Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions/Archive 1

Archive

How to manage the archive? Should everything be archived that is done right now? I think now it is possible to do it by hand but later that would be a bot's work. --Bene* (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For the future, it will surely depend on how many deletions requests will be made per day. For now, we can maybe archive manually once there are about 20 (done) entries. --MF-Warburg (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that currently this is a good idea, but in the future it will need to create a template for speedy deletion. Restu²⁰ 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But how to add it to an article. There is no edit button so you cannot add any template --Bene* (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

idea: speedy deletion template could be added to the discussion. What do you think? --Bene* (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Here was already discussion about it: Wikidata:Project_chat#A_way_to_mark_pages_for_administrative_tasks. --Stryn (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that at the moment we have to do in this way because, as you say, there isn't an edit button. I hope that devs can add some features to make easy request of deletion. :-) Restu²⁰ 14:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Could a script be hacked together to do this? --Guerillero | Talk 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why did the page become rare archived? Due to the large size of the page has to wait long for a query, it is often "editconflict". --Art-top (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive

Can we set archives by month, week, or size instead of by day? --Guerillero | Talk 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I support archiving after 48 or 72 hours for now, and then once things slow down (we're still in the initially flurry), we can reassess timing. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a week, as long as the page stays small enough to load. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sven, see Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2012 --Guerillero | Talk 04:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Repurposing?

Should I start repurposing the now deleted numbers, or will it give them to me when I start a new entry automatically, or do we want to leave the numbers blank? Sven Manguard Wha? 12:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't choose a number when you start a new entry. --Stryn (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that it would be possible, but you're right, for now it isn't. Once everything is not restricted to javascript only, however, it will be possible. I suppose then that the question stands (albeit modified). Should (when it becomes possible) we reuse numbers? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not just 'for now'; if we're to actually create a useful semantic data store in Wikidata, it's hugely important that we never re-use an identifier for a new purpose (including changing an old one to represent a new form of the concept). For example if Q22 (the semi-autonomous region 'Scotland') leaves Q145 (the state 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'), we will need two new references for 'Scotland' the state and 'United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland' (or whatever it's called) - these are entirely different things. If we don't do this, we will end up with a mess of data that will be of little use for our complex needs (e.g. the Queen of Scotland in 1540 and the First Minister of Scotland in 2012 are talking about different Scotlands, and we need to represent both as different data objects). Jdforrester (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So should we stop all reporposings, even when there's an accidental duplicate that the creator quickly catches (which I did at Q8916)? I don't see the harm in repurposing those. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fine as long as there's no chance that it's already been used (this will be easier once we're into phase 2 and can actually see what's being used). As a rough guesstimate, if it's only existed for a few minutes it's probably fine, but you should always check; if you're the creator, you have more lee-way (but again, still check). Note of course that just because it looks blank to you doesn't mean all labels or descriptions in all languages are blank. Let's not have nodes that claim to be about different things depending on which language you're looking at. Jdforrester (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Script

I wrote a script to make requesting a deletion much easier. Just copy in your common.js the following line:

importScript('User talk:Bene*/deletionRequest.js'); // [[User talk:Bene*/deletionRequest.js]]

Please help also to translate the script. --Bene* (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice for new users: It's now a gadget. --Leyo 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive: category & list

To prevent Category:Archive from getting too huge, I have just created Category:Archived requests for deletion and modified Template:Archive to allow a category name. Hope this is OK...

And I wonder if Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive is useful ? Presently it is just like Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2012 but will grow enormous.

--Eric-92 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I have replaced the prefixindex with a link on the 2012's archive. --IW 20:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Labels

Wikidate will have shortly a guideline (Wikidata:Notability) for the beginning phases of the project. (A Q* data entry should have at least one interwiki linking back to any language Wikipedia project to gauge notability.) It will be useful to add a label to the deletion request: === [[Q...]] (label) === so items can be restored when the rules are extended. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't really see how that would work; due to the multi-languageness of this project, how would one determine which — if any — language to include? What if a page has only German, but is later created in Korean? How does one 'connect' those two together? Seems like a lot to go through when more Q's are ... quite cheap. Theopolisme (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just add in this case "(de:label)", that's enough and helps others to read the list. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated archiving

Archive bot is now running. —Theopolisme 12:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

pagename vs itemid

I think we should rename "pagename" (if you adda new request via the addbotton) to Itemid. This makes it clearer that the item id is required. For other deletion request you should use the delete template. --Sk!d (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good change, if nobody objects in a bit I'll make the change. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support it, too. Feel free to edit. --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 17:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Support it's more accurate.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive frequency

