# Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2016/Properties/1

## input set (P1851)

Unclear definition AS (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the creation discussion and still have no idea what this is for.   Delete unless @TomT0m, Danneks, Cuvwb: can shed some light on this. Filceolaire (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Vote changed - see discussion below. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: you provided incorrect discussion link. It is about different property. -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@AS, Filceolaire: This property can help to describe functions whose domains are too complicated, and maybe not notable by themselves. It is not used much at the moment, but functions (e.g. in set-theoretic sense) are widely used in mathematics, so I think that it may be potentially useful. Danneks (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire, AS: It's the A set in this mathworld definition. It's commonly used for example for the inverse function on the real, who has no value in R for 0, but still has R as input set, for example. The real domain of the function is nonzero real number (Q19546578)    . 11:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
what is the difference between domain (P1568) and input set (P1851)? Can you provide an example when domain (P1568) is not enought? -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vlsergey: It's done, see my previous message. 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: let me make it clear. You want to express that
subject > domain (P1568)
and
subject > input set (P1851)
, right? But we have . Why do we need to duplicate that in function itself? -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vlsergey: One can be used when we speak of a relation on any sets to any set, not only to functions. For example a database, when a customer can be registered but has not yet bought anything, or a complicated function like 1/(x-1)(x-2)(x-3). The input set of the relation beetween customer and transactions would still be customer, but some may have no relations at all. domain is clearly out of scope here. input set can be applied to function. It's unlikely that the item R minus {1,2,3} will be created either. 21:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: okay, i understood about math functions. Still this can be expressed with qualifiers (R except...). For database relationship it is still not clear for me. What is item and why we can't put "customer" into domain (P1568)? (with broader domain (P1568) definition of course). It would be better to provide an example with actual Wikidata entries. I care little about abstract concepts, sorry. Vlsergey (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have many example of non total functions, Halting problem (Q622849)     involves a HALT function which is from programs to 1,0 which has programs as input set but is undecidable. partial function (Q1756942)     provides other examples. The notion of domain is also non applicable for relations ( partial order (Q1069998)     ) like 1<2 or other binary relation (Q130901)    . It's well know that functions can be seen as binary relations iRo with i (input set) as their domain and o (output set) as their range. 07:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
We may speak of a function from R2 to R2 when we really mean one from U in R2 to V in R2. In my opinion this is important for characterizing the function type. For example I want all 2D vector fields, no matter what particular subset of R2 they are defined on, to be noted as such. So in short,   Keep.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Jasper Deng: References would help. --Succu (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Succu: Do you even understand what I'm saying?--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Jasper Deng: Mind to translate R2, U and V for beeings not living in a vector space (Q125977)? Please give a clear definition of the mathematical terms domain (P1568) and input set (P1851). What exactly renders them to be different? And stop guessing! --Succu (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Succu: I don't think you understand the level of math at which I'm talking since I'm not talking about general vector spaces. But out of these two, only domain is well-defined. In my comment, R2 is the "input set".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: Are you satisfied with the current discussion or do you have other questions ? If you still don't understand, it's maybe useful to say that it's a notion we study on secondary school in maths courses, so a not so advanced one. Maybe pinging other mathematicians like @HB: for support will help :) I'll left a message on the french math wikiproject, it's a cool opportunity to communicate around Wikidata. author talk page 09:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to write english. So please, be kind with me and improve my text. There is a difference between set of departure and domain. The set of departure is defined for a binary relation(Q130901). See this definition for example. So, the set of departure of a partial function(Q1756942) is defined like the set of departure of a binary relation. @Succu:In Deutsch, set of departure = Vorbereich und domain = Definitionsbereich[1]. For exemple, the function f(x)=1/x is a partial function whose set of departure is R. It's a total function[2] whose domain is R - {0}. Mostly, the domain is the better property of a function but if we cannot precise the domain , the set of departure is a good property indeed. Its also a good property for classes of functions like functions of a real variable(Q861681) whose set of departure is R and domain a subset of R. We may delete set of departure-property and put in domain-property the value set of X but it would be a pity since the notion of set of departure does exist.   Keep for me HB (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Nachträglich anpingen funktioniert nicht, aber ich vermute mal er bekommt's auch so mit. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
HB: Thank you for your explanation. I'd tried to understand the problem, and failed because I think I learned other German terms for these at school. But that’s a while ago. --Succu (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
page I am familiar with set theory. That isn't where my confusion lies. All the wonderful discussion of functions above is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant because it doesn't have an example of a practical example here on wikidata - where we call the functions "properties" and the sets "classes". You need to give an example of an actual statement where it is useful to state the 'input set' of an item instead of stating the 'domain'.
