diff --git "a/en/full/wikidata_properties/val.csv" "b/en/full/wikidata_properties/val.csv"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/en/full/wikidata_properties/val.csv"
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+outcome,text
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  ""Type_of""_properties:   Just a note on the listing: somehow the labels in your post don't match properties ids you listed.  -- at Oops, hasty copy-paste, fixed.  -- ( ) Just a note on the listing: somehow the labels in your post don't match properties ids you listed. -- at Oops, hasty copy-paste, fixed.  -- ( ) Oops, hasty copy-paste, fixed.  -- ( ) Personally, I think the main advantage of, e.g. (administrative division), is that it allows to determine  (a) that a given item is an administrative division and  (b) which level of administrative definition.   -- at That was the certainly initial idea, but it turns out that it is not so convenient. There are potentially many many of them, and it may become hard to find the right one. For instance, I have seen P31 used for P132 (and it probably makes sense) Also, not all items can fall neatly into one and only one ""type of"", which may create many gaps and overlaps. For instance, I was wondering if French cantons should use P132. Wikipedia often seems to consider them as administrative divisions, but in fact they are rather electoral districts, so that would not be technically correct. If we replace that by ""instance of: French canton"", those who know a bit about the subject will understand what it is about, others may need to follow one link, but that is still ok. For more automated tasks, we would certainly need to put the into good use, and devise tools and modules to make the most of it. -- ( ) Hmm . .  Are there samples were just P31 already works for something?    -- at I do not think it is in use yet. But a subclass tree + instances would do the same things as ""type of"", and sum of all possible type ofs. Suppose you want to get a list of bridgse in Iowa. It would be straightforward with subclass / instance. In contrast with ""type of"", you could write ""type of structure: bridge"", in all bridges's items. But, as ""bridge may not be precise enough for many other uses, you would also need a ""type of bridge"" property, and so on ad libitum. Of course, we could also keep both systems at the same time, but I do not think it is a good idea. In the long term, it should not provide any benefit, and maintaining two equivalent systems would make things more confuse and would impose substantial maintenance overheads. -- ( ) I think the ""structure"" might be a bit different from the other ones as one rarely searches just for a type of ""structure"" (IMHO, I know there are websites just about that). For many others, it might get confusing if you can search for the same item in both ""instance of"" and ""type of"" (e.g. meromictic lake).  -- at That was the certainly initial idea, but it turns out that it is not so convenient. There are potentially many many of them, and it may become hard to find the right one. For instance, I have seen P31 used for P132 (and it probably makes sense) Also, not all items can fall neatly into one and only one ""type of"", which may create many gaps and overlaps. For instance, I was wondering if French cantons should use P132. Wikipedia often seems to consider them as administrative divisions, but in fact they are rather electoral districts, so that would not be technically correct. If we replace that by ""instance of: French canton"", those who know a bit about the subject will understand what it is about, others may need to follow one link, but that is still ok. For more automated tasks, we would certainly need to put the into good use, and devise tools and modules to make the most of it. -- ( ) Hmm .. Are there samples were just P31 already works for something?   -- at I do not think it is in use yet. But a subclass tree + instances would do the same things as ""type of"", and sum of all possible type ofs. Suppose you want to get a list of bridgse in Iowa. It would be straightforward with subclass / instance. In contrast with ""type of"", you could write ""type of structure: bridge"", in all bridges's items. But, as ""bridge may not be precise enough for many other uses, you would also need a ""type of bridge"" property, and so on ad libitum. Of course, we could also keep both systems at the same time, but I do not think it is a good idea. In the long term, it should not provide any benefit, and maintaining two equivalent systems would make things more confuse and would impose substantial maintenance overheads. -- ( ) I think the ""structure"" might be a bit different from the other ones as one rarely searches just for a type of ""structure"" (IMHO, I know there are websites just about that).  For many others, it might get confusing if you can search for the same item in both ""instance of"" and ""type of"" (e.g. meromictic lake).   -- at Hmm .. Are there samples were just P31 already works for something?   -- at I do not think it is in use yet.  But a subclass tree + instances would do the same things as ""type of"", and sum of all possible type ofs.  Suppose you want to get a list of bridgse in Iowa.  It would be straightforward with subclass / instance.  In contrast with ""type of"", you could write ""type of structure: bridge"", in all bridges's items.  But, as ""bridge may not be precise enough for many other uses, you would also need a ""type of bridge"" property, and so on ad libitum. Of course, we could also keep both systems at the same time, but I do not think it is a good idea. In the long term, it should not provide any benefit, and maintaining two equivalent systems would make things more confuse and would impose substantial maintenance overheads. -- ( ) I think the ""structure"" might be a bit different from the other ones as one rarely searches just for a type of ""structure"" (IMHO, I know there are websites just about that). For many others, it might get confusing if you can search for the same item in both ""instance of"" and ""type of"" (e.g. meromictic lake).  -- at I do not think it is in use yet. But a subclass tree + instances would do the same things as ""type of"", and sum of all possible type ofs. Suppose you want to get a list of bridgse in Iowa. It would be straightforward with subclass / instance. In contrast with ""type of"", you could write ""type of structure: bridge"", in all bridges's items. But, as ""bridge may not be precise enough for many other uses, you would also need a ""type of bridge"" property, and so on ad libitum.  Of course, we could also keep both systems at the same time, but I do not think it is a good idea.  In the long term, it should not provide any benefit, and maintaining two equivalent systems would make things more confuse and would impose substantial maintenance overheads.  -- ( ) I think the ""structure"" might be a bit different from the other ones as one rarely searches just for a type of ""structure"" (IMHO, I know there are websites just about that). For many others, it might get confusing if you can search for the same item in both ""instance of"" and ""type of"" (e.g. meromictic lake).  -- at I think the ""structure"" might be a bit different from the other ones as one rarely searches just for a type of ""structure"" (IMHO, I know there are websites just about that).  For many others, it might get confusing if you can search for the same item in both ""instance of"" and ""type of"" (e.g. meromictic lake).   -- at I think the ""structure"" might be a bit different from the other ones as one rarely searches just for a type of ""structure"" (IMHO, I know there are websites just about that). For many others, it might get confusing if you can search for the same item in both ""instance of"" and ""type of"" (e.g. meromictic lake).  -- at Yes, just 1 'instance of' and 1 'subclass of' will be sufficient, together with other properties of an item that describe the context.  So future queries will be possible.  ( ) Comment My two cents: advantage in having one property: is more simple to make queries.  But we'd take advantage in having more properties if in the future will be implemented a sort of mechanism to limit their allowed values.  I don't know which solution is the best, but we already discussed to limit its use creating more specific properties.  Now, after the name of P31 in instance of , it is proposed to return to one ""type of"" property.  