Just so you know, I've changed the frequency of the bot to archive four times day (only discussions with no timestamp within the last 12 hours).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Support --Sk!d (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Page format

Can we please stop changing the format without letting me know prior to the change it it's a major change? This is the second time the bot has been unable to archive because of a format change. I'd understand if I'm notified and haven't responded in a reasonable period of time, but please, I won't always be around to notice that a change was made so I can update the script. Both times, I happened to take a look at the page to see that the bot wasn't archiving it and find out that there was a change in the format. For both times, I was not notified of any changes at all, whether before or after the changes. Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

@Admins: Please use “done” or similar as an edit summary when done. “re” gives the impression that a deletion request is being discussed and still pending. --Leyo 12:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate pages for each name space

Can we divide this page into one page per namespace? Or at least Requests for property deletions, Requests for item deletions and Other requests for deletions (Wikidata pages, templates, help pages, categories)? Mange01 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, though I'm not sure about different pages for each namespace, it's clear that there's a difference in process between the main/item namespace, where there's only extremely rarely any need for discussion or proper consideration, and something like the property namespace, where each discussion can (and should) take several days and involve dozens of discussants. Possibly a 'heavy weight' system, something more like a sub-page for each item's discussion, might be sensible there. Thoughts? James F. (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be split up by namespace, but I would like to see a "speedy-delete/CSD" page (what we have right now), and a separate slow-delete page where people can have discussions and debates without interfering with the fast ones. Legoktm (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lego + 1 Bináris (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we do need a separate page for slower discussions, especially since the deletion guideline can't become a policy until that page is made :P Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I support also dividing the namespaces into different pages or at least different chapters of this page. Creating of speedy-deletions could be an alternative, but then you'd have to agree when to make a speedy-request and when a normal request. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding a line break to Template:Rfd links?

What about adding a line break to Template:Rfd links? Like this, an empty line between this template and the reasoning won't be required any longer. --Leyo 10:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did this, but it made all existing pages very ugly so I temporarily self-reverted; thoughts? James F. (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugly, how? Too much empty space between {{Rfd links}} and reason? I forget to mention that on the same time the empty line would need to be removed from Template:Request for deletion. --Leyo 06:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing it from the instructions doesn't fix the double-linebreak in all the hundreds of invocations. :-( (This is why we should change the instructions to use subst: as well.) James F. (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Script for easy tagging sections as resolved

It would be very useful for admins to have a script for easy (one-click) tagging sections as resolved after having executed a (non-controversial) deletion request. The script would need to add

:{{done}} --~~~~

at the end of the section and to append done or similar to the edit summary. One option would be to add the required settings to the code of de:Benutzer:Schnark/js/section-links. The user agreed on that. What do you think about this and alternative options? --Leyo 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That could be beneficial, yes. Anything to save time :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to make clear: [edit] would be replaced by these icons (plus a check mark): . I am not sure if anyone would be fine with that. --Leyo 19:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to use text rather than icons? — Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK not with this script. --Leyo 10:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Le voilà: User:Ricordisamoa/DeletionHelper --Ricordisamoa 15:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! What I am missing is the section link to the edit summary, i.e. what is there when doing it manually (leaving what is there and adding done). --Leyo 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

for admins Now it is a gadget ▬ Reza1615 / T 17:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New version! --Ricordisamoa 19:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Indentation instead of lists

I hereby propose to automatically replace all occurrences of unordered lists ("*") with indentations (":"): I found all those bullets simply annoying.

If nobody oppones, I'll do this replacements. (I could also run a bot to do this). --Ricordisamoa 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I see nobody except Ymblanter uses "*". But I don't care about the formatting. Important is that the requests are marked as done or not done and not whether admins use "*" or ":" to do this. Regards, Vogone talk 19:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So, why does {{Deleted}} exist? --Ricordisamoa 19:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not particularly care, if we decide ":" should be used, I can easily switch--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@Ricordisamoa: I think the template documentation is clear. ;-) Vogone talk 20:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Migrating labels on deletion

