Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2018/08/06
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Q55954870: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
This item isn't linked to wiki site. --Chabota (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Done Redirect created by Rochusmb, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request: User categories
| Extended content |
|---|
|
Wikimedia users' categories, no notability Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment Agree with deletion of them as they are now, but a better approach would be to convert them from 'category' items to 'topic' items about the Wikimedians depicted in these categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Wikidata:Notability
--- Jura 08:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- Bit of a grey area. A Wikipedia main space category can have its own item according to Wikidata:Notability. What the category is about is up to the local project. So I think you need more of an argument here than simply pointing to Wikidata:Notability in order to delete those items. You could argue that main space categories of userpages is part of userpages; which could be a reason to delete. Maybe a link to a precedent, or enough people stating that user categories cannot have an item. The items with only a category from Commons are non-notable according to Wikidata:Notability, so they are a different discussion, much easier to delete. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was about to write that these are Commons user categories, but apparently it also includes one or the other with a Wikipedia category (the first one notably). These can't be deleted merely for being Commons categories. As we don't do items for users pages (in user namespace), I don't see why we'd keep categories for such pages.
--- Jura 17:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was about to write that these are Commons user categories, but apparently it also includes one or the other with a Wikipedia category (the first one notably). These can't be deleted merely for being Commons categories. As we don't do items for users pages (in user namespace), I don't see why we'd keep categories for such pages.
Done --Pasleim (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Member of the 2017–2021 Parliament of Iceland (Q52474426): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Seems to be a made-up position
--- Jura 11:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- @Oravrattas: --Pasleim (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Jura has been making pretty much the same argument, repeatedly, across multiple channels, and by different mechanisms, for about a year now, seemingly based on a specific model for legislative data that he believes Wikidata should follow, even in the face of repeated opposition from people actively working on such data across multiple countries. See, for example, discussions at, and linked from the most recent attempt before this one. --Oravrattas (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you could mention a quote from that discussion that is relevant here. I get the impression that you might not know what model you are trying to follow. Can you clarify what your employer tries to do here?
--- Jura 12:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- I'm following the model that already exists for Icelandic politicians, in order to bring the data up-to-date after the last election (e.g. as per the report at Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Iceland/data/Althing/2017-). It's well known that you disagree with this model, but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful and adopted across multiple countries and projects; and your attempt to sidestep not having prevailed in those earlier discussions, by simply trying to have the underlying items deleted instead, without any reference to the previous conversations, seem somewhat disingenuous. --Oravrattas (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand what it means to provide a relevant quote from the discussion you mention. I'd really appreciate if you and your employer would focus on the question at hand.
--- Jura 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand what it means to provide a relevant quote from the discussion you mention. I'd really appreciate if you and your employer would focus on the question at hand.
- I'm following the model that already exists for Icelandic politicians, in order to bring the data up-to-date after the last election (e.g. as per the report at Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Iceland/data/Althing/2017-). It's well known that you disagree with this model, but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful and adopted across multiple countries and projects; and your attempt to sidestep not having prevailed in those earlier discussions, by simply trying to have the underlying items deleted instead, without any reference to the previous conversations, seem somewhat disingenuous. --Oravrattas (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you could mention a quote from that discussion that is relevant here. I get the impression that you might not know what model you are trying to follow. Can you clarify what your employer tries to do here?
- Jura has been making pretty much the same argument, repeatedly, across multiple channels, and by different mechanisms, for about a year now, seemingly based on a specific model for legislative data that he believes Wikidata should follow, even in the face of repeated opposition from people actively working on such data across multiple countries. See, for example, discussions at, and linked from the most recent attempt before this one. --Oravrattas (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- To return to the deletion request: the function doesn't appear to exist and previous discussions concluded that these shouldn't be used. Unless a reference can be found, this should be deleted.
--- Jura 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- To the extent that there was a conclusion to the previous discussions, it was that this is a valid and useful approach, although longer-term we should look at whether we might be able to transition to a better one. See the end of the discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_every_politician#too_much_specific_items_for_legislature_members, starting at "I took last week off to go hiking". --Oravrattas (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Parliaments#Member_of_the_10th_Riigikogu_.28Q37822184.29. I'm aware that WikiProject UK uses a different model, but this was explicitly excluded. It's also possible that your employer uses a different model. In the meantime, we need a reference for the position you created. If it can't be provided, the item is to be deleted.