Imho we need to decide quickly and definitively.  -- ( ) Yes, if we dont want the ""type of"" property we have to decide it before widespread Wikipedia usage, but note that if those properties are useful after all, recreating it will not cause as many problems. I do not think P31 should be renamed, just that we should use ""instance of church"" rather than ""type of building: church"". -- ( ) Yes, if we dont want the ""type of"" property we have to decide it before widespread Wikipedia usage, but note that if those properties are useful after all, recreating it will not cause as many problems.  I do not think P31 should be renamed, just that we should use ""instance of church"" rather than ""type of building: church"".  -- ( ) Support .   When trying to explore items of a certain type with, say, , which would you prefer: having to know a huge number of arbitrarily-named properties, or just two?   The nominated properties are all redundant with (P31) and (P279).   While P31 and P279 have an established basis in on how to represent knowledge in the Semantic Web, I am not aware of any knowledgebases that use a proliferation of domain-specific type properties.  ( ) Comment , it doesn't have to be something similar to that what you're calling 'domain-specific type' property (nice wording by the way).  It just have to fit our purposes best.  -- ( ) Comment , it doesn't have to be something similar to that what you're calling 'domain-specific type' property (nice wording by the way).  It just have to fit our purposes best.  -- ( ) Oppose . P31 and P279 are experimental properties and might be useful one day, but they shouldn't replace properties that have a clear definition. Deleting these properties would complicate the use of Wikidata in templates and infoboxes. ""Type of building"" (P168) is used for example in and . -- ( ) Actually ""building"" is far from having a clear definition.  In any case, we can get the ""type"" paramter of using the subclass structure.  I'll try to build a real-world implementation, but I wont have much internet connection in the next few days.   -- ( ) What do you mean by ""experimental""?  Also, as others have said, P31 and P279 do have clear definitions - they are based on W3C standards, and there is now some for them (including ""part of"") by .  ( ) Actually ""building"" is far from having a clear definition.  In any case, we can get the ""type"" paramter of using the subclass structure.  I'll try to build a real-world implementation, but I wont have much internet connection in the next few days.   -- ( ) What do you mean by ""experimental""?  Also, as others have said, P31 and P279 do have clear definitions - they are based on W3C standards, and there is now some for them (including ""part of"") by .  ( ) Oppose Use only one property for all ""instance of"" will create confusion: it is as ""put together different things like potatoes and shoes"".  If, for example, I want make a query for the building built in 1932 in Germany, I need to know three property: for buildings, for years, for countries.  So the advantage to have only one property for ""instance of"" imho is marginal.  It is very difficult with only one generic property establish what item is ""instance of"" another item: for example instance of , , or ?  instance of , , or ?  I propose to use this property as conjunction between P107 (that imho is useless to delete because the infobox task force is yet separated following P107 categorization) and the ""instance of"" properties listed above.  We need something to distinguish for example all the items with = in countries, cities, roads, rivers, mountains, lakes, and so on.  P31 and P279 can be very useful for this.  -- ( ) If, for example, I want make a query for the building built in 1932 in Germany, I need to know three property: for buildings, for years, for countries. So the advantage to have only one property for ""instance of"" imho is marginal. It is very difficult with only one generic property establish what item is ""instance of"" another item: for example instance of , , or ? instance of , , or ? I propose to use this property as conjunction between P107 (that imho is useless to delete because the infobox task force is yet separated following P107 categorization) and the ""instance of"" properties listed above. We need something to distinguish for example all the items with = in countries, cities, roads, rivers, mountains, lakes, and so on. P31 and P279 can be very useful for this. -- ( ) It seems that we need better documentation of ""instance of"".  The Mont Blanc is not an instance of the Mont Blanc massif, it is a of it.  We should use the most precise ""instance of"" available.  Andromeda is an instance of spiral galaxy.  As spiral galaxy is a subclass of galaxy, it can be automatically inferred that it is also a galaxy, and so on.  That is not something we can do with ""type of"".  The instance / subclass couple does make query much easier.  If you want to restrict your search of German buildings to religious edifices, you can easily do that with instance/subclass.  If you want to use ""type of"", you would also need a ""type of religious edifice"" property.  That is virtually endless.  -- ( ) Comment put together some really great documentation for 'instance of', 'subclass of' and 'part of': . ( ) It seems that we need better documentation of ""instance of"". The Mont Blanc is not an instance of the Mont Blanc massif, it is a of it. We should use the most precise ""instance of"" available. Andromeda is an instance of spiral galaxy. As spiral galaxy is a subclass of galaxy, it can be automatically inferred that it is also a galaxy, and so on. That is not something we can do with ""type of"". The instance / subclass couple does make query much easier. If you want to restrict your search of German buildings to religious edifices, you can easily do that with instance/subclass. If you want to use ""type of"", you would also need a ""type of religious edifice"" property. That is virtually endless. -- ( ) Comment put together some really great documentation for 'instance of', 'subclass of' and 'part of': .  ( ) Comment put together some really great documentation for 'instance of', 'subclass of' and 'part of': .  ( ) Support ( ) Oppose .  I hear this argument several times and I don't agree.  See my discussion with user Emw on his .  But I seems impossible to create on ""type of"" properties for each type of different infobox in all Wikipedias - why?  I see not a single problem doing so.  But I see many problem to lump all together.  To retrieve the right value out of multiple P31/P279, THIS I would say is impossible.  And even not, it would complicate queries and infobox usage extremely.  Last but not least: How should Wikidata Phase III work without specific properties?  E.g. automatic creation of a list of all 'watercraft types', without having this property?  -- ( ) What do infobox names represent?  They represent the names of classes, which is what 'instance of' or 'subclass of' exist to do.  What do ""type of"" properties represent?  They also represent the names of classes, just derived classes; 'subclass of' exists to fill this need.  ""Type of"" infobox parameters are an adaptation -- a -- to enable support for specifying the value of one level of subclass.  The P31 and P279 properties are transitive, so e.g. if ""A subclass of B"" and ""B subclass of C"", then ""A subclass of C"".  Thus they allow handling an arbitrary depth of subclasses, from saying that a boat is a subclass of watercraft to watercraft is a subclass of vehicle all the way up to physical object is a subclass of entity.  They are based on the rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf properties from relevant W3C recommendations.  The ability to make simple entailments like ""A subclass of C"" with these properties to retrieve the right value out of multiple 'instance of' and 'subclass of' (read: rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf) statements is a core feature of querying in the Semantic Web.  It is a routine operation in Semantic Web querying and not at all impossible.  To create a list of all watercraft types, one would simply select all items that satisfy the claim 'subclass of watercraft'. ( ) What do infobox names represent?  They represent the names of classes, which is what 'instance of' or 'subclass of' exist to do.  What do ""type of"" properties represent?  