We also need an example where 'input set' is useful for making a statement about a property. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: Properties are not functions, they are relation (Q203066)     :) And in relations it is not required at all that any member of the input set or the output set are members of the relation at all. When we say that the domain of a property is "human beeing" this does not imply at all that humans has a value for this property. I know it's not that easy to find examples, but I'm pretty sure if I need this property in the future and that I'll have to pass to the whole review process, I'll be sad and I'm not sure I'll attempt. It's so long and boring ... On the other hand a ready property just in case for a defined notion is not really costly, that's why I presented a consistent plan with domain/input set/image/output set initially that seemed reasonable and pretty well known in maths. Maybe 6 months, and it's still not over. This implies I'm totally on something else now. So much discussion for a such small problem is a love breaker. I know there is Bonnie and Clyde problems in advanced maths for generalized functions like complex logarithm (Q2520206) can have pretty complex domains (discontinuous on the negative numbers for example) although its input set in clearly the complex numbers. I would not be able to express this easily if I want to. This has an impact on potential queries : If I want to know all functions on the complexes in math, if the Domain is C-Z or whatever, the query will be more complex to implement for example. author talk page 12:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - @TomT0m: First of all, sorry for my English. All the values in domain must have a correspondent value in image set. e.g. the domain of the function "VIAF ID" is a set which all the persons that have a VIAF ID. I, for one, can not be in this group, because I do not have a VIAF ID. But the entry set of the "VIAF ID" may be all the instance of (P31) human (Q5), since there can be an element of the entry set for which there is no corresponding image. Almondega (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi and welcome on Wikidata. Looks like someone is reading my talkpage :) author talk page 12:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So no one can think of even one example where we should use this property rather than "domain". I'm still voting delete. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: I reread the en:Partial_function article and I found a funny example of elementary maths: the domain function that computes the difference beetween two numbers with the result in N as a range. if you take this as a partial function from NxN->N, then the domain is (x,y) such that x>y, not that easy to express :) The subclass relationship subclass (Q3965271) is probably a better example. Imagine a function "smallest wrt. inclusion" with input sets A,B -> C as A and B classes, and that returns A if A is included in B, and B if converse. If neither A is included in B and B in A, then the result would be undefined. author talk page 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire:. This property is already used in tangent (Q1129196) and cotangent (Q1264373). What would put as domain in theses cases? HB (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you HB. At last a concrete example. Now if you can just explain to me why "domain:real numbers" is incorrect then we will finally be getting somewhere. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: The domain of a function, by definition, is the set of all "permitted inputs", for which the function has a value. The cotangent function, for example, is not defined at zero, because ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{0}}}$  is not a number. It can be regarded as a point on the Riemann sphere, but it would be another function. Danneks (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Danneks and now we are almost there. So the Domain is the set that includes all 'permitted inputs' and excludes all 'non-permitted inputs'. (I presume that is what you were trying to say above) while the input set is the set that includes all 'permitted inputs' and may also include some 'non-permitted inputs'. Is that it HB, TomT0m?
Such a pity no one said this earlier. If this is the definition then it sounds like we need another property to identify non-permitted inputs' wherever we use 'input set' so we can say <tangent - 'input set:real numbers', 'non-permitted inputs:90°, 270°'>. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: We might better need properties like Union of / intersection of / set substraction to express more complicated sets, like for example real numbers minus integers or something. This is more general. And "non permitted inputs" is not really general enough as there is infinite sets involved for example in the example HB showed. In the end if we are able to express the set, we would just need domain and create an item for the set. Which is not a goal we can easily achive, at least with current Wikidata status, as we try to explain since the beginning of this discussion. Can we settle this and close this discussion ? As you're the proposer this would be cool you removes the proposal so we can move on :) author talk page 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
TomT0m: Vote changed per discussion above. As a 'non-permitted inputs' property can have multiple values and can link to sets as well as to individual values I still think it would work. multiple values = Union of. Value with qualifier = intersection of.
@Filceolaire: This seems not really robust to me. Wikidata's semantics about multiple values is somewhat not really clear. If we have two date of birth for example we can't really interpret that as a union but more as an either date1 or date2 situation, we can't assume there might not be other values because of the "open world" issue (that's the same reason I proposed a qualifier on the "union of/union" proposal who is still on hold) ... Does not seems to be right to rely on that to model maths :) Plus we would need to discriminate sets and member values. This needs more thinking and more care to be done right. author talk page 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right. Either way it's a separate discussion.
Anyway I have changed the description of 'input set (P1851)' so it matches the discussion here. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This is another topic but "permitted value" does not really make mathematical sense, we're not talking of computational functions but of mathematical one, so the function is simply undefined for those values. Not sure this is clear for everyone ;) author talk page 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
TomT0m If 'non-permitted values' is incorrect then can you come up with a better phrase for the set of values that are included in the 'input set' but which are not included in the 'domain'? We need to include such a phrase in the description of 'input set' to make it clear how 'input set' is different from 'domain'. How about "values for which the function is undefined"? The description for input set (P1851) can then be
```a superset of the domain of a function or relation that may include some inputs for which the function is not defined. Use Domain (P1568) for the set of inputs for which the function is defined.
```
OK? Then we can create a new property labelled "Values for which the function is not defined" to work alongside input set (P1851). Joe Filceolaire (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. I have slightly modified the description to `a superset of the domain of a function or relation that may include some inputs for which the function is not defined; to specify the set of only those inputs for which the function is defined use domain (P1568)`. By the way, the number of items using this property is rising. ;-) Can we close this PfD now? Petr Matas 08:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The proposed property "Values for which the function is not defined" would have data type Item and its value would be equal to input set (P1851) minus domain (P1568), which is no simpler than domain (P1568). Furthermore, the value would depend on both input set (P1851) and domain (P1568), whereas the latter two properties are to some extent independent. So I would not vote for such property. Petr Matas 08:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. author talk page 20:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