It's just occurred to me, having filed several dozen deletion requests, that it may not have been transferring labels/descriptions/aliases from other languages when the old entry was deleted for being a duplicate. I checked one article and I'm pretty sure that it hasn't transferred labels at least, and that seems like a shame. Where it's the enwiki link I've moved I've made sure to migrate any labels from English, as that's easy to do -- it shows up on the top of the page for me. But doing so for every language seems like an enormous chore as I would have to change to the language of every single wikilink I'm migrating... That would get tiresome in a hurry. I think it would be beneficial to preserve this info, if only to prevent a bot from coming round and applying it to the hundreds of requests entries which are inevitably getting lost every week. Would it be possible for this to be automated, in some way? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I do transfer the descriptions, but only from the major languages. I actually do not even know how I can check whether there are descriptions for the languages which do not show up on the main item page in the English interface (except for checking the history, which I usually do).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, LabelLister can be used to view labels and descriptions in other languages. --Ricordisamoa 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's true, and certainly makes it easier to view them, but it's still not particularly easy for migration :/ Buttons to Push Buttons (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: One deletion page for items, another for everything else

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is already deployed. Properties are being discussed not at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Properties. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Hey there. It seems that we're doing a significant number of property deletion discussions lately. I think that's fine, but property deletion discussions are significantly more involved than 99.9% of item deletion requests. I think we need to split it into two pages. One would be for for Q#### items, one for everything else. This would allow us to keep a streamlined deletion process for Q#### items, which we can get dozens of a day, and would mean that the larger, more heady discussions for things like properties would not be competing for space with the flood of quick and easy Q#### item deletions. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hey there! I  Support. Thanks for the good idea. Emw (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support – Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.--Bill william compton (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --ValterVB (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Ricordisamoa 10:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Which way are you thinking to split it? WD:Properties for deletion or WD:Items for deletion? --Izno (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, the idea seems reasonable to me. --Michgrig (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support They should definitely be in two different places as the procedure for deleting each is turning out to be quite different. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Just an idea: wouldn't be a enwp CSD-similar system with categories be more efficient? Mabdul (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

  Echo the CSD-similar comment. Trying to request deletion for empty Q### items results in edit conflicts ~50% of the time and is slow via the JS too QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is further support needed for this?

There seems to be a clear consensus to enact this proposal. Property deletion nominations are currently impossible to follow via watchlist. It seems like this enacting proposal could help people keep track of those, and make the nominations more of a discussion than a merely a list of statements. Emw (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, though leaving it open for a couple of days won't hurt anything. I think that items could be nominated at RfD/I (requests for deletions/items). IDC what the other page is called. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think leaving this open for a couple more days will hurt the ongoing discussion about P107, among other properties. Emw (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

New page

I created a new page and moved the two actual discussions there. If all is OK, it is needed to integrate the new page into the existing infrastructure. --Michgrig (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should rather create a page WD:Requests for deletions/Items instead of WD:Requests for deletions/Properties as the result of the discussion was we should have one page for items and one for everything else, not one for properties and one for everything else. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 18:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The current page "Requests for deletions" is mentioned in many rules; the rfd gadget sends requests to this page, etc. I created the new page with this in mind. --Michgrig (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that could be fixed. I believe the consensus stands, but rather than just fixing now, I'm checking if anyone has any objections. The changes I'd make include updating my bot's code for the new IfD page, redirecting PfD to RfD, updating the RequestDeletion and DeletionHelper gadgets ... anything else I missed?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm planning a new tool for sysops to quickly view currently open RfDs. However, it would be wise to build a faster system: a structured page, where deletion requests can be inserted in a structured format, and quickly processed by admins via a live system: RfDs would be splitted by tipe; a simple button would allow to delete an item and immediately archive the request on another page. Opinions? --Ricordisamoa 14:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. Would be much more efficient if we could streamline the process. The above discussion about breaking up RfD into Properties and Items should be done. Then each of these pages could be split by reason for deletion. For example, Items for Deletion (IfD) could be split into "Duplicates", "Notability issues", "Excluded item", "Test page/Vandalism/Spam", "Author request", and "Empty item/Other" etc. The other page could be Properties for Deletion (PfD) which needs to be split from IfD per the above discussion. We would then need a further page for other pages that need deleting, such as User pages, Wikidata pages, Help pages etc. I guess RfD would become a central page for explaining how to go about deleting all the different types of pages. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past I believe people had an issue with archival time, hence, why my bot archives threads over a specific time old (based on the last timestamp in the discussion).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

