Open main menu

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2015/06

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

removing links from "maize (Q11575)"

User:Hilal knight has removed many links from "maize (Q11575)". I don't know his reasons (maybe, it was just an inattention). Could you please undo his changes in this item? --Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, here is what I had to do in order to restore the links. Takes so many steps just because of one wrong link (azwiki)... --Stryn (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. --Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)



Block Emaens (talkcontribslogs), please. --Geohakkeri (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done for a day. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

HHubi (talkcontribslogs)

The user does not seem to understand warnings or blocks regarding his editions. Could some else check them? My first impulse was to block him for a longer period, but I rather have a third opinion (mine was the second one already). Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked on dewiki so he should be blocked here as well as he does not even try to answer to the requests on his talk page. -- Bene* talk 17:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Property proposals

Please could an administrator look over the proposals at Wikidata:Property proposal/Space#Lunar eclipse properties? They have been open since April and don't seem to have any opposition. Thanks MSGJ (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

On a more general note, all these neglected property proposals lying dormant for months on end are doing Wikidata no favours. If there is no opposition after a month (which is plenty of time for editors to express reservations) then the property should be created forthwith. I believe the same opinion has been expressed by others in the past. Regards MSGJ (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I've been processing the bulk of our property creations for the last few months. I've tended to wait, in cases such as the above, to see whether a consensus emerges. In this specific case, it appears to me that User:Filceolaire has made a proposal which you have questioned; he has clarified; but you have yet to indicate whether you agree or disagree. Is that a correct reading? I'm happy to be pinged if anyone thinks any other proposal with consensus has been overlooked. [As an aside, I'm as frustrated as you are, that a number of disputed proposals in which I have expressed a view, are also awaiting closure by an uninvolved colleague - despite an appeal on this noticeboard.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I want to thank you for taking care of property creation for the last few months, before I was doing it quite intensively and it is a time-consuming job. Now that I am back I will try to give you a hand with property creation or review.--Micru (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Micru: Thank you. Please could you start by taking a look at any of those listed at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2015/04#Property_proposal_closures which are still unresolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Filceolaire made what seemed to be a reasonable suggestion and I didn't feel that I had anything else to add. You can take that as acquiescence. Thanks for your time on these proposals, but what I am really proposing is that a form of en:wp:silent consensus should apply to these: lack of opposition is assumed to be agreement. That might clear some of the logjam. Regards MSGJ (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I apply "silent consensus" if there are no comments; I hold off if there are unresolved disagreements or queries. In future, please make such acquiescence explicit - I'm not a mind-reader ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Problemas con un enlace

Hola, hace poco traduje al catalán un artículo ya existente en castellano, Castillo de Albarracín(Q19646904). Hice el enlace y desde data o desde la página en viquipèdia funciona correctamente, en cambio, no sé porqué en wikipedia en español no aparece el enlace, ni toma las coordenadas directamente, a pesar de tener una ficha de monumento, que normalmente añaden las coordenadas automáticamente. Si me comentáis cómo solucionarlo lo hago yo, si para arreglarlo es preciso tener permisos especiales, agradecería la colaboración del que pueda echarme una mano. Gracias por todo y un saludo.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As far I can understand, you're asking why the changes you've did on Wikidata are not reflected in the article itself. I think you need to perform a null edit to fix this, by simply saving a page without making a change. Sorry for answering your question in English. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kepler-442b, GA in Wikipedia in Spanish

Hi. We have a new good article in Wikipedia in Spanish: Kepler-442b. You can check it here. Thanks. --5truenos (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A badge added by Jarould. --Stryn (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


There has been a big overhaul of Dubai (Q613) on May 29th and 30th, maybe someone should check if everything's correct-- 14:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Q9033413 with Q18153888 (Q18153888 is the better one)

Merge Q9033413 with Q18153888 (Q18153888 is the better one)

Merged to Laura Cornelius Kellogg (Q9033413), lower number is according to our conventions the better one. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fusión de dos elementos

En la wikipedia en español y gallego existe el elemento Javoleno Prisco. Coincide con otro elemento en la base de datos en otro buen número de idiomas, entre los que se incluye el inglés Iavolenus Priscus.

