Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2016/09

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

Special:Contributions/2003:66:8F3D:E785:222:4DFF:FEAF:FA63 — IP bot

2003:66:8F3D:E785:222:4DFF:FEAF:FA63 (talk • contribs • logs) seems to be an unattended IP bot, which is not allowed according to the bot policy (constant edit rate since Saturday evening). User:YMS left a note the talk page of this IP user, but they continue to add poor data. Please block, tell them to log on and declare the bot maintainer before they can continue.

This would also make patrolling much easier. Since Saturday, roughly 12.500 edits have been made by this account and patrol edits and RC is a bit clogged since then. Most edits are correct, however. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Philippine barangays (Bohol and Siquijor)

I started a new project with I started creating barangays. However places I made are created as
BBBB, MMMM, PPPP : BBBB = barangay name, MMMM - municipal, PPPP = provincial, e.g. Balolong, Enrique Villanueva, Siquijor
I now see that the place-names should just be with the barangay only. Is it possible either to change names, or better to delete and start again.

Altogether there are about 15 places to work on. 194.75.238.182 00:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not quite understand what this is about, but yes, you can change names.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Do we need more bureaucrats?

@Ymblanter, Vogone:

With the removal of Bene* for inactivity, we're down to 2 bureaucrats. Vogone has had some months of inactivity recently but is still semi-active. Do we need to consider electing another bureaucrat? FWIW, I'm not interested in running. --Rs chen 7754 05:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I would personally like to see the number increase a bit, for both bureaucrats and oversighters, and don't see the "need" for them as a limiting factor. If there are trusted people who want to volunteer, and who would be active in related areas, then yes please to any such people applying. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In principle, we manage to do all the work (which is not that much, requests for bots and occasionally RfAs), but just for stability it would be good to have more crats, if someone is interested in running.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter, a new bureaucrat is not necessary, but would be a good thing to have so that in cases where both Ymblanter and me are not available things can still move on. My own activity will hopefully increase again after next month. Regards, --Vogone (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

New GA in Wikipedia in Spanish

Hi, we have a new good article in Wikipedia in Spanish (Matanza de la cárcel Modelo de Madrid). Could you change its status here? Thanks. --5truenos (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

done --Pasleim (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Q57558

Now it's confirmed, that Islam Karimov (Q57558) has died. Some admin should unprotect the item. --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Protection removed. Jared Preston (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval

On the List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval (Q6624170) wikidata entry it should list the en wp entry as a FL. It passed a Wikipedia:Wikipedia:FLC about a month ago, It wouldn't let me add the badge and directed me here. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot

Can someone stop this bot? There is no response on User talk:Plagiat ?
--- Jura 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Besides of this edit, which User:Plagiat reverted, are there other bad edits? --Pasleim (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

reverted my mistakes, I thought P424 is the indicator for language code in wikidata. Sorry for misunderstanding the property descripion - see my talk page. --Plagiat (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

proofed my doings again, reverted missed items, proofed claims with multiple entries - I think

--Plagiat (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, this has stopped and I think he undid all of the 500+ changes. Remains the issue of PAWS usage.
--- Jura 09:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove labels from Q10914921

Could some admin remove labels from Holande (Q10914921)? I will merge it with Holland (Q241221), but "Holande" in other languages are not correct. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, because disambiguation Holande is different than disambiguation Holland. --ValterVB (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, why are you saying, that those are different? Didn't check all iws at Holland (Q241221), but the biggest ones had meaning Holland related to Netherlands included. --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation items are not organized per the meaning, but per the same page name. --Stryn (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the idea of sitelinks to connect articles about the same topic, not articles with the same title, which may be about completely different things? But OK, I agree, that disambigs are anyway pretty f* up :D --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Isn't the idea of sitelinks to connect articles about the same topic?" Yes, but the topic is "disambiguation page with the same title" --ValterVB (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Block Request

Hello.Please plock this promotion-only account.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Done I also deleted page he has created. Pamputt (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protection Q19862406