empty items

Deleting single empty(ed) items is senseless, a bot can wipe them out every month or so, if necessary at all (can't imagine what's the sense of a "deletion" aka hiding information of an empty item)--FischX (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There should be no hiding of information. If the items get merged, all labels etc should be moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no deletion mechanism in wikimedia there is a "deletion" mechanism that can hide information (in case of vandalism a reasonable idea) thats why you can undelete items and thats the reason why deletion of empty items is questionable or really low prio. --FischX (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bots can find items without any link. You can even use Special:ItemsWithoutSitelinks to see items without links. It's right bots can wipe them out as you said. But sometimes bots do some wrong things, so I think that is the reason why Hazard-Bot didn't get the administrator permission. tntchn ^{Comment · Contribs} 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A Bot can't do any harm to an empty item - because of emptiness, if a item is emptied by vandalism and then deleted by a bot it can be undeleted after. But the deletion itself is a Joke, yes. --FischX (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm a big fan of Q16402 and I really like the idea of an office where people mark folders with empty pages as confidential, I just want to automate this ;-) --FischX (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For clarification of my adminbot request, that request was not for my bot to automatically delete any item without sitelinks, but rather, only those it blanked (if the Wikipedia page was deleted) after checking certain criteria (I need to set up some testing and go back through with this).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Non notability checks

I recently had a case where I created an item for a character and a short article on french wikipedia. The character where unquestionably notable, but the article was deleted because of a Bonny and Clyde problem (and because the admin and other people on french wikipedia do not like short article, I argumented it would be a very good solution to the Bonny and Clyde problem, but too much opposition, end of parenthesis). So the item was deleted because of the deletion of the article though it was used in a statement (a lot of actors played this character) and restored later.

There was clearly several problems :

• I saw the deletion of the item in my deletion list and I had no clue of what it could have been at first sight, there should be at list a clue in the deletion message of what the item was to check if it was not a mistake
• the second is that there was undetected claims where the item was used, this item should not have been deleted without second. checking, the existence of the claims implied it was not a violation of notability policy (I don't know where the mistake was).
• I think that we should be more careful in batch deletion because of the Bonny and Clyde problem. TomT0m (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass merging and Requests for deletions page

Is there a way to avoid using the Requests for deletions page while mass merging? I made hundreds of deletions but I often have to request deletion twice or more. Is it allowed to save all items which I wanted to delete in my profile and put in a list here at the end? --A.Bernhard (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can do them as a bulk deletion request. Or just get an administrator flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best to request each deletion separately, because then there is one person to check after you, and it makes checking a lot easier. We all make mistakes, don't we. Most bulk request only give "empty" as a reason, basically. Littledogboy (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What Ymblanter said. Getting the flag is really easy for someone with a few months of work and hundreds of deletions behind them. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Most bulk deletions are a real pain as someone usually just lists loads and says "empty", which doesn't explain anything and isn't a reason to delete by itself. It would be better if the bulk deletion template were to be improved to give a format like "Q##### -> Q#####" where the one on the left is deleted and the reason is known to the admin. Checking each one in a long list would be so much easier if we knew it's a merge or a WD:N issue etc. in advance. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you responses. Become an admin is not an option. Since last night the situation has improved a lot. Currently, there is no longer a problem. --A.Bernhard (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does the item number matter?

When merging items, I usually keep the item which already has more properties and links. Sometimes this item has a higher item number than the other one. It appears that the people who do the deletion afterwards move all properties and links back to the item with the lowest number (which I requested to delete) and they delete the item I choose to be kept. See for example Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2013/12/20#Q14754536. Of course it does not really matter for the outcome, but why do they do this? When the lowest item number has less digits, I see it is an advantage, but the difference between Q15265017 and Q14754536 is marginal. And it seems the higher number is also never to be used again either. So why using resources for this moving around? Bever (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is done by some of my colleagues and from what I heard it also doesn't make any difference technically. And of course it is only reasonable to keep the item where less effort regarding moving links etc. is needed. Vogone talk 03:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that items of larger numbers should be removed because external sites could link to the longer-established ones, but this could really be true of the larger numbers too. I don't see much point to delete only the largest ones, but it doesn't make much of a difference either way. I've even heard arguments for deleting the smaller number... Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think external sites are more likely to use the item with more statements (or more sitelinks, more labels, whatever). This is why I think that always deleting the one with the higher number is a bad idea. Also, we lose a part of the items' history by merging, and if we delete the item with the longer history, we lose more. This is why Help:Merge#Select recipient item suggests to chose "the item that is used more often" as the mege target item since a couple of months (after this short discussion: Help talk:Merge#Why merging to the lower ID?). This page used to suggest to delete the newer one, so maybe some just follow the outdated guideline. However, there are users that are aware of this change and still prefer merging to the older item in any case, for reasons that I don't really understand. I just recently had this discussion with User:Cycn on User talk:Cycn#User:Cycn/Merge without an outcome on any side. --YMS (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It made me think about your point of view, so that's nice, and I'm sure I won't be as single minded towards the lower number in the future now that I'm aware of the things you've mentioned. But no clear outcome, neither party fully convinced the other. - - (Cycn/talk) 08:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@YMS: I doubt the history has much relevance as opposed to all other sister projects we use the Creative Commons CC0 without attribution here. In fact, Wikidata could live without page histories. The only purpose why they are useful here is to faciliate tracking vandals, spammers, etc. Vogone talk 12:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the history is not very important here. But as you say, it has some benefits to have it. And so if we are merging items where it doesn't matter otherwise which one we choose as the recipient item, why not choosing the one that preserves more of the history? (Actually, not even I do check this actively, but I assume that the more complex item usually has the more complex history, too.) --YMS (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In this example I don't see involved links, so no extra effort was involved in keeping the lower number, so why not keep the lower number? You didn't give any reason not to keep the lower number. If there is one, please add it to the request, otherwise I can only assume it doesn't matter (to you) and I just keep the lower number. - - (Cycn/talk) 06:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If it gives less work, I propose to keep the larger number. I have in some cases demanded deletions where I proposed the larger number to be kept, but the admin did the other way, and a number of items suddenly had red links. If the admin would have done all the relinking, I don't care, but in some cases they don't.