No sé como fusionarlos, por lo que ruego que algún administrador se ocupe del asunto.

Atentamente --scutum (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Iavolenus Priscus (Q678333) and Q5637919 merged. Pamputt (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Can we protect it further? --- Jura 19:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

tennis ranking - PfD

I have ended the year long PfD about Property:P1119 with the conclusion that both P1118 and P1119 should be replaced by ranking (P1352). Please help me with the necessary steps before the properties can be deleted. (Bot-replacements, notify Wikipedias etc) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

gadget label for recent changes

I would like to trace WE-F gadget usage at Wikidata. Gadget places same link in description: via [[:w:ru:ВП:WE-F|WE-Framework gadget]] from . Could someone create appropriate label for recent changes and assign such label using Abuse Filter? -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vlsergey: AFAIK it's already possible to set tags using API. As soon as you are ready with the gadget, ask again and an admin can create a tag for it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: Could you create tag for it then? I will try to set it via API. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  Done WE-Framework gadget. You may also do it with older edits using your bot and a database query. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion

This is not urgent per se but I figured I'd bring it to the attention of admins rather than the wider community. Over the past few weeks we've seen issues both in Wikipedia and OTRS with people reporting inappropriate content like this in Google searches. As far as I know (and oddly enough) these only show up in mobile. The Wikidata community might want to think about how to counteract this, perhaps defaulting to some kind of semi-protection. We need to be nimbler and smarter than search engines, whose motivation in the end is to make money. I can see this being a potentially large problem that might blow up in the future if some clever troll finds the right combination of data and matching Wikipedia article(s) to manipulate. Wikipedia has a lot of eyes and a refined counter-vandalism system, but Wikidata has a far smaller number of actively engaged users since it's not by and large a user-edited resource. Just something to think about. I don't know that we need yet another attack vector and possible source of embarrassment. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

duplicidad de categoría

Hola, existe una duplicidad de categorías Q13321101 y Q9140580.--Sergio Andres Segovia (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Merged. Jared Preston (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Reverted a couple of vandalisms from The referenced article for this item is highly targeted by vandalism in almost all wikipedias. Not sure how protection policies work here, but it might be a good idea to protect it, if possible. Banjo (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this for two weeks. Hopefully vandalism stops after that period. -- Bene* talk 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Q19849663 to Q4821048

Requesting a merge of Q19849663 to Q4821048 since these two items refer to the same person. --cubic[*]star 18:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Merged --Pasleim (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Q9703749

Q9703749 was just deleted (pinging @Lymantria:) but I don't understand why. I thought it wasn't supposed to be deleted in its current state and should have been added to Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts instead (as I originally mentioned on Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2015/06/13#Q9703749), because both appear to be valid sitelinks (now as:Category:Speedy deletion templates has no Wikidata item and shows up on aswiki's Special:UnconnectedPages).

Even if I understood the idea of a valid sitelink wrong and it's not actually a valid link, I still don't understand why it was deleted. If we consider it a duplicate, why wasn't it merged? - Nikki (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, it should have been redirected. There was no real interwiki conflict. Just as-wiki didn't do the clean up of the category yet. You may address me on my talk page as well, suppose that is more easy. Lymantria (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

categorias: fusión de Q6274868 a Q9234738

Creo es expresión adecuada: fusión de dos elementos. Y si se puede.
Al errar (yo) intentándolo, me ha permitido, por su feedback: obtener la información de cuáles son, los dos.
Me explico: ::::: abarca a once wikipedias, pero no a la en español. La inglesa es: ::::::: el nombre es el mismo aquí en wikidata. Yo creí no existía una categoría así en la esWikipedia (es:), pero existe:ía:Marketing_multinivel. ( Pero aislada. Los artículos respectivos, son lo mismo, como se ve en sus iw.: w:es:Marketing multinivel / w:en:Multi-level marketing