They also represent the names of classes, just derived classes; 'subclass of' exists to fill this need.  ""Type of"" infobox parameters are an adaptation -- a -- to enable support for specifying the value of one level of subclass.  The P31 and P279 properties are transitive, so e.g. if ""A subclass of B"" and ""B subclass of C"", then ""A subclass of C"".  Thus they allow handling an arbitrary depth of subclasses, from saying that a boat is a subclass of watercraft to watercraft is a subclass of vehicle all the way up to physical object is a subclass of entity.  They are based on the rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf properties from relevant W3C recommendations.  The ability to make simple entailments like ""A subclass of C"" with these properties to retrieve the right value out of multiple 'instance of' and 'subclass of' (read: rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf) statements is a core feature of querying in the Semantic Web.  It is a routine operation in Semantic Web querying and not at all impossible.  To create a list of all watercraft types, one would simply select all items that satisfy the claim 'subclass of watercraft'. ( ) Comment I really ask me what's the development team opinion about this. They gave us a tool and we've to find out how to deal with it? Was there really no plan/guidelines/suggestions from the development team? Perhaps we should ask what's their idea it should work? -- ( ) The development team as a whole does not want deal directly the actual content, but individual members of the team may be willing to give their opinion if you ask them.  -- ( ) The development team as a whole does not want deal directly the actual content, but individual members of the team may be willing to give their opinion if you ask them. -- ( ) Not done , no consensus to delete after a week of discussion. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P99:   Deleted consensus plus provided reason are valid and clear.  ( ) Deleted consensus plus provided reason are valid and clear.  ( ) Support – to continue the transition to P397/P398/399.  Besides P99 was easy to misunderstand/misuse as is discussed at .  ( ) Support , per the above discussions.  -- Support deletion.  Per the same reasons as P96 and P116.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P510:   Consensus for deletion, which I have carried out with.  Regards, — Consensus for deletion, which I have carried out with.  Regards, — Delete .  -- ( ) .  ( • • ) violated property policies multiple times now.  — Delete I can't see why this was approved and it goes against sibling discussion.  ( ) Delete I can't see why this was approved and it goes against sibling discussion.  ( ) Delete Stop with family properties.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P614:   I worry that is being used for too many things and with too few qualifiers to differentiate it's uses, but there's a clear consensus for deletion here.  There is also, I should note, no policy or guideline that I am aware of that allows the speedy closure of a property because it is new.  If the property should not have been created, as is the case here because there was no discussion for it, the property's age saving it from deletion would be counterproductive.  I worry that is being used for too many things and with too few qualifiers to differentiate it's uses, but there's a clear consensus for deletion here.  There is also, I should note, no policy or guideline that I am aware of that allows the speedy closure of a property because it is new.  If the property should not have been created, as is the case here because there was no discussion for it, the property's age saving it from deletion would be counterproductive.  Speedy close: this was created just now.  -- at Why did you create this property?  There was on it.  This should be a speedy delete, not a speedy close.  ( ) Why did you create this property?  There was on it.  This should be a speedy delete, not a speedy close.  ( ) Delete .  Clearly redundant.  ( ) Delete Redundant.  ( ) ###Output: "
+no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P527:   The result is no consensus achieved for deletion. -- ( ) The result is no consensus achieved for deletion.-- ( ) Delete Redundant and potentially flooding items with hundreds of claims.  (And I can't find any discussion prior to the property's creation other than .) — Keep Not redundant to P361.  P361 is ""part of"" (e.g. Adam is part of Adam and Eve ) P527 is reverse to it: ( Adam and Eve have parts Adam and Eve ).  .  Machines can easy search in which items is contained P361, but how about people?  How can I say,that there is not only item Adam and Eve but also subitems Adam and Eve ?  ( ) All item-type properties could theoretically have ""reverse"" properties, but when they don't add any new data, there's generally no point.  If all items that are ""part of"" another item are listed in the ""consists of"" of that other item, what is being added that's useful?  -- ( ) Don't forget, that Wikidata are primally used by people for searching and adding interlanguage links.  When I write article Kain and will be searching on en.wiki, I found only Kain and Abel , but when I go to Wikidata, I can see, that there exists separate Kain and sparate Abel in some languages.  And the same for other couples or related terms ( , , ) ... or see mixed .  ( ) All item-type properties could theoretically have ""reverse"" properties, but when they don't add any new data, there's generally no point.  If all items that are ""part of"" another item are listed in the ""consists of"" of that other item, what is being added that's useful?  -- ( ) Don't forget, that Wikidata are primally used by people for searching and adding interlanguage links.  When I write article Kain and will be searching on en.wiki, I found only Kain and Abel , but when I go to Wikidata, I can see, that there exists separate Kain and sparate Abel in some languages.  And the same for other couples or related terms ( , , ) ... or see mixed .  ( ) Don't forget, that Wikidata are primally used by people for searching and adding interlanguage links.  When I write article Kain and will be searching on en.wiki, I found only Kain and Abel , but when I go to Wikidata, I can see, that there exists separate Kain and sparate Abel in some languages.  And the same for other couples or related terms ( , , ) ... or see mixed .  ( ) Wikidata is not just for interwiki links.  In time that will be just one of its many uses.  Wikidata items do not have to have corresponding wikipedia articles.  ( ) Wikidata is not just for interwiki links.  In time that will be just one of its many uses.  Wikidata items do not have to have corresponding wikipedia articles.  ( ) Wikidata is not just for interwiki links.  In time that will be just one of its many uses.  Wikidata items do not have to have corresponding wikipedia articles.  ( ) Wikidata is not just for interwiki links.  In time that will be just one of its many uses.  Wikidata items do not have to have corresponding wikipedia articles.  ( ) Comment As it stands the label and description are nonsensical.  ( ) Keep Take a look in .  I cannot use in this case, since these units are non-administrative, but they are still essential to describe the subject.  Maybe I can change from 27 to 3 units and put the other 24 under those three, but I am not sure if the border between them are well-defined.  Historicly I have to add such things as Finland to that, but I have to wait until we have a date-datatype.  -- ( ) How is this not accomplished with just the property? -- ( ) is for the other direction as far as I have understood.  Austria is a Europe but Europe is not a of Austria.  -- ( ) Yes, exactly. So how is 527 adding any new data? All the data is just duplicates of the uses of 361, but stored in a different item. -- ( ) Sometimes we encourage bidirectional use of properties, but not in this case.  Why have a property for father/mother, when there is one for son/doughter?  Why encourge the use of P31:capital, when that information is availible in P46?  Why have P150, when we have P131?  Why have P156, when we have P155?  How should I get the information that Q34 is divided in 3 lands, when I do not know where to find these items and maybe not even know they exist?  With a robot I can use Whatlinkshere, but I cannot see that this information can be reached somwhere from a template on Wikipedia?  