Keep it simple! -- Lavallen (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if one goes against the proposed direction it's the admin's responsibility to move all the links involved. It also has to be done when both items have links, but in these cases nominations can be put on hold until someone feels like moving all links from one item to the other. - - (Cycn/talk) 08:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The problems comes with the red tape. It prevents people from thinking. Remove all policys that only exists because we love policys and let people use their brain. The brain grows when it is used. Red tape prevents oxygen to reach parts of the brain, which therefor slowly dies. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Red tape holds the nation together" - Bernard in Yes Minister. - - (Cycn/talk) 11:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?" - Axel Oxenstierna (Q155127) -- Lavallen (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cycn: In the example I gave above it did not matter to me (there were only two interwiki links which had to be transferred), I was only curious. Bever (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicts...

I've been trying at least 20 times to add an item, only to be foiled bu yet another edit conflict. This is *very* frustrating. Could people who add a load of items do so in one feel swoop instead of 20 seperate ones? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kleuske. The most users use a tool to merge items, so a request to delete the duplicate is automatically added to this page. It's a bit difficult to do it manually... You can activate the gadget RequestDeletion in your settings, that gives you no conflicts. I think... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Delete}} issue

I tagged 4 pages for deletion, but they do not appear in the Pages tagged with {{Delete}} section … |FDMS 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it's Bugzilla:59798. --Stryn (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Faster deletion possible?

Is it possible to mark items for deletion without having to add a new section to Wikidata:Requests for deletions? I just emptied Q12740543 by moving the content to Q455754. Is it possible to make a template or a button to mark an item for deletion? Ark25 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We have many useful tools. I would recommend you to enable RequestDeletion gadget on your preferences. Also, merging is easier with a gadget which also can be enabled on preferences. --Stryn (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Merge.js tool suggested above by Stryn automatically moves all language links and everything else from an item to the other item being merged, and it also lists the emptied item for deletion here. After installing it, look for a new "Merge" tab on top of each page. Capmo (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

New section to prevent edit conflicts?

Just like someone else stated above, I have been having edit conflicts when trying to add a request. Now, if the "Add a new request" link generated a new section outside of the request template (i.e. heading + template + signature instead of template + signature) - wouldn't that prevent edit conflicts? (Of course, the template would have to be changed as well.) Or does that only work if the "Add topic" button on top of the page is used directly?

If that is no solution, I propose that the link be removed, since it seems unusable this way. --Katimpe (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Switched

Sorry if some of my items are switched around (keep/delete), testing a new tool, please bear with me. --Magnus Manske (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge issues and the Wikidata Game

I see that some items that were requested for deletion after merging through my game were not actually merged. Couplea points:

• I just tried a merge through the game, and it worked fine. Mostly, it seems to work fine for others too.
• The game is using the "official" merging API function for merging. Only when that returns, I request deletion (meaning, if the merge action failed horribly, the deletion request should not be made)
• Occasionally, the API merge function seems to fail silently.
• In at least one of those cases, both items have the same wiki link on the same wiki, which should not be possible, and may cause the API merge function to fail.
• I will try and find out what is going on, and (if possible) prevent the deletion request if the API merge failed silently.
• I will be traveling for the next few days, so I won't have much opportunity to investigate quickly.