--- Jura 16:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- No decision was arrived at there, other than you declaring something unilaterally that hadn't been agreed, as you seem to do quite regularly. I would also note that the discussion I linked to happened after the last message on the discussion you're pointing at (which was not solely about the UK). It is also not only the UK and Iceland using this model — many other countries are as well. We know you don't like it. That's not a good enough reason to delete the items, which obviously fulfil a structural purpose, which you seem to accept in other cases. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It seems that EveryPolitician mostly ignored Wikidata users input and just continued with the import of their approach.
--- Jura 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- On the contrary, it seems pretty clear from the discussion that we sought input, and followed the agreed path. You disagreed with that, which is fine, but it would be useful if you would accept that the decision was different from your preferred route, and stop trying to block it at every turn via other channels. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can we get diffs on that?
--- Jura 07:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can we get diffs on that?
- On the contrary, it seems pretty clear from the discussion that we sought input, and followed the agreed path. You disagreed with that, which is fine, but it would be useful if you would accept that the decision was different from your preferred route, and stop trying to block it at every turn via other channels. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It seems that EveryPolitician mostly ignored Wikidata users input and just continued with the import of their approach.
- No decision was arrived at there, other than you declaring something unilaterally that hadn't been agreed, as you seem to do quite regularly. I would also note that the discussion I linked to happened after the last message on the discussion you're pointing at (which was not solely about the UK). It is also not only the UK and Iceland using this model — many other countries are as well. We know you don't like it. That's not a good enough reason to delete the items, which obviously fulfil a structural purpose, which you seem to accept in other cases. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It seems we have to do some clean-up.
--- Jura 16:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- Your previous attempts at clean up (with the Estonian data) were disastrous, and destroyed a lot of work. Please do not attempt to do so again. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was a notable improvement over the unreferenced claims you attempted to add.
--- Jura 07:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)- If you really think that glomming lots of contradictory qualifiers onto a single statement was an improvement over separate P39s for each period (and are not merely being obdurate), then I beg you to stay well clear of this area, and leave those of us who actually work with data like this on a regular basis, and want it to be able to answer useful questions, to get on with our work. --Oravrattas (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's regrettable that you didn't actually bother reading what Wikidata wrote about MySociety/EveryPolitician's contribution. I wonder why WMF actually bothers paying for this type content creation.
--- Jura 07:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's regrettable that you didn't actually bother reading what Wikidata wrote about MySociety/EveryPolitician's contribution. I wonder why WMF actually bothers paying for this type content creation.
- If you really think that glomming lots of contradictory qualifiers onto a single statement was an improvement over separate P39s for each period (and are not merely being obdurate), then I beg you to stay well clear of this area, and leave those of us who actually work with data like this on a regular basis, and want it to be able to answer useful questions, to get on with our work. --Oravrattas (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was a notable improvement over the unreferenced claims you attempted to add.
- Your previous attempts at clean up (with the Estonian data) were disastrous, and destroyed a lot of work. Please do not attempt to do so again. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Parliaments#Member_of_the_10th_Riigikogu_.28Q37822184.29. I'm aware that WikiProject UK uses a different model, but this was explicitly excluded. It's also possible that your employer uses a different model. In the meantime, we need a reference for the position you created. If it can't be provided, the item is to be deleted.
- To the extent that there was a conclusion to the previous discussions, it was that this is a valid and useful approach, although longer-term we should look at whether we might be able to transition to a better one. See the end of the discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_every_politician#too_much_specific_items_for_legislature_members, starting at "I took last week off to go hiking". --Oravrattas (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose even if this is « a made-up position » (which is not proven), nothing in the Wikidata rules is against creating specific items when it's needed (see - among other pages - point 3 of WD:N). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- References need to be available for any statement. From what MySociety/EveryPolitician tells us, this is readily available. So let's see.
--- Jura 20:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- References need to be available for any statement. From what MySociety/EveryPolitician tells us, this is readily available. So let's see.