Maybe I have to scan every item on Wikidata, but I doubt I have time for that within 10 seconds in a Module.  -- ( ) How is this not accomplished with just the property? -- ( ) is for the other direction as far as I have understood.  Austria is a Europe but Europe is not a of Austria.  -- ( ) Yes, exactly. So how is 527 adding any new data? All the data is just duplicates of the uses of 361, but stored in a different item. -- ( ) Sometimes we encourage bidirectional use of properties, but not in this case.  Why have a property for father/mother, when there is one for son/doughter?  Why encourge the use of P31:capital, when that information is availible in P46?  Why have P150, when we have P131?  Why have P156, when we have P155?  How should I get the information that Q34 is divided in 3 lands, when I do not know where to find these items and maybe not even know they exist?  With a robot I can use Whatlinkshere, but I cannot see that this information can be reached somwhere from a template on Wikipedia?  Maybe I have to scan every item on Wikidata, but I doubt I have time for that within 10 seconds in a Module.  -- ( ) is for the other direction as far as I have understood. Austria is a Europe but Europe is not a of Austria. -- ( ) Yes, exactly.  So how is 527 adding any new data?  All the data is just duplicates of the uses of 361, but stored in a different item.  -- ( ) Sometimes we encourage bidirectional use of properties, but not in this case. Why have a property for father/mother, when there is one for son/doughter? Why encourge the use of P31:capital, when that information is availible in P46? Why have P150, when we have P131? Why have P156, when we have P155? How should I get the information that Q34 is divided in 3 lands, when I do not know where to find these items and maybe not even know they exist? With a robot I can use Whatlinkshere, but I cannot see that this information can be reached somwhere from a template on Wikipedia? Maybe I have to scan every item on Wikidata, but I doubt I have time for that within 10 seconds in a Module. -- ( ) Yes, exactly.  So how is 527 adding any new data?  All the data is just duplicates of the uses of 361, but stored in a different item.  -- ( ) Sometimes we encourage bidirectional use of properties, but not in this case. Why have a property for father/mother, when there is one for son/doughter? Why encourge the use of P31:capital, when that information is availible in P46? Why have P150, when we have P131? Why have P156, when we have P155? How should I get the information that Q34 is divided in 3 lands, when I do not know where to find these items and maybe not even know they exist? With a robot I can use Whatlinkshere, but I cannot see that this information can be reached somwhere from a template on Wikipedia? Maybe I have to scan every item on Wikidata, but I doubt I have time for that within 10 seconds in a Module. -- ( ) Sometimes we encourage bidirectional use of properties, but not in this case.  Why have a property for father/mother, when there is one for son/doughter?  Why encourge the use of P31:capital, when that information is availible in P46?  Why have P150, when we have P131?  Why have P156, when we have P155?  How should I get the information that Q34 is divided in 3 lands, when I do not know where to find these items and maybe not even know they exist?  With a robot I can use Whatlinkshere, but I cannot see that this information can be reached somwhere from a template on Wikipedia?  Maybe I have to scan every item on Wikidata, but I doubt I have time for that within 10 seconds in a Module.  -- ( ) Delete , per 23PowerZ and Yair rand. We should delete it before people begin using it. -- Comment See also below.  -- ( ) Delete ( ) Comment This property might be useful. Why? Because we would not claim that an apple is part of cider, but you would say that cider consists of apple. ( ) Cider do not consist of apples, it is made of apples. That is a different thing in my opinion. ( ) Eh? Definition of consists: To be made up or composed of. ( ) Cider do not consist of apples, it is made of apples. That is a different thing in my opinion. ( ) Eh? Definition of consists: To be made up or composed of. ( ) Eh? Definition of consists: To be made up or composed of. ( ) Keep , but limit usage to cases where there aren't enough objects to warrant a list. That is to say, shouldn't have links to all 50 states since there exists a , but should have links to and . To cover the remaining cases, there should be a ""list of members"" property or something similar, which would link to the item(s) on the relevant list(s). This would actually be really useful for items like , which has . — Intresting idea! I Support that! -- ( ) Keep, but limit usage I support that too.  It may be redundant, but it is convenient that editors easily can find the consisting parts so they don't begin to add properties which really should be at the parts (like adding sex to items for .  Yes.  keep for items which consist of more than one other items, and where it is more natural to list the parts in than to have an name for the group ( ) Intresting idea!  I Support that!  -- ( ) Keep, but limit usage I support that too. It may be redundant, but it is convenient that editors easily can find the consisting parts so they don't begin to add properties which really should be at the parts (like adding sex to items for . Yes. keep for items which consist of more than one other items, and where it is more natural to list the parts in than to have an name for the group ( ) Delete ,If reverse quering for what are of a specific item is as fast as quering for the values of of that item.-- Delete Redundant inverse of , per above.  ( ) Delete per above.  ( ) Keep This can help with the Bonnie and Clyde problem - where one wikipedia page corresponds to multiple wikidata items.  ( ) Delete ~ My feeling has been trending toward that these statements which have the potential for hundreds of links on a particular item's page are much less useful than the reverse linkage, and certainly from a maintenance perspective.  (They also tend to slow computers trying to process all of the Javascript on a particular page.) -- ( ) Keep I'm using this one!  See .  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  contains_the_administrative_territorial_entity_(P150):   After dragging out for far, far too long, it's clear that there's not a consensus for deleting this.  If anything, there's a weak consensus for keeping it.  After dragging out for far, far too long, it's clear that there's not a consensus for deleting this.  If anything, there's a weak consensus for keeping it.  Delete Redundant.  — Delete .  -- ( ) This one desperately needs to be deleted, not least because of the fact that it is a reciprocal but also because it slows down the rendering of pages like or (I'm sure) the item for the United States. The relation can be inferred for now. -- ( ) Seeing as we're suggesting this one for deletion as a reciprocal of another property currently up for deletion, that one should close as keep immediately.  Both should not be up for deletion at the same time.  On hold per TCN7JM.  -- ( ) Would just like to suggest in advance the same thing I suggested above for P527: We only use this for cases where there's no separate list of subdivisions, and otherwise we'd instead use a ""list of subdivisions"" property. But obviously this'll be a moot point if P131 is deleted (in which case my !vote would be to merge this to P527). — If/once P131 is kept, Delete . Today, I do not think P131 has to be deleted, but it's purpose has to be more obvious. -- ( ) Today, I do not think P131 has to be deleted, but it's purpose has to be more obvious.  -- ( ) I thought that Wikidata was created to make it useful in Wikipedia-articles?!  Please, tell me how ""reciprocal"" properties will be fetched in Wikipedia!  I can find them with a bot, but as far as I can see, not from Wikipedia.  -- ( ) The main purpose of Wikidata was and is to help Wikipedia, but it also lives stand-alone.  So we should not sacrifice scalability (which only a database can offer) just for the sake of infoboxes.  In few months Wikipedia (and all sisters) should have much more power with data.  -- ""In few months Wikipedia ... should have much more power with data."" - How?  I am starting to belive it was a mistake to let us start to edit in this project before all mayor tools were available.  