Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2012/11/17
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Restu20
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
dup of Q47434 -- DangSunM (T · C) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, this item is this same with Q37507. --Karol007 talk 11:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Done --Hosiryuhosi (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
dup of Q6588 --Theopolisme (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Was deleted as duplicate but it isn't: A municipality and a town in it have different data. Please undelete. (Please check my talk page for the circumstances) Man77 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC) --Man77 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- At a glance, the description of Q53543 also appears to describe the municipality.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not responsible for the is A and B character of the enWP article that has been copied into the English language data description. I have strong doubt that it makes sense to feature a municipality of several thousand km² and 200k people and one of its more than thousand villages (with about 40k people living in it) in one encyclopedic article, when it comes to mere data you have two different sets. Or should we merge New YOrk City with the State of New York? Man77 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- This and the state of New York aren't analogous, but this is indeed a problem with our current software; we can't link a duplicate. It seems that a slight majority of the listed Wikipedias describe it this way, hence I'm leaning toward declining this request unless you can show why these should be described separately; if there's not much information on the city, I don't see why we should describe them separately. I see your point, but do we really have that much data for the city as compared to the municipality as a whole?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- They can be described seperately because:
- they can be described seperately as de-WP, ru-WP (how else should Wikidata handle these two sets of interwikis in future if not by two different data sets?) and nuestro-mexico show (also on Commons there are two categories for the municipality and for the town)
- there are sufficient data: check INEGI, nuestro-mexico.com or ceieg.chiapas.gob.mx (where you at least have seperate age structure tables)
- If we orient Wikidata to a bad example of a mishmash article like the one on en-WP on Ocosingo, this is, uh, not really ambitious. Man77 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see, but I don't find this argument convincing. I'll leave this request open, though, for other admins to comment, but I won't fulfill this, nor am I formally declining this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just one question (not explicitly to you, Jasper): Is there a convincing argument for not having two data sets? I, so far, have not read any argument, be it convincing or not. Man77 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- First, on a technical level, two Wikidata entries cannot both link one particular page, and second, the amount of data we have may not be sufficient for separate entries.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- The first is a problem of wikipedia(s), not of wikidata, the latter ... what is sufficient for you? Existing data and Wikidata:Notability apparently not. Man77 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll attempt to undelete this, but I cannot make any guarantees about whether we'll get technical errors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- It failed because of articles being used by the other page, so we'll have to remove those interwikis. However, which page should get the links in the end?--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Page restored, but interwiki conflicts remain.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll attempt to undelete this, but I cannot make any guarantees about whether we'll get technical errors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- The first is a problem of wikipedia(s), not of wikidata, the latter ... what is sufficient for you? Existing data and Wikidata:Notability apparently not. Man77 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- First, on a technical level, two Wikidata entries cannot both link one particular page, and second, the amount of data we have may not be sufficient for separate entries.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just one question (not explicitly to you, Jasper): Is there a convincing argument for not having two data sets? I, so far, have not read any argument, be it convincing or not. Man77 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see, but I don't find this argument convincing. I'll leave this request open, though, for other admins to comment, but I won't fulfill this, nor am I formally declining this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- They can be described seperately because:
- This and the state of New York aren't analogous, but this is indeed a problem with our current software; we can't link a duplicate. It seems that a slight majority of the listed Wikipedias describe it this way, hence I'm leaning toward declining this request unless you can show why these should be described separately; if there's not much information on the city, I don't see why we should describe them separately. I see your point, but do we really have that much data for the city as compared to the municipality as a whole?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not responsible for the is A and B character of the enWP article that has been copied into the English language data description. I have strong doubt that it makes sense to feature a municipality of several thousand km² and 200k people and one of its more than thousand villages (with about 40k people living in it) in one encyclopedic article, when it comes to mere data you have two different sets. Or should we merge New YOrk City with the State of New York? Man77 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
My bad, duplicate of Q4758 --Erfil (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done --Stryn (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of Q54050 --–sumone10154(talk) 20:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hurried, interwiki was wrong. Municipalities in Norway != "hill". Please be careful, we are not bots. You can not recover, I have created an article about the municipality. --Art-top (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there was very little content in that article, so there's no point in restoring it. Next time however I'll remember to ask you first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not ask to restore, I ask to be careful. The article was removed after a minute, I just had no time to properly look interwiki. --Art-top (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then, although I apologize for my error, please first enter a description, and use a label that's not as generic (specify something like "Hill, Country" instead of just "Hill").--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually removed articles called "Kommun Ås" and led to an article about the municipality (with the coat of arms, etc.). Elementary check would have shown that this article has nothing to do with the article "hill". Making a description of a completely unknown language I can not. --Art-top (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about your native language?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- ru --Art-top (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I mean, a short description and an unambiguous label would definitely help prevent this in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. --Art-top (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I mean, a short description and an unambiguous label would definitely help prevent this in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- ru --Art-top (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about your native language?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually removed articles called "Kommun Ås" and led to an article about the municipality (with the coat of arms, etc.). Elementary check would have shown that this article has nothing to do with the article "hill". Making a description of a completely unknown language I can not. --Art-top (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then, although I apologize for my error, please first enter a description, and use a label that's not as generic (specify something like "Hill, Country" instead of just "Hill").--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not ask to restore, I ask to be careful. The article was removed after a minute, I just had no time to properly look interwiki. --Art-top (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there was very little content in that article, so there's no point in restoring it. Next time however I'll remember to ask you first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hurried, interwiki was wrong. Municipalities in Norway != "hill". Please be careful, we are not bots. You can not recover, I have created an article about the municipality. --Art-top (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Jasper Deng, you deleted the page five minutes after creation while the author was still working on it (last edit the minute before deletion). You should really refrain from doing this. As he explained, he was still working on it - absolutely no need to remove it so quickly. It shouldn't be up to him to provide a description immediately after creation, it should be up to you to use some good sense. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I made a great error here. However, it looked very much like a duplicate and even the same article appeared to be linked. Again, I apologize for this. The lack of user-generated edit summaries in the current software is also something to get used to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dup of Q6388 --Theopolisme (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dup of Q54293 --Theopolisme (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dup of Q15605 --Theopolisme (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dup of Q10441 --Theopolisme (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dup of Q7598 -- note that the interwiki links don't conflict, just the content. --Theopolisme (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Done and I've added the gl interwiki in Q7598. Restu20 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
dup of Q22844 -- DangSunM (T · C) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)