Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P8279

P8279 (P8279) edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge into RAWG game ID (P9968) and delete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P8279 (P8279): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Modern ag.ru is just a Russian interface for rawg.io (compare https://rawg.io/games/barony & https://ag.ru/games/barony). Since we already have a property for RAWG, P8279 gives nothing above that: same ID, same info. There might be a reason to keep a link to an old (pre-2019) AG database, but I'm not sure about that, pretty sure it was merged with RAWG after AG was sold. @Kirilloparma:. —Facenapalm (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Facenapalm:

Comment. Unfortunately, ag.ru and RAWG are not quite the same databases. Yes, ag.ru uses the same API and interface as RAWG, but the new version of Absolute Games is different in that it has editorial reviews from the old version ([1], [2]), while RAWG does not ([3]).

I'm not sure about the old database either, because if the new one has reviews from the old version, then it makes no sense to create a new property. As for removing this particular property, I'm not sure if it's worth it as we can still use it as the old database by changing the formatter URL. By the way, maybe we should also ask the members of the respective project on ruwiki what they think of it, and which of these versions is preferable, the old one or the new one?

If we conclude that we don't need the new version, then we can delete it or rename Absolute Games ID to Absolute Games ID (old version)/Old.ag.ru ID and use RAWG database for the new games only. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirilloparma: looks like there are only 5217 AG.ru reviews, while RAWG have over 625k games in database. If we'll keep P8279, there would be 620k pairs of identical links. I think deleting P8279 and creating property for old.ag.ru is more optimal solution. If we're considering those reviews important. Facenapalm (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Facenapalm: P8279 currently has a total of 272 uses. This is not so much and these links can be removed using QS batch. In order not to create a separate property, we can use this one if we reach a consensus to rename it from Absolute Games ID to old.ag.ru ID (if it can be done, of course) and changing the formatter URL from https://ag.ru/games/$1 to https://old.ag.ru/games/$1. What do you think? As far as I can see, the colleague who originally proposed this property has no objections to any further decision. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirilloparma, I'm not sure if it's okay to change a property midway like that. And I'm also not sure wherther those reviews are important (we usually don't keep track of other review sources, like Polygon or PCGamesN, only databases with useful information). If you're sure it's okay, I don't mind. As I said before, keeping one property for RAWG and one property for old AG sounds reasonable for me. Facenapalm (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Facenapalm: Okay, since the renaming option is not yet the best solution to the problem, I don't mind removing this property, and we can propose a new one. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Facenapalm: By the way, there is another property of Ag.ru related to personalities of the gaming industry. What should we do with this property? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma, I'd probably reorganize it into RAWG.io property as well. As far as I see, some descriptions are translated to Russian (Gabe Newell: [4][5]), but most of them are completely identical (Jesper Kyd: [6][7]), no point in linking both.

Moreover, AG and RAWG IDs are identical as well, right? We usually keep only one property in that case as far as I'm concerned. For instance, we don't have a separate property for GameRankings because it's the same to GameFAQs. And we also don't have a property for SteamDB because it uses application ID from Steam. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Facenapalm (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Facenapalm: That's right, they are completely identical. In this case, only one database should be used, and that is RAWG. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games. Kirilloparma (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ @INS Pirat: pinging also the original proposer of this property. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any specific comment. Have no objection to any further decision. --INS Pirat ( t | c ) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma, Facenapalm: sorry about the slow response on this. I just looked at a random example The Elder Scrolls Online (Q1188904). Changing the formatter link to https://old.ag.ru/games/$1 produces a 404 error for me: https://old.ag.ru/games/the-elder-scrolls-online So this can't be changed or perhaps I am misunderstanding your suggestion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ, old.ag.ru had different IDs, but modern ag.ru has the same IDs to RAWG game ID (P9968) (that's basically two web interfaces for the same database). My suggestion was to merge P8279 (P8279) into RAWG game ID (P9968) basically, and Kirilloparma's suggestion was to re-organize P8279 (P8279) to link at old.ag.ru (after we'll move all the current values to RAWG game ID (P9968)). Looks like noone minds both of these suggestions, so I can do the first part. Facenapalm (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, do the merge. There is consensus for that part. I think perhaps the identifier for old.ag.ru should go through a new property proposal, if anyone thinks that would be worthwhile — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes edit

@MSGJ, I've cleared all links to P8279 (P8279), what to do next? Facenapalm (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can go ahead and delete then — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for helping with this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.