As long as we do not see those tools and the benefits they have, it is impossible for me to see the benefit for Wikipedia (and sisters).  And without that benefit, my interest in contributing here is nill.  -- ( ) I completely agree.  Phase II started way too early, but that's how it is now and we have to deal with it.  That doesn't change it's a bad idea to postpone our work on data structure, because if a system consolidates it becomes hard to overhaul, even if it is inconsistent and redundant and therefore less useful.  — The main purpose of Wikidata was and is to help Wikipedia, but it also lives stand-alone.  So we should not sacrifice scalability (which only a database can offer) just for the sake of infoboxes.  In few months Wikipedia (and all sisters) should have much more power with data.  -- ""In few months Wikipedia ... should have much more power with data."" - How?  I am starting to belive it was a mistake to let us start to edit in this project before all mayor tools were available.  As long as we do not see those tools and the benefits they have, it is impossible for me to see the benefit for Wikipedia (and sisters).  And without that benefit, my interest in contributing here is nill.  -- ( ) I completely agree.  Phase II started way too early, but that's how it is now and we have to deal with it.  That doesn't change it's a bad idea to postpone our work on data structure, because if a system consolidates it becomes hard to overhaul, even if it is inconsistent and redundant and therefore less useful.  — ""In few months Wikipedia ... should have much more power with data."" - How?  I am starting to belive it was a mistake to let us start to edit in this project before all mayor tools were available.  As long as we do not see those tools and the benefits they have, it is impossible for me to see the benefit for Wikipedia (and sisters).  And without that benefit, my interest in contributing here is nill.  -- ( ) I completely agree. Phase II started way too early, but that's how it is now and we have to deal with it. That doesn't change it's a bad idea to postpone our work on data structure, because if a system consolidates it becomes hard to overhaul, even if it is inconsistent and redundant and therefore less useful. — I completely agree. Phase II started way too early, but that's how it is now and we have to deal with it. That doesn't change it's a bad idea to postpone our work on data structure, because if a system consolidates it becomes hard to overhaul, even if it is inconsistent and redundant and therefore less useful. — I do not see how this one is redundant even if P131 is kept. There is no easy way to get this info on Wikidata and add it to Wikipedia articles.-- ( ) Keep How else can I say that have subdivisions , and ?  I am not against merging with , if will be systematically merged all ""almost similar"" properties.  And yes, if there exists separate ""list of municipalities in distric XYZ"", it sholud be linked instead of all members.  ( ) Keep as Ymblanter.  -- ( ) I have to say, I'd be against merging this with P527. ""Consists of"" can have a much wider meaning. For example, South Dakota consists of about 830,000 residents, but subdivides into 66 counties, all of which should contain ""is in the administrative unit"" → ""South Dakota"". I'm not proposing to delete this property for being redundant with : I simply find nonsensical to have < > , , when we should have "" → "" for each of , and . -- but → should be also in many different items, e.g. , ... and if I open , I can not see which parts have - only use , where are many other links.  ( ) I never said you were proposing that.  I was replying to the person who mentioned P527 above.  I'm not proposing to delete this property for being redundant with : I simply find nonsensical to have < > , , when we should have "" → "" for each of , and .  -- but → should be also in many different items, e.g. , ... and if I open , I can not see which parts have - only use , where are many other links.  ( ) I never said you were proposing that.  I was replying to the person who mentioned P527 above.  but → should be also in many different items, e.g. , ... and if I open , I can not see which parts have - only use , where are many other links.  ( ) but → should be also in many different items, e.g. , ... and if I open , I can not see which parts have - only use , where are many other links.  ( ) I never said you were proposing that.  I was replying to the person who mentioned P527 above.  Delete .  Now that is kept, this is pretty much redundant.  (P131 was proposed for deletion not because it's the inverse of this one, but because it was similar to .) ( ) Keep For now it's impossible to have all administrative divisions in a item without this property.  I can change my vote it this possibility will be added.  -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Keep It is not redundand, remember this project is primary made for bot and there is the need to scroll fluency up and down tree of data ( ) Keep not redundant; can contain everything (a city district, a theatre, a mountain etc), but should contain only administrative subdivisions.  ( ) That's not that large an issue.  Any item which something is in should have a subclass of .  Checks and queries can be based on that fact.  -- ( ) That's not that large an issue. Any item which something is in should have a subclass of . Checks and queries can be based on that fact. -- ( ) Keep I agree with , this property is needed.  If you want you may fuse with this property or eliminate, but this property must stay.  - ( ) 14:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Comment I was reconsidering my vote: as said, and this property are not reciprocal (which I agree), so this property is completely useless.  The only was we can describe not just actual administrative subdivisions, but also historic subdivisions (using time qualifiers).  If one articles contains (for example) 100 administrative divisions which it subdivides, more 300 other historic subdivisions, the item would be huge and confusing.  I prefer don't vote for now, because of this.  - ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  station_code_(P296):   Not deleted, because there was no consensus reached. -- ( ) Not deleted, because there was no consensus reached.-- ( ) Keep .  -- ( ) Delete or rename and use for single concrete code.  Please use {{ }} to notify users.  — ( ) Keep .  Use with qualifier to indicate which country code it is.  This way we can use the same infoboxes for stations in different countries.  ( ) Country is not identified code.  For example there are at least 3 different code systems in Russia (and ex-USSR countries): Экспресс-3, АСУЖТ, ЕСР.  Infoboxes must not use unexpected codes because for every code is needed different wikification, name.  So management based on different properties is more simple.  — ( ) This is precicely why I object to the constant condensing of properties down to an ever smaller number of options.  We should have a separate string value property for each code system, one for Экспресс-3, one for АСУЖТ, one for ЕСР, and so on.  Yes, there might be 20 or 40 different code systems used worldwide, but I don't see the problem with having a property for each of them.  With fourteen million items we're already at the stage where doing anything by hand is foolish, and if we're going to be importing this kind of information using bots, the bots aren't going to care whether it's going into one property or another.  It would be foolish to take the airport codes (currently seperate properties for each system) and force them into one system, why should we do it with railway codes?  Ivan:I didn't say 'country' I said 'country code' can link to items for Экспресс-3, АСУЖТ or ЕСР or any other item for a station code system.  Sven: Using a qualifier which links to an item is not 'linking to an ever smaller number of options'.  You can create a new option just by creating an item for that option - much more flexible than having to get a property approved each time.  Is it really so much harder for a bot to create a property and a qualifier instead of just a property?  While bots will be useful I'm sure that there will still be a place for users fixing wikidata items by hand too - both working together.  ( ) Country is not identified code.  For example there are at least 3 different code systems in Russia (and ex-USSR countries): Экспресс-3, АСУЖТ, ЕСР.  