Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2016/10/01

@Laboramus: (sorry for my very bad English/Italish) That item is not (just) a list. In every Pokémon generation, many Pokémon and many moves are added. As a Pokémon is part of "Pokémon of X-th generation" so a move is part of "moves of X-th generation".

Many works have to be done in WD:PKMN so I started a new work instead of creating and using items about moves of X-th generation (for X = 1 to 6).

I'm against this RfD --★ → A ir on 90 10:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: Maybe instance of (P31) should have a different value. I don't know which to choose as there aren't pages about moves on any Wikipedia --★ → A ir on 90 10:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a wikimedia list article, and this seems to just be a list of certain items recorded as Wikidata item. I don't think it's a correct usage. It's like creating an entry that would link to every human or every citizen of Italy or every mammal. It's not how it should be done. If you need to get a list of specific items, or specific items with specific properties, there's query engine for that. If this list is notable enough so that people would need to refer to it, it should have real list article. But I don't see a point in Wikidata item that is just materialized query. I will get out of date, and it also does not cite one single source. I don't think as of now it is a correct modeling of data in Wikidata. --Laboramus (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Then what should be the title for moves of seventh generation of Pokémon (Q26945333)? And I am unsure if this is the best way to model your data. It depends on what do you want to achieve though. --Lakokat 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

As I explained above, a Pokémon generation consists of new Pokémon species, new moves and new items. By now, items about Pokémon species, Pokémon by generations and moves have been created. So it is not like creating an item about every mammal.
I don't need to get a list of items, as it could be done with a query, but I know that if you use the property part of (P361) even the property has part(s) (P527) should be used.
Wikidata's notability policy differs from Wikipedias' one so an item could not have a page on another wiki to be considered a valid item.
I think you are talking without knowledge of Pokémon: generations are composed by "fixed" elements so it can't get out of date
My fault is not to cite a source. I will do it ASAP
You both say it is not the best way to model data on Wikidata but you don't propose anything else.
I'm not so good in English so I usually don't insert title in other languages. I insert a title and I hope it is correct
My achieve is to add information about generations to Pokémon moves, as already done with Pokémon species: see Comfey --★ → A ir on 90 07:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, instance of (P31) Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is incorrect. There are no linked Wikimedia articles. Likewise, is a list of (P360) is wrong.
has part(s) (P527) is being used incorrectly here. The property is not supposed to be used for linking classes to their instances. The part of (P361) has the same issue. Also, all instances are currently linking to it using part of (P361) instead of instance of (P31). If this is to be kept, it should be modeled as a proper class, with each instance linking to it using instance of (P31), and no links going the other direction.
Regarding whether this item should be kept... WD:N is somewhat ambiguous here. This item and its associated instances are not, afaict, linked to any other items or to any pages on the client wikis. I would lean somewhat towards deleting, but I think the policy really needs clarifying. --Yair rand (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I already said that the value of instance of (P31) should be changed.
I got inspired of use of part of (P361)-has part(s) (P527) watching items about species of Pokémon. See Comfey (Q25933050)
Instead of deleting the item (others should be created) help me in modelling it properly because this is an important class of moves in Pokémon

--★ → A ir on 90 06:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This should be a keep, as the item fills a structural need. Perhaps not an obvious case, but we can afford to be generous with data and interpreting WD:N. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Q5460604#P527 has a similar list. Incomplete however.
--- Jura 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1: As I said above, these lists about Pokémon are always complete, as every generation adds a limited number of new Pokémon, new moves and new items. has part(s) (P527) can be removed from the item if it is needed to be saved from deletion. --★ → A ir on 90 07:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a problem with the item as such. Maybe except that it's about Pokemon ;) .. but that doesn't matter.
I think we do need to find a solution for these multiple P527 statements. I'm not really convinced that querying is a solution for all of them.
--- Jura 07:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If your problem is the (ab)use of has part(s) (P527), let's discuss about it in another place (Talk:Q26945333 or - better - talk page WD:PKMN). I think that this is not the main reason to delete the item ;) --★ → A ir on 90 08:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If you re-read the deletion request, it's actually the initial motivation for the deletion.
--- Jura 08:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WD:N. Kaldari (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kaldari: You don't explain why it fails WD:N. I already said why it does not fail this policy. As I already said this item fullfils a structural need to define Pokémon moves (reason #3 of WD:N). Please, explain your reason to say that it fails WD:N. --★ → A ir on 90 07:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep According to WD:N, an item should a least meets one of three criteria. For each moves, even if it barely meets the second criteria, it's steel acceptable. For Q26945333, it meets the third one. Ju gatsu mikka (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)