In the meantime, if you guys could manually merge the ones that were not merged but should be, that'd be great. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magnus. (BTW, it'd be lovely if the tool could actually delete-merge items when a user has the rights; it feels silly for me to come here to delete things I myself have requested deletion on, but that's a 2.0 request, once we've worked out what bug this is. :-)) James F. (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In the morning, it was indeed a big number of not merged items, but we are checking them before deleting.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many deletion requests

The number of deletion requests flowing across this page makes this process problematic.

Many people are reporting edit conflicts on this page, and I have encountered them a few times. I have seen a few merges that appear to be 'The Game' but were not listed on RfD. I suspect means The Game did the merge but there was a problem listing it on RfD due to edit conflit which The Game silently ignored. Just a guess.

Many times I have tried to comment on a request only to find that the edit link goes to a different section, or tried to save a comment only to find the normal edit conflict resolution doesnt work and I need to try find the item again on the page to add the comment again. (I threw away several such comments yesterday because I gave up)

The page is now very slow to load and edit.

These may have been an issue previously, but with 'The Game' it is now a serious issue. The current process of this page doesnt scale to many 100s of requests with high numbers of dubious merges.

Maybe The Game RfDs should go on a different page? Or RfDs should be placed on the talk page of the merge target item and be autocategorised. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As the API merge function has been repaired (AFAIK) and should go live today (is that still on?), I suggest the following changes:

• I'll slap a big warning (can be deactivated) on the merge sub-game, telling people to be really really careful with merging
• The (merge) game adds a template to the talk page of the item to be deleted, instead of DDOSsing this page here. Should that be {{Rfd links}}, or another one? Will that auto-categorize the talk page, or do I need to add a "The Game RfD" category also?
• Someone suggested that The Game played by an admin should automatically delete the superfluous item. I am hesitant to do this, and couldn't test it anyway (not an admin here).

Any other way I can help improve workflow to deal with The Game fallout, let me know. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think we need to add requests on the talk page... I love the quick delete-button on this page, it would be great if it shows up with these RfD's. That would make the requests more manageable. And a adminmode would be great, please try to add it. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition it would in "admin mode" (which I would like, I don't play the merge game if it leads to requests I can deal with myself) be great if the incoming links to the moved item are changed into links to the target item, as there is no check at RfD in those cases. (A feature like that I would very much like to see in merge.js as well). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like this feature (correct links to the merged items) in the Game and in merge.js. --Epìdosis 12:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If that feature would be so useful (and I can see it would), it should go into the API merge function, and not be implemented half a dozen times in as many tools. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. It is quite a bit harder to untangle incorrect merges if there are removed links in addition. That's why I would think it is a good option for admins or trusted users in another way. For users that send there deletion requests to RfD it is less important, as there it is checked by standard if there are incoming links (visible and by Bene*bot). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so Lydia confirmed that the API merge function is fixed now. I'll test the merge game, and then switch it on again. As per replies above, I'll keep adding RfDs to this page. Direct deletion for admins, or link resolving, I may look into later. Please alert me if there are technical issues again. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, since I'm talking to the relevant crowd... here is a ever-expanding list of "flagged" items; in this case, mostly items that have instance of (P31):human (Q5) but shouldn't. Maybe some of you are inclined to help with fixing/removing from list? --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: I notice that, occasionally, the deletion request in not added to the page, but no error seems to be produced by the API. This is extremely hard to track down, as not simply reproducible. Probably a silently failing edit conflict? I notice that, apparently, items that have been merged into others can be detected automatically; is there a page to find such candidates that are merged/empty now? --Magnus Manske (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Update 2: I think I fixed it, should now repeat the RfD in case of edit conflict. --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

RfD helper script

Wrote a little something to make your life easier here... To use, include

importScript( 'User:Magnus Manske/rfd.js' );

on your common.js page. This will only run on Wikidata:Requests for deletions; there, if you hover over a section header with an item link, it will show a box below, with last (up to 5) item history events, item logs (excluding "patrol"), and other items that link to that item. That should make it easier to decide if you can delete it. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Magnus Manske, thanks for the great tool. Maybe it would also be helpful to be able to compare the two items which have been merged so that an admin can decide if the merge was correct based on labels and sitelinks both items had before the merge. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 14:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Split into staging sub-pages

Right now this page is a major pain, and it's only going to get worse; over 220,000 edits, over 25,000 edits in the last month… We can't scale this for long.

I propose that we have people post to a staging sub-page straight away (Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Current or whatever), and transclude it here; we can then move items from the staging page to archives once they're completed, without risking the DB getting in a mess, and we can just replace the staging page when it gets to 100k revisions or whatever (move it to Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/Staging 2014-05 etc.).

This will need Bene* to update his great bot, and scripts to be tweaked, but it will make the system somewhat more responsive.