Infoboxes must not use unexpected codes because for every code is needed different wikification, name.  So management based on different properties is more simple.  — ( ) This is precicely why I object to the constant condensing of properties down to an ever smaller number of options.  We should have a separate string value property for each code system, one for Экспресс-3, one for АСУЖТ, one for ЕСР, and so on.  Yes, there might be 20 or 40 different code systems used worldwide, but I don't see the problem with having a property for each of them.  With fourteen million items we're already at the stage where doing anything by hand is foolish, and if we're going to be importing this kind of information using bots, the bots aren't going to care whether it's going into one property or another.  It would be foolish to take the airport codes (currently seperate properties for each system) and force them into one system, why should we do it with railway codes?  Ivan:I didn't say 'country' I said 'country code' can link to items for Экспресс-3, АСУЖТ or ЕСР or any other item for a station code system.  Sven: Using a qualifier which links to an item is not 'linking to an ever smaller number of options'.  You can create a new option just by creating an item for that option - much more flexible than having to get a property approved each time.  Is it really so much harder for a bot to create a property and a qualifier instead of just a property?  While bots will be useful I'm sure that there will still be a place for users fixing wikidata items by hand too - both working together.  ( ) This is precicely why I object to the constant condensing of properties down to an ever smaller number of options.  We should have a separate string value property for each code system, one for Экспресс-3, one for АСУЖТ, one for ЕСР, and so on.  Yes, there might be 20 or 40 different code systems used worldwide, but I don't see the problem with having a property for each of them.  With fourteen million items we're already at the stage where doing anything by hand is foolish, and if we're going to be importing this kind of information using bots, the bots aren't going to care whether it's going into one property or another.  It would be foolish to take the airport codes (currently seperate properties for each system) and force them into one system, why should we do it with railway codes?  Ivan:I didn't say 'country' I said 'country code' can link to items for Экспресс-3, АСУЖТ or ЕСР or any other item for a station code system.  Sven: Using a qualifier which links to an item is not 'linking to an ever smaller number of options'.  You can create a new option just by creating an item for that option - much more flexible than having to get a property approved each time.  Is it really so much harder for a bot to create a property and a qualifier instead of just a property?  While bots will be useful I'm sure that there will still be a place for users fixing wikidata items by hand too - both working together.  ( ) Ivan:I didn't say 'country' I said 'country code' can link to items for Экспресс-3, АСУЖТ or ЕСР or any other item for a station code system.  Sven: Using a qualifier which links to an item is not 'linking to an ever smaller number of options'.  You can create a new option just by creating an item for that option - much more flexible than having to get a property approved each time.  Is it really so much harder for a bot to create a property and a qualifier instead of just a property?  While bots will be useful I'm sure that there will still be a place for users fixing wikidata items by hand too - both working together.  ( ) Delete and replace with individual properties for each code system per my comment above.  Comment are there stations which have more than one code, drawn from more than one coding system, and existing at the same time?  ( ) Yes, most of stations in China have three codes from three different systems... ( ) Yes, most of stations in China have three codes from three different systems... ( ) btw has a similar issue, but luckily most of statements using it are consistently qualified.  ( ) Keep I'd prefer to see some proposals for station code properties, before this one is deleted.  ( ) Delete and replace with individual properties for each code system - Just added the IBNR as .  In Europe - even in Germany - there are two different codes common used (UIC and IBNR), so it's not possible to reference a code to a state or something like that with a qualifier.  -- ( ) Comment In addition to my vote: The generic term Station code isn't a term which you can look up.  It's artificial and doesn't exist in reality.  UIC-Code, IATA or IBNR are coding systems for stations.  Compare this to airports, there is no property like ""Airport code"".  It's called or .  -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Keep Until another some station code property creation.  by at Comment My proposal of was approved today morning.  -- ( ) Comment My proposal of was approved today morning. -- ( ) Delete one property for each identifier/code system  — ( ) Keep for generic station numbers with qualifiers.  I'm thinking of cases like stations in China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, with very short station numbers unique only within a particular line or company, but nevertheless is used very commonly on every signs and announcements.  Example: is NK01 for Nankai Railway, and M20, S16, Y15 for the three subway lines.  (But if you go to Tokyo, M20 resolves to .)  In this case, the best option is clearly to use a generic property like this one, with a qualifier to indicate the line.  -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P735_(given_name):   Consensus is for keeping this, at least for the time being.  Consensus is for keeping this, at least for the time being.  And my vote here is also Keep until relevant datatypes are available.  -- ( ) Keep .  See 'surname' above.  ( ) Keep per above.  — ( ) Keep The property name is comprehensive.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P160:   Consensus is for deleting this.  Unfortunately it appears that it will have to be depreciated by hand as there's no one property that all of the current usages (around 1000 items) can be converted to.  We can't delete this until it's properly depreciated, so , , and , care to help?  Consensus is for deleting this.  Unfortunately it appears that it will have to be depreciated by hand as there's no one property that all of the current usages (around 1000 items) can be converted to.  We can't delete this until it's properly depreciated, so , , and , care to help?  And can also be deleted? -- ( ) Delete , , , are indeed more accurate. The current usage of this property appears to be very inconsistent. -- ( ) Delete , , , are indeed more accurate.  The current usage of this property appears to be very inconsistent.  -- ( ) Keep Affiliation is not necessarily the same as being a member. An alliance need not imply control of one entity by another.-- ( ) Not sure to see what you mean, neither member nor affilication tells anything about the degree of control.  -- ( ) Not sure to see what you mean, neither member nor affilication tells anything about the degree of control. -- ( ) Delete.  Use , , instead and add a qualifier if you want to give a more nuanced description of the relationship.  Don't make queries have to guess what type of relationship it is before they can retrieve the information.  – The preceding comment was added by ( • ).  Delete as per redundancy. ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Short_name,_Birth_name,_Official_name:   Not deleted - no consensus to delete. -- ( ) Not deleted - no consensus to delete. -- ( ) Delete Same as ""first name"" ( ). -- ( ) Delete without replacing it; it's redundant to the personal name properties.  If you need something's simple name, use the label, not a property.  Anything else is complex data, and shouldn't use a simple ""Name"" property without giving further information.  -- ( ) I Don't agree that birth name is redundant to the 'given name' 'surname' properties - people can change their name or can use an alias spelling so a property with monolingual text datatype is also required to give the exact spelling and the order of their birth and sur names (where people have middle names and double barelled surnames).  Often people use various names.  