Can somebody protect Q19862406? It's the 5^th time I had to restore the page. The reasons are on Talk:Q19862406 (People do not seem to look at the talk page before they merge the page). Supralegal (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Supralegal: Maybe you should add statements to express the difference, if there is any. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we create a Male form of label property

Hi there, Being in the process (in French) of adding female form of label (P2521) to male denominations of names of occupation and professions, I have stumbled upon other difficulties:

some feminine words like hétaïre (Q466118) appear in the search of elements referring to an occupation or profession performed by a woman that does not have a female label. This is a strange fact for me, as these are feminine words in the first place, and not masculine. For e.g., troubadour did not have a female label, so it appeared in the search which is logical because it is a masculine word in french. Hetaire is a word used solely for women in the antiquity (ses wikipedia article on the subject: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hétaïre)

Therefore could we envisage to clarify this by:

either separating the two labels (for exemple acteur (Q33999) and actrice Q21169216 are separate) and include in every element a female and a masculine label. For exemple acteur (Q33999) has a female label but actrice Q21169216 does not because the property dose not exist. I have tried to ask for the creation of that property but I think it's a mess. If someone could help. See here Wikidata:Property proposal/forme masculine du libellé
either putting the male and female denomination together "acteur ou actrice" in the label definition to match for e.g. the english version where there is no feminine or masculine attached to a profession or occupation. If we consider the occupation, it is the same performed by both genders so should not be in two different elements. Recently on the french wiki, a tendency to separate articles describing female and male occupation (in sports) that were similar were reverted on the grounds that the activities were the same, and the separation, because of the existing gender gap, would lead to further invisibilisation of woman's articles, the male articles being far more viewed that the female.

In both cases the property male form of label should in my view be created, so we could start there and discuss the rest at length later. --Nattes à chat (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved on Wikidata:Property proposal/forme masculine du libellé. Kvardek du (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion an opposite filter

Hello.In Arabic Wikipedia there is a filter Opposite to filter 1 prevents remove this template, I suggest import it for Wikidata because Maybe edit like this occurs without paying attention one of the followers of Special:RecentChanges.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it a huge problem then? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Guntur is back

New alias GunturIrawans98 doing the same nonsensical merges as

GunturSubagiyo2016 or

Guntur.Subagiyo or

Guntur Irawan or

Karsinem.subagiyo or

GunturSub98 or

Bagiyos1970 or

GunturIrawanSubagiyo2016 or

GunturIrSub20 or

GunturIrSubagiyo18tahun...

See Systematic_incorrect_merges, Guntur has returned and Guntur is back. Please block and revert changes, if possible. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 00:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted all changes (for which you didn't do so yourself before).

Technical note: Couldn't use the "undo" function for two of them ([1] and [2], the ones that had subsequent edits by User:PLbot (ping User:Pasleim). There was an undecorated error page telling me "Fatal exception of type "Diff\Patcher\PatcherException". --YMS (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

May I ask, what is he known for? MechQuester (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonsensical merges, among other things ;-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

video

Q34508 - ipgame? --Fractaler (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected the item. Might block other items and the IPs, checking further. --YMS (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Elisabet68

Elisabet68 is removing contents from item Paul Walker (Q213864). Please block this user, thanks. --Stang 13:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Has not edited after your warning. --Stryn (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Guntur again

Another name, GunturIrawanSubagiyo1998, linking Indonesian film articles to unrelated movie items, and the same nonsensical merges again, with a few new ones... See previous admin interventions above, at Guntur is back. Please block and revert changes that have not yet been addressed by other contributors. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 14:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for reporting it. - Nikki (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Pocketlabs user page advertising

User:Pocketlabs is using his/hers user page for advertising. MKFI (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@MKFI: The user has been blocked and the user page deleted, thanks for reporting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Q440