James F. (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to change the mergescripts so they add new sections? Now they edit the whole page, so it isn't even possible to mark requests as deleted. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There aren't really many old requests here, so I doubt the subpage idea would add much. Adding new sections would probably be the better solution. --- Jura 09:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Afaik merge.js creates new sections but gets edit conflicts anyway. I'm not sure if the merge game also uses section=new when editing the RFD page. However, I hope we will have item redirects here asap so the items do not need to get deleted anymore. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 12:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a separate page for requests made through Magnus' tool would be sufficent as it creates most requests and handles editconflicts smoothly. --- Jura 13:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I have now correctly implemented "new section" append (the subst was creating a heading, so I didn't add another one, which just appends to the main text, not to a new section. Argh.) --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge game update

FYI, I have added a warning to the merge game, based on the RfD count by BeneBot. Shows starting at 250, in yellow below 300, red above. I also could prevent the merge game from loading if it becomes too bad above another threshold (500?). That would auto-regulate RfD for sure, but let's try the voluntary approach first, OK? --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts, again and again

Hi. I've tried to answer a comment on deletion request of Q2426356, and after several edit conflicts I give up. Way too annoying.

I see two possibilities to address the problems of this page.

1. Create subpages. For example, a subpage for robot request, or request generated massively and quickly via some script (is it The Game?).
2. Use template tagging. For example, the discussion page of an item in need of merging could be tagged with a template on its discussion page. The list of transclusions of the template would provide a dynamic list of items in need of merging.

I'm such there are more possibilities. Please do something! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see template tagging is already used trough template:Delete. It's not well advertised though. Dodoïste (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Same here --Alexander Vasenin (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I guess the authors of the scripts or gadgets don't want to change their software - it's understandable since it really is time consuming. I suggest creating a subpage for humans (non-bots). And advertise it appropriately on the main page. Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Humans. Very simple to do. Dodoïste (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My merge game generates a lot of RfDs. I have offered, several times, to use an alternate mechanism of tagging items for deletion, but it always ended up with "add to RfD page". If there is an official (as in, admins will actually look at it) mechanism to tag items for deletion, such as {{Delete}} on the talk page, someone please let me know. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

ComicbookDB, Freebase, and Musicbrainz imports

I originally posted this on User talk:Andre Engels, but he seems to not be checking his talk page, however you deleted my botched duplicate of the Heaven Sent Gaming entry. The original post was as follows.

I can see that 4 related data entries were removed; Q17275459, Q17275421, Q17275427, Q17275466.

For reasons of; "does not meet the notability policy". However it comes in line with, "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references."

However all those related articles, about Heaven Sent Gaming, were imported from Musicbrainz, Freebase, and/or ComicBookDB. All of which were to be used in linking that corresponding information. And, for that reason, "it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful."

I apologize for not properly linking to that corresponding information. My apologies, I will correct this if you could Undelete the content, again my apologies for not making it clear in the data entries. Also, another user Haplology had patrolled the pages, and even made an edit on the Isabel Ruiz entry.

Best wishes, DunDunDunt (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This is being resolved by User:Jakec, thank you! DunDunDunt (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatic list of empty items

I've made a list here, and there's a simple way to update it, so manual editing not necessary. Working on improvements now. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated the list, ~2K blank items. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

The Game now creates redirects for merged items. No more RfD flooding (at least from that source)! --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirect, not delete

Shouldn't we stop deleting merged items, and redirect instead? What about retrospective redirects? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We should indeed redirect more, there are several discussions on that issue. My collegue administrators close requests here mostly by deleting, I noticed. That may be caused by the fact that the redirect buttons do not function when the target item is not empty. This can be solved by using the merge.js tool. Retrospective redirects, I don't think that is a good idea. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We do need some logic, indeed. Makes no sense to delete some pages, and turn into redirects others... My result is that I do nothing. Not as an demonstration, but as I'm messed up of what to do. --Stryn (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently I only delete, not redirect, since RfD is for deletion, not for redirect. — by Revi_complaint? at 03:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I also delete. As I can't justify what to redirect and what to delete... So at the moment I am deleting.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I also delete, for Hym411's reason. --Epìdosis 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally always delete categories (it is unlikely that anybody has external bookmarks) and new items, a week or so (technically, everything above 176*). The rest, I redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Merging leftovers I redirect. It may be that for categories it is unlikely that there are external incoming links, but you can't be sure and the redirects are not in the way of anything. Other cases I delete. Lymantria (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. @Hym411:: While these requests for deletion do indeed request deletion, it is not automaticly correct to delete only because it is requested for. If creating a redirect is a better result, that should be more important than the fact that it is not requested that way.