## Language of Instruction / Medium of instruction

I think we need a separate property for Language of Instruction / Medium of instruction in schools and I don't think a generic 'Language' property can do this. Before I start the proposal I thought I would test the waters here. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: Not the best place to discuss this kind of topic. I think go to the property proposal pages and explain in details what you need and the case you want to describe. Snipre (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

## Q22673763

Ya existe éste elemento en Q7383978--Cygomezm (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Does not belong here,   Merged and redirected. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P2653

Wrong datatype, recreating Srittau (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

done --Pasleim (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P2654

I am sorry, I will get it right eventually :( - wrong datatype again Srittau (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

done --Pasleim (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P2706

Created by error Fralambert (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

done! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P2932, Property:P2933, Property:P2934

See WD:AN. --Yair rand (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

•   Delete No discussion and no explanation about the use of these properties. Snipre (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
•   Delete all possible meanings of broader and narrower are covered by existing relations - subclass, instance, part of. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Created out of process. We had a huge discussion the last time this happened and the consensus was that's it's not ok to create properties outside of the process because it denies the community the possibility to comment on property proposals. You're more that welcome to propose these properties. If consensus is reached that we need these properties, the properties can be undeleted. Multichill (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

## original language of film or TV show (P364)

@Jura1: Can you reopen the discussion as the previous discussion was closed ? Snipre (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## P1223 (P1223), P1224 (P1224), P1226 (P1226) and P1231 (P1231)

These ID's are essentially the same, as all links created redirect into https://catalog.archives.gov/id/\$1. US National Archives Identifier (P1225) seems to be the most used (although still not extensively) and most generic of these properties. The others can be merged into it. --Lymantria (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## P3164 (P3164)

Sorry, I created a property instead of an item.--— Ayack (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

deleted --Pasleim (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P3244

Duplicate of Property:P3245 AVRS (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will put the next approved authority into those IDs. ChristianKl (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Please don't reuse entities. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Those duplicate properties have never been used; they were just created (two announced, two their duplicates). --AVRS (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you either re-use now or have it speedy deleted? Otherwise it would have ended up with the similar label in the weekly update.
--- Jura 10:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I deleted P:P3244 and P:P3249. Entities should not be reused, especially not when they are older than a few hours. The work to create a new property compared to reuse a property is marginal. --Pasleim (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## BBC News Democracy Live ID (P2173)