If they are famous then they may have their name transliterated in the title of wikipedia articles in other languages.  In these cases the label is not not enough.  We need a property to (for example) tell chinese people that '布鲁斯·斯普林斯廷' is known in his own language as 'Bruce Springsteen'.  Also note that I didn't say we should use 'Name' without giving further information; the proposal is that qualifiers be used for the necessary further information.  ( ) I Don't agree that birth name is redundant to the 'given name' 'surname' properties - people can change their name or can use an alias spelling so a property with monolingual text datatype is also required to give the exact spelling and the order of their birth and sur names (where people have middle names and double barelled surnames).  Often people use various names.  If they are famous then they may have their name transliterated in the title of wikipedia articles in other languages.  In these cases the label is not not enough.  We need a property to (for example) tell chinese people that '布鲁斯·斯普林斯廷' is known in his own language as 'Bruce Springsteen'.  Also note that I didn't say we should use 'Name' without giving further information; the proposal is that qualifiers be used for the necessary further information.  ( ) Comment Re: ""Short name"", it was me who proposed it.  The intension was to use it when you need to design links like: ""[[Stockholms kommun|Stockholm]]"", like in navigation-templates, where the ""short name"" often is used.  Having ""Stockholm"" in the label doesn't make sense, at least not in Swedish.  It's not only wrong, it's also misleading.  I agree that the datatype maybe isn't correct.  I guess we need a ""multilingual datatype"" to describe it correctly.   -- ( ) I would be very strongly against using 'multilingual' datatype.  I think it should be 'monolingual' so we can use it for the 'official' spelling and we don't tempt people to do their own unofficial transliterations.  We should probabl;y have a separate 'translation/transliteration' property with multilingual datatype which could be used as a qualifiers in a lot of cases but that is a separate issue.  ( ) There is nothing official with a short name .  The official name of Stockholm Municipality is ""Stockholms kommun"" according to the Swedish municipality-law, but ""Stockholms stad"" according to Stockholm municipality counsil.  Both of them are official, but ""Stockholm"" is not official anywhere.  Short name is a property to make it easier to make templates that do not need the full official name or label.  The portugese short name could be ""Estocolmo"" and the Finnish ""Tukholma"".  But that is up to some fi- or pt-speakers to decide.  -- ( ) I would be very strongly against using 'multilingual' datatype.  I think it should be 'monolingual' so we can use it for the 'official' spelling and we don't tempt people to do their own unofficial transliterations.  We should probabl;y have a separate 'translation/transliteration' property with multilingual datatype which could be used as a qualifiers in a lot of cases but that is a separate issue.  ( ) There is nothing official with a short name .  The official name of Stockholm Municipality is ""Stockholms kommun"" according to the Swedish municipality-law, but ""Stockholms stad"" according to Stockholm municipality counsil.  Both of them are official, but ""Stockholm"" is not official anywhere.  Short name is a property to make it easier to make templates that do not need the full official name or label.  The portugese short name could be ""Estocolmo"" and the Finnish ""Tukholma"".  But that is up to some fi- or pt-speakers to decide.  -- ( ) There is nothing official with a short name .  The official name of Stockholm Municipality is ""Stockholms kommun"" according to the Swedish municipality-law, but ""Stockholms stad"" according to Stockholm municipality counsil.  Both of them are official, but ""Stockholm"" is not official anywhere.  Short name is a property to make it easier to make templates that do not need the full official name or label.  The portugese short name could be ""Estocolmo"" and the Finnish ""Tukholma"".  But that is up to some fi- or pt-speakers to decide.  -- ( ) Comment No 2. Does it today make sense to propose a property for deletion, when the datatype of the proposed replacing property does not even exist yet? Every time we get a new datatype, we often rethink the whole thing of how the datatype can be used. I therefor vote: Hold this PfD until the relevant datatypes are available. -- ( ) I think it is better to have a plan so we avoid too much abortive work.  ( ) The ""abortive work"" can be modified later by a bot.  -- ( ) I think it is better to have a plan so we avoid too much abortive work. ( ) The ""abortive work"" can be modified later by a bot. -- ( ) The ""abortive work"" can be modified later by a bot.  -- ( ) Keep , it is more simple manage and use separate properties, then property+qualifier.  — ( ) Keep , it is easier to insert and easier to query ( ) I think 'Name' is easier to insert and easier to query and easier to manage because you don't need to guess which property has been used on the wikidata page - it's always the 'Name' property.  Where more information is available then it can still be included via a qualifier.  ( ) How about a ""Designation""-property?  I have a set of pages, where the ""name"" is only a designation.  Using a ""name""-property will give it more authority than is intended.  -- ( ) I think 'Name' is easier to insert and easier to query and easier to manage because you don't need to guess which property has been used on the wikidata page - it's always the 'Name' property.  Where more information is available then it can still be included via a qualifier.  ( ) How about a ""Designation""-property?  I have a set of pages, where the ""name"" is only a designation.  Using a ""name""-property will give it more authority than is intended.  -- ( ) How about a ""Designation""-property?  I have a set of pages, where the ""name"" is only a designation.  Using a ""name""-property will give it more authority than is intended.  -- ( ) Insert: How many clicks are needed to insert 'Name' property + 'Short name' qualifier? How many clicks are needed to specify 'Short name' property? Query: that is more simple and more stable: {{#property:P513}} or {{invoke:Wikidata | formatStatements|property=P186|qualifier=P518|qualifiervalue=Q12014132}}? Please give a sample of infobox where you need some name without specifying its type. Manage: How many error types are possible with P513? (I know two: invalid value, invalid domain) How many error types are possible with 'Name' + qualifier? (I know: invalid value, invalid domain, missing qualifier, invalid qualifier property, invalid qualifier value, unexpected qualifier value). How to detect every of these error types? — ( ) Insert: How many clicks are needed to insert 'Name' property + 'Short name' qualifier? How many clicks are needed to specify 'Short name' property? Query: that is more simple and more stable: {{#property:P513}} or {{invoke:Wikidata | formatStatements|property=P186|qualifier=P518|qualifiervalue=Q12014132}}? Please give a sample of infobox where you need some name without specifying its type. Manage: How many error types are possible with P513? (I know two: invalid value, invalid domain) How many error types are possible with 'Name' + qualifier? (I know: invalid value, invalid domain, missing qualifier, invalid qualifier property, invalid qualifier value, unexpected qualifier value). How to detect every of these error types? — ( ) Insert: How many clicks are needed to insert 'Name' property + 'Short name' qualifier? How many clicks are needed to specify 'Short name' property? Query: that is more simple and more stable: {{#property:P513}} or {{invoke:Wikidata | formatStatements|property=P186|qualifier=P518|qualifiervalue=Q12014132}}? Please give a sample of infobox where you need some name without specifying its type. Manage: How many error types are possible with P513? (I know two: invalid value, invalid domain) How many error types are possible with 'Name' + qualifier? (I know: invalid value, invalid domain, missing qualifier, invalid qualifier property, invalid qualifier value, unexpected qualifier value). How to detect every of these error types? — ( ) Keep Very useful for queries and for adding sources (that cannot be done with labels). -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P616_(P616):   delete this property.  