Anybody can redirect. So if people just stopped to report items at RfD, that problem took care of itself. But that would require full UI implementation, which is not ready yet and thus we also cannot expect new users to make use of the redirect feature as of now. Vogone (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Outcome of the RfC – Redirect vs. deletion

Hi all, especially admins;

I've closed the RfC (Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion) regarding what to do to the item that has been merged.

The outcome of the RfC was that items should be redirected after the merge, not delete anymore.

Only items not older than 24 hours may be deleted.

Regards,

--Stryn (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notify. hopes all my 51700 delete action may help to improve wikidata:)DangSunM (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You always help to improve Wikidata, even if you can't delete so many pages anymore. Don't worry, you're important part of Wikidata :) --Stryn (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect button

When I click "create redirect" button on that page, sometimes nothing happens. Is there something wrong with it or is it just me? --Stryn (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Me too. Sometimes it works, but sometimes not.--DangSunM (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That is when the item is not entirely empty. In such case merge.js does the job. Lymantria (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirected the other one

It would be nice if bots checked if "the other one" was redirected to the requested item and marked such request as done, like when the other one is deleted. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lymantria, you should ask Bene* instead. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 13:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bene*: Please read this. Lymantria (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

New templates

Should we create templates like redirected and not redirected since there are redirects now? Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, yes! Jared Preston (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would "done" and "not done" not suffice? You could just add the redirected part to them, like  redirected Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete all

Can someone familiar with JavaScript develop a tool that places a "delete all" button above bulk deletion requests? It gets quite tedious having to undertake these manually. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 06:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

T98052 Display labels of deleted items

Any input and comments on this would be useful! ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 19:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how to deal with this

The EN-WP article Postmortem documentation (Q7234395) is the direct equivalent for the DE-WP article Lessons Learned (Q1673259). Postmortem is a very popular name, but PMPBOK chose "Lessons Learned". Any suggestion on how to merge these two? Yotwen (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Those names are not important. Only the numbers matter. When merging we merge into the oldest item number, and the name can be added in both languages seperately. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Inter-language links

Why are there all these inter-language links although they only lead to Wikipedia (not Wikidata!) deletion pages?--Hubon (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not? --Stryn (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Because this isn't Wikipedia, but Wikidata!--Hubon (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

Why do you keep the redirects of merged items here?--Hubon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Because many external sites can use ID's of merged items, so we don't want to break those links. --Stryn (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Hubon (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

New report for item candidate to delete

Thanks to @Pasleim: I have created a new report that list item candidate to delete:

• Criteria
  • instance of (P31)=human (Q5)
  • No sitelink
  • No backlink
  • Without property with datatype "External identifier"
  • Without reference except for imported from Wikimedia project (P143)
  • Limit to first 100 item

Can be also a base for other reports. --ValterVB (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Candidate to delete

This report list item that have only instance of (P31), without sitelink, no backlink and no source. Is reported also date/time of last update. --ValterVB (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:Swineposit

•  Delete, Not after what blocked user Swineposit has done for adding unsourced birth dates to articles including Dimitrios Maximos, Magnus Maximus and Evangelos Rallis and since November 2016, indeffed user has been blocked from editing. I would for delete. Thanks. 86.0.244.52 17:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Delete, Please do. Because the blocked user is not responding anything. I'd apply global deletion of Swineposit's talk page right now 86.0.244.52 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
• We do not delete user talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done MechQuester (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Batch of item to be delete

I am preparing a first batch of item candidates to be delete. For this first batch I started with a list of nearly 7000 item.
Criteria:

• Only istanza di (P31) and no other claim
• No sitelink
• No backlink
• Without reference
• After this criteria I will check if they are used on other projects using "Wikis subscribed to this entity" (via API)

I will split the list for user creator, I will add a ping to the users and a message in User talk page (also for BOT operator) for the creators of these item. Probably after one week we can delete them. --ValterVB (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I object to this lazy proposal. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB:, I think it sounds like a good idea, maybe run such a batch once a week and post it on a subpage of the RfD, maybe WD:Requests for deletions/Blank items could be useful for that. And what is said in discussions at already published requests, give users a week or more to give them a chance to fill up the (almost) empty items, just like on normal wikipedias where we (on dutch wp) give users two weeks the chance to improve their articles. Q.Zanden questions? 00:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's better once a month but depends on how many are, and if we don't have feedback for one week we can delete. --ValterVB (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)