Please semiprotect Salvador Allende (Q440) because of IP vandalism from multiple IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

done --Pasleim (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

I request that Q26255749 is undeleted. It was deleted as non-notable, but it looks like its sitelink was moved to Ondrej Rigo (Q1224648), so it seems it should be merged into that item instead. Silverfish (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Restored and redirected. - Nikki (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bad Apple

Please semi-protect Apple (Q312) and block the IP that has just vandalised it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the report. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection request for Q147077

Mostly vandalism or what is apparently a "shipper" of Emma Stone (Q147077) relationship to Andrew Garfield. Can I get this semi'd for a few months? --Izno (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

New GA in Wikipedia in Spanish

Hi, we have a new good article in Wikipedia in Spanish (Monte Thielsen). Could you change its status here? Thanks.--5truenos (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Pamputt (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

New GA on zh-Wikipedia

Please help add a GA label for the new promoted page "Stapes" (鐙骨) in Chinese wikipedia. Thanks a lot.--Iv0202 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iv0202:

Done, I think! You can do it yourself as soon as you become autoconfirmed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting update on article status

zh:動物方城市 is currently a GA in Chinese(zh) Wiki. Requesting badge update on language link list.

Newbie here, let me know if this isn't the right place to post such requests. --Mike8411251995 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

RE:Mike:

Done And this a good place to ask for such things. You can do it yourself as soon as you become autoconfirmed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:KaldariBot

Can you block this bot. It seems to be malfunctioning.
--- Jura 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jura1: Do you have any example of what is wrong with this bot? Pamputt (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Any edit. I think it's not using its flag.
--- Jura 09:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Should it have its flag or is is it just an administrative oversight and, is the content ok? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like it is according to the talks at Property talk:P17. A botflag is maybe currently missing, and that is awkward for those of us who have many of these items in our watchlist, But is maybe not worth a block at this moment. Pings Kaldari to look into it when (s)he sees this thread! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's done part of the edits agreed on in our discussion there (there's still plenty more of them to do; ~20k items were affected). The changes I saw look consistent with what was agreed in that discussion - Jura, is there a bug I'm missing beyond the missing flag? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jura1, GerardM, Innocent bystander, Andrew Gray, Ladsgroup: Every edit the bot has made since getting bot rights has been marked with the bot flag. The only edits that were not marked with a bot flag are the initial ~50 edits it made as an approved test run 2 days ago. Jura seems determined to do anything in their power to stop this bot from running,[3][4] and has now resorted to making false accusations. The bot task has clear consensus from the community and I'm tired of spending every day defending it from Jura. I would like to ask for an interaction ban between myself and Jura so that I can do my volunteer work in peace. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jura1 still hasn't provided a clear explanation why the bot is malfunctioning. And if the bot uses the botflag or not is not easy to determine. It can only be seen in Recent Changes, not Special:Contributions, not the edit diffs and not item history. Mbch331 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just tested with my watchlist (which has a few of these items on it) - if bot edits are hidden, they go away. The logs confirm it's been flagged yesterday. Not sure why it's apparently showing up on RC in some cases but it seems that Kaldari's done everything he ought to have. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not really up to me to debug this. If they don't know what they are doing, it's better they don't operate a bot. In any case, on my watchlist not all edits of the bot get filtered. Somehow this works for every other bot.
--- Jura 19:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It continues in Special:RecentChanges. Given that operator complains about the reporter of their bugs instead of investigating it, I think it should be blocked until a clear explanation about its defects is given and the problem corrected, tested and re-approved.
--- Jura 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked it for 24 hours, too much edit without flag, the same for User:TemirovBot --ValterVB (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have unlocked KaldariBot after his answer. --ValterVB (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jura1: You were right. One of the 3 edits that the bot was making to each item did not have the bot flag set. I didn't realize this since all of the edits I spot checked were correctly setting the bot flag. I apologize for overreacting and not investigating further. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Instances of Algeria

Please can someone roll back today's edits by User:Jura1, which have set a large number of items as instance of (P31) -> Algeria (Q262). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's being fixed. Thanks for noticing.
--- Jura 21:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock, please