- I recommend procedurally closing this discussion. This item will not be kept or deleted on its own right, rather as part of a wider decision regarding specific parliamentary terms of many parliaments. And trout slap Jura for jumping the gun. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done --Pasleim (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Q37822184 etc.
- Member of the 10th Riigikogu (Q37822184): member of the Estonian legislature, 2003–2007: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
- Member of the 13th Riigikogu (Q33129158): member of the Estonian legislature, 2015–2019: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
- Member of the 12th Riigikogu (Q33129181): member of the Estonian legislature, 2011–2015: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
- Member of the 11th Riigikogu (Q33129357): member of the Estonian legislature, 2007–2011: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
- Member of the 9th Riigikogu (Q37822345): member of the Estonian legislature, 1999–2003: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Parliaments#Member_of_the_10th_Riigikogu_.28Q37822184.29 .
Items can be replaced with the one of the relevant position and qualified with a term.
--- Jura 16:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sigh. The linked discussion clearly provides references to show that these positions exist, and are explicitly referred to as such by the Estonian Parliament, Estonian Government, the Estonian wikipedia articles of most of the members, etc. This seems to be either an attempt to make an end-run around the decisions reached previously, or an attempt to re-litigate the issue in another forum. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- You or your employer might be confusing parliamentary term and position. Sorry for not listing this for deletion earlier, somwhat mistakenly I assumed you understood the approach used by Wikidata instead.
--- Jura 17:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- No. You have been given lots of evidence on this, but just seem to ignore it. In addition, we are following the generally agreed approach. You just don't like it, and keep trying to block it. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- If EveryPolitician/MySociety's systems has an internal need for such fictious functions, your devs could just re-map them internally.
--- Jura 17:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- You or your employer might be confusing parliamentary term and position. Sorry for not listing this for deletion earlier, somwhat mistakenly I assumed you understood the approach used by Wikidata instead.
- Oppose I thought this had been settled a year ago. Jura says that "the approach used by Wikidata" is different - in reality, there are two widely used approaches to modelling the data, with one (using "member of Nth parliament") more detailed than the other (using "member of parliament"). However, he disagrees with the use of this particular data model and has repeatedly objected to its use, despite people working with it saying repeatedly that it is a useful method.
- This particular approach is used for Estonia, but also for the UK (with >10k items!), Bangladesh, etc. Both approaches can coexist happily, and indeed for the UK both approaches are in use for the same country in different time periods as we make more data available (though I'm hoping to do a big switchover to Nth terms for historic data soon). I have not worked with the Estonian data, but I have with the UK data, and I simply could not do the work I'm doing anything like as efficiently without using separated member items. It is technically possible to change, but practically in terms of data management and analysis it's a lot easier to work with this approach; there's nothing stopping us changing in future, but I don't think we're at a point yet where that would be easily maintainable, and "consistency for the sake of consistency" would just throw out huge amounts of work.
- If this is the model that works best for Estonia for the time being, then it should remain in place for now, until the people working with it are happy to change over. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- How about re-reading the discussion of last year about Estonia? EveryPolitician/MySociety/etc didn't support the approach with using actual positions and changed it without our agreement, but this doesn't make it any better. It just shows how much EveryPolitician/MySociety values Wikidata users input.
--- Jura 22:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was involved in that discussion, and for many other discussions around this material. I do not remember or interpret them the same way you do - concerns were raised about this approach, a justification was put forward, and there it rested. Then you brought it up again in a different venue and we had the debate all over again. And so on. You keep saying things like "our agreement" or "the approach used by Wikidata" but this is very misleading - your opinion is not always the same as the community's opinion, and the approach you suggest is not always the one actually being used, even if you think it's correct. I am a Wikidata contributor - and not from "EveryPolitician/MySociety/etc" - I actually work with political data, and I think this model is fine and useful.
- As to change - of course as standard models get rolled out for a set of items, some will get changed and updated. This is how we make Wikidata better. Insisting we go back to less useful approaches doesn't help anyone. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Parliaments#Member_of_the_10th_Riigikogu_.28Q37822184.29 was started after the employee of EveryPolitician/MySociety tried to change the approach from using P39 with the position to some dummy positions like Member of the 10th Riigikogu (Q37822184). You didn't even comment there. Just re-read it and think about what people actually wrote about it.
