Wikidata:Property proposal/has duplicate Wikimedia page
has duplicate Wikimedia page edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Sister projects
| Description | this item has a sitelinked page that is the same as another page on the same wiki |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | item |
| Example 1 | Lublin County (Q912777)has duplicate Wikimedia pageLublin County (Q49631002) |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
Motivation edit
This replaces the use of of (P642) for
| instance of (P31) |
| ||||||||||||
| add value | |||||||||||||
There are 9700 of these currently. I don't think people want to spend the time merging these pages on the wikis in the meantime, so this property simply acts as a replacement for the current documentation of this relationship until all the pages are merged. I'm more focused on getting rid of uses of of (P642) at the moment than merging all of the pages. When that happens, this property can be deleted.
It also solves the problem of items having instance of (P31)Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) which makes them ontologically a abstract entity (Q7048977) which may not be correct for a majority of uses. Lectrician1 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Many such cases (maybe vast majority?) are from Cebuano Wikipedia and I expect that nearly all people are not going to spend time on merging flood of bot generated articles. Proposal triggered by this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, instance of (P31)Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) is simply wrong as object being classified is NOT an instance of that - Wikidata object is instance of that! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion edit
WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
Question Doesn't such property already exist as permanent duplicated item (P2959) (see also Q17362920#P1687)? --Horcrux (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- said to be the same as (P460) is used to document a completely different type of relationship. It's used to describe if society considers two concepts to be conceptually the similar but not exactly the same. This property is to state that there are duplicate Wikimedia pages sitelinked between both items, and both thus items represent exactly the same thing. Using said to be the same as (P460) would cause confusion for editors as they might think that there is a still a difference between the items when really there isn't. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1: The property that I linked above is permanent duplicated item (P2959), not said to be the same as (P460) (it also is the only non-deprecated property that you can find in Q17362920#P1687, I don't see how you thought that I was talking about the other one :-)) --Horcrux (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ohhhhhh you're right. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1: The property that I linked above is permanent duplicated item (P2959), not said to be the same as (P460) (it also is the only non-deprecated property that you can find in Q17362920#P1687, I don't see how you thought that I was talking about the other one :-)) --Horcrux (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- said to be the same as (P460) is used to document a completely different type of relationship. It's used to describe if society considers two concepts to be conceptually the similar but not exactly the same. This property is to state that there are duplicate Wikimedia pages sitelinked between both items, and both thus items represent exactly the same thing. Using said to be the same as (P460) would cause confusion for editors as they might think that there is a still a difference between the items when really there isn't. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny @Horcrux Withdrawing for now. However, the current approach is still flawed in that we mark both duplicate pages as instance of (P31)Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) when really we should be dedicating one of them as the "master item" without instance of (P31)Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) and using permanent duplicated item (P2959) on one of them. I also don't like the name of permanent duplicated item (P2959) as it really shouldn't be "permanent: and the property name also gives no indication that it's "permanent" in that there's duplicate Wikimedia articles. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)