It was necessary to add "&bot=1"? I did not know. Sorry. Added. Unlock TemirovBot, please. Игорь Темиров (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, ValterVB, it has now bot flag. Pamputt (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anexo:Filmografía de Stanley Kubrick

This article is not a GA in Wikipedia in Spanish. Could someone remove its status? Thanks in advance. --5truenos (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Properties ready for creation

Category:Properties ready for creation currently includes 43 items, some having been ready for over a month. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I just created VK ID (P3185). Since I never created properties before, I copied what has been done on another property but could you check that I di not make any mistake? Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Notify the proposer and supporter though, {{Ping}} could be a option. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pamputt: Thank you. No mistakes, but I added some more detail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection Request

Hello.Please protect Q52.The reason:Excessive vandalism and High traffic page.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. There have been four vandalism reverts in September, and zero (or one, counting the revert of an invalid sitelink, for which AGF should apply) in August. And while it's clearly linked more often than the average item, it's far away from being one of our really frequently used items (human, male, actor, book, USA, ...). --YMS (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

YMS

There are many undo
This Page is very important locally, What about here?

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just like YMS I don't see the excessive vandalism. Yes there is vandalism, but that's because Wikidata is a wiki. And it's not that the item gets edited everyday, so I also don't see any reason for a protection. Mbch331 (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Q26877857 and Q23749119

Please could these be undeleted as they are notable entities. I don't really understand why they have been deleted. Please help me to understand whether something is notable and how this can be evidenced.

Q23749119 had a sitelink which was deleted this week. Both had other suitable references.

As far as I understand, having sitelinks is not the only evidence of notability, Wikidata:Notability.

Thanks – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.249.73.141 (talk • contribs).

The item was deleted because they haven't evidence of notability. --ValterVB (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ValterVB. Q23749119 is the Brazilian arm of one of the biggest asset managers in the world, which should make them pretty notable. As CEO, Q26877857, would seem to be notable as well.

If this isn't the case, please could you help me understand the criteria for notability? What sort of evidence is required? (References from Bloomberg and other sources were provided) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.249.73.153 (talk • contribs) at 13:05, 19 September 2016‎ (UTC).

@89.249 I have not read the item (I cannot read deleted pages). But were there any properties describing it as "the biggest asset managers in the world"? Adding properties describing its size, location, age etc, together with good sources is probably the "evidence" we need. Only labels and descriptions in a few languages are probably not enough. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No sources were available, just some basic data: instance, address, linkedin and google+ link and headquarters location (P159) --ValterVB (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not think that is correct. There were sources from Bloomberg as well as other sources from Brazilian media. Please undelete them so that we can review it. I am happy to find further sources where required. -- 89.249.73.40 06:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The link is http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=27485895 my opinion is that don't fall under notability rules. --ValterVB (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought there were more. Either way they have R$41 billion in assets under management and 17k employees. I would have thought that would make them notable. I am happy to try and fund further sources if needed such as https://www.brookfieldbr.com/home-eng/. -- 89.249.73.21 07:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please can someone respond to me on this. These seem to me like notable entities so not sure why they can't be undeleted. As I said I am happy to try and find more sources if needed. 89.249.73.165 13:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Help:Files

Hello.Please delete this category and sub-pages because the main page has been deleted according to this.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Done --Pasleim (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Bahanba removing alias

He renamed the name of the article (Q1994930) without source, from his own fantasy on fr:, renamed here, and removed the aliases well documented in libraries. This is the second time he does things like this (with Extension des peintures du Bouddha, Q26623738) and break history of changes on some discussions pages. He contribute since really short time, only few times but know most of wikipedia rules, probably an already blocked user that continue his disruptive behaviour with another pseudonym. Popolon (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have explained the reasons on the article's (Q1994930) French discussion page. I suppose that now Popolon agrees with me. -- Bahanba (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to have a discussion there, it should take place on Wikidata. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The international form of the Russian name is not used for the English article's title. So I renamed the French one in the same way. -- Bahanba (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about the article name should take place on the French Wikipedia, the one about the aliases on Wikidata. Sorry, very confusing situation. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Not notable but... (museums)