No sé si yo puedo hacerlo (y debo aprender más de wikidata), por lo que le ruego se ocupe del asunto. He elegidb la palabra fusiónar (veo, tmb. to merge), pero no sé si aquí es correcta.
¿dejarlo en: Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard == Tablón de anuncios de los administradores ? En vez de elegir, un es-N, del listado (admins). Decido: el tablón.
Quizás me haya enrrollado de más. O sea más sencillo, esto de pedir ayuda, aquí (WD). Y lo pricipal ¿Es correcta esta petición de unir/fusión : Q6274868 a Q9234738?
Espero haberme explicado. De antemano, muchas gracias por su atención y consideración. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

En una sección: tres antes que ésta, a lo que yo entiendo es mi petición, le llaman: duplicidad de categorias. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@PLA y Grande Covián: Hola! Sí, en este caso corresponde una fusión que ya realicé. Puedes revisar esta sección sobre cómo hacer fusiones automáticas. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


For reasons I am unable to divine, User:Kolja21 keeps removing ORCID iD (P496) from Template:Authority control properties; most recently with no edit summary, and in the past with a misleading description of it as "social media accounts".

I have also had to remove an unwarranted personal attack which he recently left on my talk page.

Such behaviour is most tiresome, and unacceptable, and needs to stop.

Note: I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kolja21: well after looking at Template:Authority control properties for possibly the first time if you are going to remove ORCID shouldn't you also remove ResearcherId for the same reason? ·addshore· talk to me! 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: So you are Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID? What a surprise. That was exactly what users have asked you since your massive PR campaign for ORCID was striking. Your first answer was: "Please stop making false accusations of spamming", the second: "bullshit"[1], the third: deleting my question at your user page and now - finally - we've got the truth. What has to stop is your PR campaign and your rude answers, not users complaining about it. (And of cause this discussion is not about one single edit of Template:Authority control properties as you are trying to suggest.) --Kolja21 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kolja21: "ORCID - an identifier website where every one can open a fantasy account" <- isn't that the same as Wikipedia and Wikidata? How many accounts do you have here? [2] -- Bene* talk 07:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, it's the same as in Wikipedia. That's why a user page in Wikipedia is not an identifier like Library of Congress authority ID (P244). --Kolja21 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, "User:Pigsonthewing" uniquely identifies me, on this and all WMF projects. Ergo, it is "an identifier". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You can write on your user page whatever you want, nobody cares. It's the same with ORCID: You can tell the world that you have been professor at Petre Andrei University, and that you have published 172 peer review articles. This is not the same as Library of Congress authority ID (P244) and therefore we must be cautious with ORCID as an identifier and as a source. I'm not against ORCID. All I'm saying is that we have to use it with care. The opposite of the way you are promoting it. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutly right that ORCID is an "unreliable source" and should not be used for citations, especially in biographies. Who, though is proposing that? (Feel free to provide a diff if you imagine that I have done so). Your actions and accusations in regard to ORCID relate to its use as an authority control identifier, which is a different matter, for which it is well suited, and for which there is community consensus on Wikdaita and various sister projects. Even if there were not, your abusive comments would not be appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
My role as Wikipedian in Residence with ORCID is and always has been declared on both my user page here and my full declaration of interests which that links to, as well as at Wikidata:ORCID. The accusation to which I was responding in the edit you cite was indeed bullshit, as the rest of my comment there demonstrates. The person who made it immediately apologised. The full discussion shows that other editors found the accusation of spamming (which was not, as you now assert, a question; and made by a new editor on their first and only day here) to be bogus; and hatted it. And I have never suggested that this is about a single edit; as I have shown, you have removed the link from the template, with no good edit summary, more than once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also ask that an admin remove this personal attack from Kolja21's user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If a journalist ask a politician if he has business connections with a company he seems to promote and the politician answers "bullshit", tries to suppress the question and attacks the journalist, the politician would lose his job. I doubt that Pigsonthewing is the right person for a Wikipedian in Residence. That he wants to censor my user page fits well into the picture. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Where have I ever answered "bullshit" to that question? I repeat: My role as Wikipedian in Residence with ORCID is and always has been declared on both my user page here and my full declaration of interests which that links to, as well as at Wikidata:ORCID. Furthermore, Wikipedians in Residence are not exempt, as targets, from Wikidata:No personal attacks, which is a Wikidata policy. A policy that applies as much to this page as any other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What you call "an unwarranted personal attack" was my post: "Hi Pigsonthewing, just a question: are you paid by ORCID iD (Q51044)?" Your answer: you deleted the question. "bullshit" was your answer to Gymel. ("Actually, he is spamming, proposing a property, subsequently creating it ...") --Kolja21 (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So, not a question, but a false accusation; and one for which I subsequently received an apology from Gymel. And selectively quoting only part of your unwarranted personal attack (the diff for the full post is above) does not excuse it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The edit was reverted by Kolja21 and therefore the status quo is returned. Now please move this debate and discussion else where away from the administrators' noticeboard as this is annoying and not the place for a debate about whether or not ORCID is valid or whom is valid to represent or how they represent an idea. If a decision needs to be made - it is within the hands of the community unless it violates policy so this is the wrong venue in general. If the discussion continues - I will hat this and it will remain so to prevent the debate getting useless large here. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Kolja21 has not reverted his personal attack, and has merely reverted to an earlier disputed version of the template, which moves ORCID from the correct "International" section to a lower section otherwise populated by national identifiers. I note that you do not address his policy-breaching personal attacks; which are also a matter for admin intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe an answer (pro bono) instead of reverting a question had settled the matter, Mr. Residence at ORCID. --Succu (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