The BBC have withdrawn this identifier. All uses now divert to a generic parliament page. The example, Tom Watson, http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/representatives/profiles/25228.stm now lands at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/parliaments Issue raised at : en:Template talk:UK MP links#BBC News Democracy Live -- Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep As a point of principle we should not be deleting data just because it is no longer in use. Simply remove the formatter URL (or use one at archive.org; e.g. [8]) and add a note to the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I added the archive.org formatter URL and the original is deprecated, but it looks like the wikidata UI is still pointing to the old one for the external id. Is this a bug? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Purging the cache seemed to do the trick, but I've marked the archive version as preferred anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P3287

This looks like a duplicate of Property:P3286. Korg (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted --Pasleim (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P3312

Duplicate property ChristianKl (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P3313

Duplicate property ChristianKl (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## P3319 (P3319)

A duplicate of Property:P3317 --Chrumps 21:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Property:P3317

Duplicate property ChristianKl (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## P3369 (P3369)

Wrong datatype--Almondega (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done --Pasleim (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

## circle of (P1776)

It is not used, couldn't find a single statement using it--Marfi (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep it is used as qualifier on creator (P170)=anonymous (Q4233718) [9]. --Pasleim (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep agree. It is not used as Property, only as qualifier. --Marfi (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --ValterVB (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep clearly appropriate and needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

## point of penalty (P2955)

Zero instances as property or as qualifier.--Marfi (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Invalid request. This is totally out of context and the proposer did not made the effort to provide any. This seems to me only an attempt to raise a stick to try to force somebody to add datas. But a proposal like this for a single property where the property is probably a part of a larger set of properties aimed to consistently represent something may make broke a leg to the model concerning this something. As a consequence I'll ask Marfi to provide context and rationale for this proposal. author talk page 11:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Context and rationale: Property created in July and haven't been used even once. --Marfi (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not an answer to my comment. author talk page 11:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Properties are created to be used. If even the proposer can't put it to use, it's unlikely to ever happen. It happens that proposals don't quite work out how we expected and so we don't use them. No need to keep maintaining though.
--- Jura 12:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• It happens that proposals don't quite work out how we expected and so we don't use them => This deletion prop, by lack of context, does not provide any mean to juge that. Besides, a few weeks of month is not quite a lot in a volunteer world where a contributor can disappear a few weeks or month (or years) before coming back to continue its plan. If he or she can't take his plan where (s)he left it, it will have to startover, which can be quite depressing. For the maintenance burden : if an unused property is a burden to maintain, then our maintenance process has clearly something that has to be improved (once more, the "property by property" stuff is the wrong granularity. We usually need several properties to make a model work, it's a waste of time to consider stuffs property by property). author talk page 12:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• I can understand that people who don't do maintenance, don't care about maintenance, but creating properties does generate overhead. There isn't really a sensible way to judge the usefulness of the property as it unused, even by the proposer. I'm sure we can find another site for useless properties. Maybe test.wikidata.org .
--- Jura 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Caring about maintenance does not mean you don't have to answer the concerns of others. Maintenance is not everything here. author talk page 13:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• It's not clear what your concern is other than that the non-contributor may be depressed by not being able to (not-)use the property they are not using ..
--- Jura 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• I think I made my concerns pretty clear. But to be more explicit : creating a property in Wikidata is a burden. I don't really think we already had a discussion about re-creating a property but I pretty much well see Jura1 arguing "this property has been deleted, I want extra extra care now not to oppose its recreation". So if no better argumentation, as far as I concerned, we might be digging a hole into current Wikidata data model that would have to be refilled later with more difficulty. For what ? Just because the proposer had no time for a few month to use the property and it increased the "maintenance burden" of a few milliseconds ? Sorry, but no. author talk page 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
•   Oppose. Insufficiently motivated, see discussion above. This property is defined and should be available to anyone needing it. author talk page 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Tubezlob: any comments on the above, as proposer of the property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
•   Oppose Agree with TomT0m. See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Association_football/Euro_2016#Points_of_penalty and Wikidata:Property proposal/point of penalty, and I added this property for two items: UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group H (Q15807025) and UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I (Q15807032). It's not because it is not use a lot at this moment that we have to delete it. Tubezlob (🙋) 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

## P3384 (P3384)

Duplicate of BLDAM object ID (P2081), now unused.--Fralambert (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oursana: can you confirm? You proposed P2081, but never put it to use.
--- Jura 03:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Should we even discuss such cases? --90.152.69.99 12:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1: is P2081 up for deletion as well?? --Marfi (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)