User @KrispyKreme3303: has created a lot of item about kind of museum. Teorically aren't notable: not used and not reference, someone have GND ID (P227) but not all. You can see the list in this page, we keep them because probably in future they can be useful or we delete them? --ValterVB (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think delete them all. E.g. botanical museum (Q26959050): am not aware of a museum dedicated only to botany and the german spelling is totally wrong (=Botanisches Museum). --Succu (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

en:Berlin-Dahlem Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum; Botanical Museum, Harvard University; Botanical museum - University of Padua. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they were creating items which were listed on Wikidata:WikiProject_Cultural_heritage/GLAM/Switzerland as "To be created" (e.g. Special:Diff/377674156). They're a new user, so perhaps they didn't realise that we expect items to be used almost immediately. I wouldn't delete them just yet - at least give them a chance to use them (I've already linked several to their corresponding categories). - Nikki (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Beat Estermann: Could you comment this? --Succu (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not an administrative matter, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin (Q163255) is worth a visit. --Succu (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have just been through about half of them, and found instances of them all, without exception. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

international museum (Q26945151)? means what? Exhibit multinational objects? Operated by more than one nation ? --Succu (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

On further inspection, it seems from this page that the categories are those used by GND and/ or the Library of Congress. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. This is indeed work in progress related to an import of the database of pretty much all the heritage institutions in Switzerland; further countries may follow if we get some help, as I do have databases of several thousands of heritage institutions from countries such as PL, FI, PT, NL, BR, BG, UA, NZ, RU, ES. In this context I started to review and complement the typology of heritage institutions in Wikidata, comparing it to the GND, the LoC Authorities and the classifications used in the Swiss database (for museums it's the one presently used by the Swiss Museums Association). So, first of all, we are creating all the types needed in view of the batch ingestion of the Swiss database (please be patient, it doesn't make sense to hurry a batch ingestion as it is easier to sort out potential problems up front than after the fact). And second, I thought it would be useful to also create any meaningful types based on existing GND and LoC Authority entries for future use. It is our ambition to provide meaningful definitions in English and German for all newly created items, along with the reference to the GND and LoC Authorities where appropriate. Obviously, in some cases we will effectively need to discuss to what extent a given type should indeed be used in the context of Wikidata; but let's take our time for this. Once we are through with the creation of the new types based on GND and LoC Authorities, I'm planning to move the overview table to a separate page where we can have this sort of discussion. Does that make sense?

KrispyKreme3303, by the way, is a short term intern at Bern University of Applied Sciences (for this and next week).

--Beat Estermann (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Beat Estermann: Thanks for your answer, if you or KrispyKreme3303 can connect these item is better, probably you can use in instance of (P31) like in this item, in this manner is automatically notable (is sufficient only one connection). --ValterVB (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Beat Estermann: All but three (which I haven't yet got around to) are now in use. I merged a couple the pre-existing items; please feel free to de-merge them, and add a P31 like "Library of Congress classification for museums", if it helps to have complete sets. And please pass on thanks to KrispyKreme3303 for their contribution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: Mind to look into this too? --Succu (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notification and thanks for the effort. Museum types are relevant to Wikidata but the types should be connected to existing definitions. If there is no Wikipedia article about the museum type, there should be a statement with GND ID (P227), Library of Congress authority ID (P244) or another established system instead of inventing your own museum typology. Maybe museology provides some additional classifications of museum types to refer to? An alternative to creating too many museum type items is to consistently use statements for museum properties such as audience and topic. For instance there are a couple of bread museums around the world but these museums could also be grouped by a query involving bread (Q7802) and museum (Q33506) -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please block BagBagio2016, new alias for Guntur