--- Jura 07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Parliaments#Member_of_the_10th_Riigikogu_.28Q37822184.29 was started after the employee of EveryPolitician/MySociety tried to change the approach from using P39 with the position to some dummy positions like Member of the 10th Riigikogu (Q37822184). You didn't even comment there. Just re-read it and think about what people actually wrote about it.
- My apologies - it was on one of the other discussions about this that I commented (it's hard to keep track when it kept getting raised in different locations). I feel the point still stands. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- How about re-reading the discussion of last year about Estonia? EveryPolitician/MySociety/etc didn't support the approach with using actual positions and changed it without our agreement, but this doesn't make it any better. It just shows how much EveryPolitician/MySociety values Wikidata users input.
- Oppose. Specific job titles are useful. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we could move them to P106.
--- Jura 22:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we could move them to P106.
- Oppose no valid reason for deletion... VIGNERON (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done --Pasleim (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Madrid (Q24012729): municipality and capital of Spain: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Same as Q2807. Unify. --Segundillo (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done marked as duplicated page. --Pasleim (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Q41092774: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No encyclopedic value, seems like someone is playing, especially someone can't have all those properties... Texniths (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 7 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Q55944387: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Q55964673: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Q55956152: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Q21041550: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Q835042: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Nominated per its RfD on the Hungarian Wikipedia: disputed notability, hoax. Bencemac (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Franco Cipriani (Q55825838): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
We have already Q24704791.--Demiurgo (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by Pasleim, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Q55758258: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Reklam İçerikli
Q19799473: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Wikilink removed, not a disambiguation page anymore Candalua (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This page still contains many versions copied from external copyrighted sites.--GZWDer (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GZWDer, Deryck Chan: I will delete this, but do you still think a block of @Zyksnowy: is unnecessary? Mahir256 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mahir256: I think we should rather use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or AbuseFilter. Block should be the last choice.--GZWDer (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: Do you mean to say that I should add "User\:Zyksnowy\/.*" as an entry to the title blacklist? (Not sure how easy it is to capture every rendering of the term "sandbox" in one regex.) Also I have been told by @Matěj Suchánek: on WD:AN that specific instances of spam by or about certain users don't go in abuse filters. Mahir256 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Probably. @Mahir256: this user also created User:Zyksnowy/xob.--GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: Done though I hope we do not need to modify the title blacklist more often. Mahir256 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GZWDer:
- Probably. @Mahir256: this user also created User:Zyksnowy/xob.--GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: Do you mean to say that I should add "User\:Zyksnowy\/.*" as an entry to the title blacklist? (Not sure how easy it is to capture every rendering of the term "sandbox" in one regex.) Also I have been told by @Matěj Suchánek: on WD:AN that specific instances of spam by or about certain users don't go in abuse filters. Mahir256 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mahir256: I think we should rather use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or AbuseFilter. Block should be the last choice.--GZWDer (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Halifax Stanfield International Airport (Q22702986): international airport serving Halifax, Canada: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Empty --Bouzinac (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
ŠKF Sereď (Q55985108): Slovak association football team: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Duplicate of Q8082669 --5.178.48.5 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by Rachmat04, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Template:Jak and Daxter series (Q22866148): Wikimedia template: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
It already exists here --Pazio Paz (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by Rachmat04, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Q1238045: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Nominated per its RfD on the Hungarian Wikipedia: disputed notability. Bencemac (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Schoeman (Q21493389): family name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Merged Q1159098 --2003:C3:B715:1945:ACC3:467F:1AE1:C441 08:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 10 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment family name has to use a different item than disambiguation page. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep per Matěj - this is the standard way of handling family vs disambig pages here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done --Pasleim (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit group OR/f277cef
| Summary | software developers listed in NSRL | Author | YULdigitalpreservation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of edits | 98 (more statistics) | Example edit | Q200491 |
Can an administrator please undo this edit group?
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I mistakenly asked OpenRefine to perform two separate types of edits. There are problematic descriptions in this set. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done --Pasleim (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)