I tried to add the "Featured article" badge to the German Paraffinoxidation article. I do not know why, but this action has (again) been identified as harmful (why?). So please go ahead and add it (again) yourself. Thank you. -- Ampholyte (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ampholyte: Might have to do with you not being autoconfirmed. As far as the item goes, it's now   Done. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tests in User namespace

I would like to add s:en:User:Innocent bystander to the page Q5083751, but an edit filter stops me. I do not intend to keep this sitelink there, only to temporary test some features in a module I am creating. Can you help? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You can use Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189) for that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of that page. I am testing to add Interwiki by the help of Arbitrary Access. My tests therefor include a larger range of items related to the bible, not one single item and page. I would therefor need at least a dozen (Q605704) sandbox-items and corresponding pages in different pages in the non-Swedish Wikisource-wikis. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK you don't have to connect any page to any item with arbitrary access. I won't modify that filter but as it's not private you can evade the automatic summary using some API module. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not interested in hardcoding a qid into the module, I want to know if my code works without such things. See s:sv:Bibeln 1917 and the interwiki to enws and laws there. It's ~35 items involved at the moment, with Bible (Q1845) at the top. At the moment, I do not know what happens if somebody adds a WS-disambig to Q623398. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Tests should be done on testwikidata: ;-) -- Bene* talk 06:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but have you ever tried to get any feedback from User:John Doe@randomwikiproject, based on what you have done on such projects? ;) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  Resolved Finally, dewikisource had the set of pages I looked for! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

help needed

please add bo:ལྦེ་ཁེ་རིག་མཛོད in Q52, thanks.-- 10:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done. --Stryn (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Good article

The article w:es:Smultronstället has been calified as Good Article. Please, mark the new status. Thank you.--Chamarasca (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done by Jarould. --Stryn (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Could someone with admin access please move User:Lokal_Profil/DCAT.json to MediaWiki:DCAT.json (or possibly copy-paste the content in order to not change the content model of the target). This is related to phabricator:T103087. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done - Mbch331 (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh, I didn't know that MediaWiki handled .json pages that prettily. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Succu in Prunus armeniaca (Q37453)

Still, Succu comes to Prunus armeniaca (Q37453) and replaces all stated in (P248) qualifiers of described by source (P1343) with sources: [4]. His change breaks things at the following pages:

I'm asking admins to prevent any more damage that Succu makes to ruwiki and ruwikisource. -- Vlsergey (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I never was pinged by this. I simply fixed an issue I found by my statistics. What about this edit from today? --Succu (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
What about this edit? It still works as before. Until bot work would be done nothing is going to be changed in LUA or JS, because a lot of pages already linked in current way. -- Vlsergey (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just checked your request. If the bot would make those edits, it would still break ruwiki and ruwikisource. A bot changes 1 article at a time, not all articles at once. The moment the bot starts, it would start breaking ruwiki and ruwikisource, until you update lua or js. So once the bot has edited more than 50%, the majority of articles is broken. Have you realised that? And after you noted that Succu broke ruwiki and ruwikisource, did you contact him on his talk page or did you come directly here? Mbch331 (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
1. @Mbch331: obviously, it won't be in one second. Still, one hour is enough for any bot (my own can do it in minutes). As soon as some bot owner start work on it, it easy to fix LUA modules and scripts. Will fix it myself as soon as "ping" from botowner is received 2. I did "come" to his talk page 3 times recently on various subjects including P1343. Removed it from watchlist for now, since user didn't stop to change things in his own way on pages I edit recently. -- Vlsergey (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


It is a featured article in the german wikipedia, please change it, because I can't.--JTCEPB (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done--Nikosguard talk 14:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Why was it deleted out of the blue? -- 03:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rippitippi:: Could you explain? As far as I can see it had valid sitelinks on the moment of deletion and therefore meets the notability criteria. Mbch331 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This person obviously not encyclopedic are years trying to be present on wikimedia projects. On you can see the page deleted many times [5] and here you can see the use of SPA for change voting [6]--Rippitippi (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Please protect the above for as long as reasonable. --- Jura 05:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done for 2 weeks. --Stryn (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Please semi-protect the above. --- Jura 09:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done for three months first. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Please semi-protect. It is popular and frequently vandalized item. --Jklamo (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Protected indefinitely, Justin Bieber (Q34086) has been vandalized and protected enough already. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yair rand disruptive