New user BagBagio2016 does the same edit (merges, mainly) as good ol' Guntur, see Guntur is back on Archive. I will revert the changes. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Done by Jasper Deng. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Badge

Q24851177 should have a featured list badge for enwiki. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

done --Pasleim (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Badge (2)

Q2174649 should have a good article badge for enwiki. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi, Q3215098 and Q21836639 are about the same lake, I moved the interwikis from the second to the first one, but I don't know how to make a redirection. Thanks! Pertile (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done @Pertile: Review Help:Merge for future cases. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection request for Q186304

Can you seim protect Q186304. There is a lot vandalism every day. thanks. Dacoucou (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Done --YMS (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect (2)

Hi! Can we fusion Q27057958 and Q3148195? Refers to the same person. Thanks, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. See Help:Merge in case you discover similar cases in the future. --Vogone (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing and property proposals again

Pigsonthewing marked Wikidata:Property proposal/LiveJournal as ready, despite the lack of support and therefore consensus. I'm just informing here, considering the history of him in combination with property proposals without support. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The proposal has been open for more than the required time, and the only objection is conditional; that condition is not met, and so the proposal meets the requirements for creation. You also neglect to mention that you have twice removed the ready marker. Why are you so against asking an uninvolved property creator to make a decision? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to explain what consensus is? Wiktionary, for example, talks about "widespread agreement among group members". Wikidata:Property proposal also notes that some support is needed. I think you're too involved to say that your own requested property is ready to create. Regarding your last question, where did I say that? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wiktionary. You're welcome to explain what you think consensus is. I shall again point to en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, just as I did last time the matter was discussed. There is no requirement that someone calling a property-creator's attention be "uninvolved"; and no policy requiring a quorum for property creation; please stop trying to make up rules on the fly. As to my question - which you have not answered - your actions, when you twice removed the label calling the attention of property creators to the discussion, spoke loudly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is also not the English Wikipedia. The only thing close to a definition is "there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents" on Wikidata:Property proposal. I removed "ready" because the property isn't ready for creation, as I explained here already. Marking as ready indicates that consensus exists to create that property, why is it called "ready" then? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a definition; we need to adhere to the past RfC on this matter. You may have claimed that the property is not ready for creation, but as I have pointed out, it meets all the requirements that exist (not to mention recent precedent), rather than the ones you would like to exist, but which themselves have not found consensus. You still have not said why you are so against asking an uninvolved property creator to make a decision. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, where did I say that I am "against asking an uninvolved property creator to make a decision"? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, your actions, when you twice removed the label calling the attention of property creators to the discussion, spoke loudly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not think this is an administrator business, but I do think we should have an RfC and establish specific criteria of what means consensus for creation of new properties (smth like minimum 3 votes, 80% support). I actually though we had such RfC, but I can not fin it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

We had more than one. The first found no consensus for hard figures and explicitly left discretion to property creators; subsequent RfCs found no consensus to change that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I notice you're a native Russian speaker; so please review the proposal, which is for an exernal-id for a Russian-language website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been reminded that consensus to create properties for websites appearing regularly in website account on (P553) was reached on WD:Project Chat in July 2015; archived here. And here is the edit where Sjoerddebruin wrote " Support, as long we have someone to do the job.". I am trying to do just that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If you just said "convert to website account on (P553) or find someone to do that" under "planned use", there wouldn't be a problem. Jura1 opposed because you were very vague about your intentions with the property, creating this situation. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of converting anything to P553. And what Jura1 actually wrote was "Oppose use P553 if you don't plan to convert them." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignore "to", sorry. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

