James. I just noticed that a merger occurred between literary language (Q15978207) and literary language (Q1097949). Although I agree that the items should have been merged, I remember to have made numerous changes to Q15978207 whose history was lost with the merger. Shouldn't we strive to keep the item with the largest edit history, regardless of it being "newer" than the other? This is what seems to be implied on Help:Merge:

"... one item is selected to be the recipient of the sitelinks and properties. This is usually the item that is used more often. If you can't tell, best choose the one with the lowest Q####, as it is the oldest item."

Maybe the problem is with me; I'm used to the guidelines seen on other wikimedia projects that stress the importance of keeping the page history, and it's a bit hard for me to get used to the fact that wikidata is a different thing (is it?). Regards, Capmo (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right that it's not a great system right now (deleting one is always going to be destructive). I believe that the Wikidata developers have been working on making merging work a lot better, preserving the edit history – so hopefully it won't last. James F. (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's good news, thanks. Capmo (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Page histories are rather irrelevant on Wikidata as we contribute under the CC-0 licence here as opposed to other Wikimedia projects. The page history is therefore just a Wikidata-internal thing which is meaningless regarding attribution. That's why I don't think keeping the item with the largest page history is too important though obviously for reasons of transparency it would be great if the development team could manage to preserve the entire history, in order to see which user/bot added what. Regards, Vogone (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone: Indeed, it's a blame rather than credit need. :-) James F. (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Barbosella miersii (Q15432501)

Hi Jdforrester. Your merged a species and a genus. Please undo this merge. --Succu (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm? --Succu (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Magnolia sirindhorniae (Q15247322)

Hi, please restore this item. It was used as basionym. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

? --Succu (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

series ordinal (P1545)

I was looking for the discussion of this property in wd:pp's archives to add some documentation to it, but I was not able to find the property proposal. Could you please point me to it? Thanks!--Micru (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Micru: Sorry, can't find it now I'm looking. There was lots of discussion at the time but I can't see the specific section from a quick search. :-( James F. (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of removal of adminship

Hello,

As Jasper Deng seems to have forgotten it last month, I hereby regretfully inform you that, in accordance with Wikidata:Administrators#Losing adminship and as a result of your inactivity, administrator rights have been removed from your account. Please see Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining inactivity for details. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vogone: Yeah, I noticed. Perfect example of a thoughtless inactivity policy, as we no longer have as much administrative work to do and so have more need of thoughtful discussion between sysops rather than rapid action. James F. (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)