Yair rand broke many infoboxes of countries on huwiki by not setting preferred rank for one of the population values as described in the datamodel. I tried to discuss him to fix the data but he is not willing to fix it and now he even ignores me totally. Please remind him that this is a community project and determine him to fix what he broke. Thanks, --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If I read his response, he says the correct value isn't present. So how is he to set the preferred value, if it isn't present? I checked the data he added (for Romania (Q218) and it stops in 2013. We now live in 2015 and as can be seen, the value changes every year. So the 2013 value isn't correct. If I read the datamodel, he should set them all to normal, because the current value isn't present and can't be set to preferred. I must agree, that if adding population values isn't possible if ommitting the current values breaks infoboxes, the infobox is broken, not the action by the person adding information. The infobox should display nothing if there is no preferred value. That would solve the problem as well. A community project doesn't mean, that if someone codes something wrong, others have to deliberately make mistakes in order not to break things. And a discussion, where there is only 1 possible outcome from the start (the user must adapt his way of working, because something is coded bad) and listening to alternatives (fixing the bad coding) isn't an option doesn't work. So it's no wonder Yair rand ignores the discussion. Mbch331 (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but when is the data of 2015 published? In many cases, it will be 2016 before a confirmed data for 2015 is availble. The data I today added for 1990, were published 1995. The 2013-data is "the most current"-data in the Romania-item today, and it should be preffered until better data has been added. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nothing is coded wrong. You are misinterpreting the datamodel. Nowhere says that the infobox should only display the actual current correct value. The infobox displays one value from the available values, in this case the latest, for which is the ranking. Please don't try to resolve the problem giving wrong interpretations to the datamodel. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the preferred rank mandatory when all statements are qualified with point in time (P585)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There can be several statements with the same date: "applies to part Women", "applies to part Catholics", "method used: estimation" etc. You cannot be sure that the latest always is the most accurate.
To not use "preffered rank" here, you need a sorting algoritm to access the correct data. The more complex algoritms you have to use to access the data, the less useful will Wikidata be for Wikipedia. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this the task User:PreferentialBot should cover? -- Bene* talk 15:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, though the bot function was disrupted by the recent labs crash, so it didn't yet recover fully. I'll bring it back to speed ASAP. --Laboramus (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the last answer of Yair rand. Why do we allow anyone to disregard everybody else and do what he wants? Isn't this why the administrators are, to disallow this kind of behavior? --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@JulesWinnfield-hu: I've added my personal opinion there but not because I'm an admin. It's not the admins' task to say who is right and who is wrong. Admins are there for maintanence tasks and for intervening personal attacks etc. However, discussions on specific topics cannot be decided by administrators. -- Bene* talk 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
From WD:BOT: “The bot operator is responsible for cleaning up any damage caused by the bot.” I think this applies in this case too. Not to mention that at least we must cooperate, in any case, and not work against a whole Wikipedia (huwiki). --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
JulesWinnfield-hu: „as described in the datamodel“, a link to this datamodel would be helpful. --Succu (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
mw:Wikibase/DataModel#Ranks of Statements --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
To be more precise: Where is „demands setting preferred rank for one of the population values“ documented? (= your model) --Succu (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the rank itself. This is why the rank exists. At huwiki we use it. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@JulesWinnfield-hu: Like everyone here, I'm a volunteer. I spent a decent amount of time importing the World Bank population database, with the statement ranks done as I figured they should be done. If I had agreed with you on how to rank statements, I theoretically could have written a script to run through all of the items, search for more recent population statements, and change the ranks if none were found. I may end up doing this anyway, simply because it seems to be important to the Hungarian Wikipedia that such malformed data requests are adequately handled. As it is, I don't agree with adding preferred rank to specifically outdated content. If you would like, I could contribute all necessary Lua code so that the Hungarian infoboxes can function correctly. Alternatively, if the Wikidata community so requests, I could write a script to mass-revert all my population imports, leaving those items would you consider to be problematic (usually) empty of population data instead. (This would be best discussed at the project chat, if you are inclined to pursue this proposal.) I don't think your interpretation of how ranks are supposed to work is supported by community consensus. If you wish to attempt to gather such consensus, please go to the project chat and start a discussion. Perhaps someone will be able to make a bot to regularly rank such statements, should the consensus back your view. (Or perhaps User:Laboramus may volunteer to extend PreferentialBot to deal with the task.) I very much consider accusing me of being disruptive to be an unfair accusation. Similarly, I think it's unfair to say that I broke anything.
I'm going to be away from Wikidata for at least the next 70 hours or so, so please don't assume that I'm just being uncooperative in the meantime. --Yair rand (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Meanwhile I will try to fix the data. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"I will try to fix the data" -- no, start a discussion in a public forum to see if anyone agrees with you. As YR said, WD:PC or WD:RFC is the correct place to do this (I prefer the latter since it is slightly more international). --Izno (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, this is the datamodel. There is nothing to agree with. Maybe some confuse the rank with some kind of rating. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
As evidenced by the fact YR disagrees with you on interpretation of which values to set a preferred ranking for, and I happen to agree with him (though this is not relevant to this discussion), there is a dispute and you will not change the data any further until such time as the dispute comes to a close. Got it? --Izno (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
JulesWinnfield-hu: what happens when xywiki disagrees with the usage of the rank feature at huwiki, because something got broken in xywiki? Wikidatawars? We need guidelines about the preferred way to handle this at Wikdata (like Help:Sources). --Succu (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no “interpretation”, there is no “usage at huwiki” there is only a data model, what I do is only applying it. The guideline is the model itself. I only came here because Yair rand was working against it. Those who don't get the data model, please consult the development team, I cannot explain better than it is on the documentation page. Think of it as a flag, not as a rating. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
From Data model: „It is not a specification of any concrete binding, implementation, mapping, or serialization.“ --Succu (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)