We could probably do away if the "ready" status now that we have individual subpages and a daily updated list of open proposals.
--- Jura 06:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I think what would be more helpful would be to either replace "ready for creation" with a status that means "discussion has concluded, this needs assessing by a property creator and then either creating or formally closing as 'not done'". Alternatively we could keep "ready for creation" (which means "discussion has concluded and consensus seems to be in favour of creation, property creators please check and create if you agree") and supplement it with "discussion has concluded, consensus seems to be against creation, property creators please check and close as 'not done' if you agree" and "discussion has concluded without overwhelming support or opposition, property creators please determine consensus and take appropriate action". A fourth status of "more discussion needed" may or may not be useful also. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  - Preferably on carbon-copied paper forms. In triplicate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    - Do you actually have any good faith suggestions or comments, or are you just going to be saracastic? Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
      - My comment, already made above, is that Wikidata:Property proposal/LiveJournal is ready and has consensus for creation. Do you have any good faith suggestions or comments about that, or are you just going to try to grow an unnecessary and timewasting bureaucracy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        I have no opinion about the merits or otherwise of the specific property, and I'm not a property creator so whether I think it is ready or not is of extremely limited relevance. I do have opinions about the general property proposal process (because the issues you keep highlighting here and at project chat clearly show it's not properly functional) and disagree with Jura's point that simply removing the "ready" status is the best way forwards. What I wrote is not bureaucratic but two alternative suggestions, one that would be no more or less bureaucratic than at present (changing "ready to create" to "ready for property creator attention") and other only very triviality more so - supplementing "ready to create" with "ready to close as not done" and a status to indicate that discussion is complete but whether consensus is for or against is not obvious. They may or may not be good suggestions, but something needs to change and sarcastically assuming that it's all about you is not helping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        Perhaps you might read the heading chosen by Sjoerd for this section, before you attempt to divine what I have presumed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There being no other objections, this property is now ready - indeed overdue - for creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

LiveJournal ID (P3258) has now been created, and my bot has imported over one thousand IDs (as indicated in my proposal) from en. and ru. Wikipedias. I'm sure any others, in website account on (P553), will shorty be moved across. The discussion above was a waste of time, with no benefit to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The remaining values have now been copied from P553. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bandcamp

And now Wikidata:Property proposal/Bandcamp artist ID has been marked as ready, despite having no consensus about creation. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

And now Sjoerddebruin has reverted my edit marking the property as ready, despite the proposal having demonstrated consensus by garnering zero objections and having been open since 26 September - well over the required seven days. I again wonder why he is so against asking an uninvolved property creator to make a decision? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Silence is not consensus (Q202722) or consensus decision-making (Q188577) Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. Or can you point to a Wikidata policy saying otherwise? (Before wasting your time looking for one, you might first like to refer to the RfCs I cited, above.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a policy for everything... I think it's pretty safe to say that silence is not consensus. That said, I'll add my thoughts there so hopefully we get a bit closer :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I shall again point to en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. We had an RfC on this, whose results were clear, and nothing since - policy or otherwise - to overturn it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata had a RfC about this?! Could you please point to this Mr. Mabbett? Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already done so, above. Furthermore, I advised you earlier today to refer to where I had done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mind to give me a diff about a Wikidata RfC about this? Mr. Mabbett? Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've already given a link to the whole RfC. I've just told you this. I also referred to you it earlier today, and have just told you that. Why would I now need or want to give a diff; and off what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You gave nothing that I should be aware of a Wikidata RfC. Where, when? A diff (Q300901) should settle this matter. Thanks in advance. Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

See above is not helpful, Mr. Mabbett.Is there a Wikidata RfC for en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus?. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ looking through all of the links in this section posted by Andy, I found Wikidata:Requests for comment/Clarifying the requirements for property creation (the inline display here was just "this") which is an RfC from 2014 which was closed with "There is no consensus for any of the suggestions. Therefore the current statement remains and property creators should use discretion when considering requests". In the same comment Andy noted that "subsequent RfCs have found no consensus to change this" but did not link any of those RfCs. If this is the case then any property creator may, at their discretion, either create or not create a property that has no explicit support or opposition. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The comemnt to which you refer was made in reply to "I actually though we had such RfC, but I can not fin[d] it.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bandcamp profile ID (P3283) has now, predictably, been created; this discussion was another waste of our time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)