Duplicate of P1369, but much less used.  -- ( ) delete this property. Duplicate of P1369, but much less used. -- ( ) Why not delete the higher numbered one then?  -- ( ) The first one had some technical problems! That is the bot is working on the second one.-- ( ) In these examples you see that they have the same values even from the same sources: , , , , . -- ( ) The first one had some technical problems! That is the bot is working on the second one.-- ( ) In these examples you see that they have the same values even from the same sources: , , , , . -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Datatype_change:_P513_(P513):   I have created and marked as deprecated.  If someone's willing to make a bot to change the statements with p513 to p1477, that would be great.  -- ( ) I have created and marked as deprecated. If someone's willing to make a bot to change the statements with p513 to p1477, that would be great. -- ( ) Support .  -- Delete .  I am not versed yet in the use of monolingual-text type but I have to note that many people have 2 or 3 parallel birth names (minorities that speak 2 languages etc.) so better make sure the other choise allows such an option.  ( ) Support -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  merge_narrative_location_(P840)_and_filming_location_(P915):   withdrawn -- ( ) withdrawn -- ( ) ""filming location"" is where the film was made.  Example: Toronto.  The ""narrative set in"" could be New York or Gotham City.  --- Keep can be a fictonal location, is always a real place, it is the place were the creative work was created. -- ( ) Maybe the Dutch label should be changed: it's currently ""locatie van film"".  --- I think should be renamed to ""created at"".-- ( ) That would change the meaning and to express the same as before one would need qualifiers.  Anyway, this properties is a good example of mess: where is ""cut at"", ""cut by"", ""filmed by"", ""financed by""...?  That would change the meaning and to express the same as before one would need qualifiers.  Anyway, this properties is a good example of mess: where is ""cut at"", ""cut by"", ""filmed by"", ""financed by""...? ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P1228_(P1228):   deleted -- ( ) deleted -- ( ) This looks like a nobrainer.  Why isn't this done yet?  --- ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  IPA_transcription_(P898):   withdrawn withdrawn Proposal: convert data type of property ""IPA"" from string to monolingual string.  We need to indicate the language IPA refers to.  Even if it's not ideal, the data type ""monolingual string"" has a feature for that.  --- Oppose .  I oppose this property existing in the first place, as it's very clearly Wiktionary-oriented linguistic data rather than actual data regarding the entity, but if it is to exist, it shouldn't be misusing the monolingualtext datatype to indicate the language of something other than the string itself.  Use a qualifier instead.  -- ( ) If the entity is a word the pronounciation is clearly a property of that word. Thats also true if you think of place names like Versailles in the US. I have mixed feelings about the conversion, because while I think that really the IPA string itself is in a certain language, the pronounciation is regionspecific as well as language specific.-- ( ) Keep .  , No wikidata entities are words however a wikidata may have statements that refer to a word (e.g. ).  This property is worth keeping provided it is only used as a qualifier to those properties.  As such the IPA doesn't need to be tied to a language though the word it is describing may well need to be.  ( ) withdrawn ok, convinced to keep it that way.  --- ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  architectural_style_(P149):   no consensus -- ( ) no consensus -- ( ) Delete and merge with .  Seem the same think, only specific to architecture.  -- ( ) Keep ""architectual style""  (P149).  P135 is too vague.  --- How is it too vague ? If we say that the movement of monument is neogothic, what can it mean except that architectural style is neogothic ? --  ( )  ""movement of a monument is neogothic"" require a lot of imagination to make any sense.  It maybe works semantically, but it's not an obvious choice for an amateur.  -- ( ) @ : Just add an alias or change the label. Agree, but to what? The problem is that I cannot find any good word that fits one area, but would not be misleading for others and vice versa. -- ( ) Maybe we could expand P135 for politics as well.  ""Movement"" fits well there ;) --- ""movement of a monument is neogothic"" require a lot of imagination to make any sense. It maybe works semantically, but it's not an obvious choice for an amateur. -- ( ) @ : Just add an alias or change the label.  Agree, but to what?  The problem is that I cannot find any good word that fits one area, but would not be misleading for others and vice versa.  -- ( ) Maybe we could expand P135 for politics as well. ""Movement"" fits well there ;) --- @ : Just add an alias or change the label.  Agree, but to what?  The problem is that I cannot find any good word that fits one area, but would not be misleading for others and vice versa.  -- ( ) Maybe we could expand P135 for politics as well. ""Movement"" fits well there ;) --- Agree, but to what?  The problem is that I cannot find any good word that fits one area, but would not be misleading for others and vice versa.  -- ( ) Maybe we could expand P135 for politics as well. ""Movement"" fits well there ;) --- Maybe we could expand P135 for politics as well.  ""Movement"" fits well there ;) --- Delete and merge with . Per Zolo. -- ( ) Delete Awaiting a bot to clear the current cases .  -- ( · · · ) Keep Unless the English label is changed for movement, it doesn't make sense to merge them as style and movement are not synonymous. (I had to reference a couple dictionaries just to be sure I'm not missing something.) A style can be part of a movement (ie. aestheticism), but not necessarily vice versa. I'm not an expert, but have studied architecture and I've never once heard of a style referred to as a movement. ( ) It's a stretch to call some architectural styles movements – Modernism yes, Streamline Moderne no – whereas the term ""style"" always applies to these. But I also see the argument that ""architectural style"" is to architecture what ""movement"" is to (e.g.) painting, resulting in the duplication mentioned above. I would prefer to see the properties merged, but called ""movement or style"" ... so Delete . ( ) Keep two different concepts -- ( ) Keep .  A style is often more specific, 'superficial' and ornamental than an art movement.  Comment To slightly contradict - or add nuance to - my opinion: the widely used by the Getty combines movements and styles in one 'branch' of its thesaurus tree ( ).  ( ) Keep , à moins qu'aucun des deux termes ne soit bien choisi.  « Style » (qui plus est « style architectural ») et « mouvement » n'ont pas le même sens. Il y a eu un mouvement surréaliste et un style art déco à la même époque mais il s'agit de deux choses différentes.  Un mouvement c'est plutôt une organisation formelle ou informelle qui provoque un changement (donc associé plutôt à des personnes) alors qu'un style c'est un ensemble de caractéristiques (plutôt associé à des œuvres).  Hier, sans avoir connaissance de la présente discussion, j'ai modifié « » où les propriétés « » et « » doublonnaient et j'ai jugé que « » n'avait pas de sens pour le bâtiment d'un commerce de grande distribution.  Mais mon avis est peut-être hors sujet et je n'exclus pas de n'avoir pas encore compris le concept de propriété de Wikidata.  ( ) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC) En fait, on a besoin de deux propréités, l'une concernant le style des choses ou œuvres , une autre concernant le mouvement ou le courant artistique, littéraire ou philosophique auquel appartient l'auteur.  Le style pouvant éventuellement s'appliquer à une personne en qualifiant son aspect physique (coiffure punk par exemple, sans que son œuvre soit nécessairement punk).  ( ) ###Output: "
+no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P1221:   no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Oppose .  is clearly not ""unused"", and is not for .  For example, , which has this property, is a ""subclass of"" and and not an ""instance of"" .  @ : would my suggestion below change your oppose?  -- ( ) @ : would my suggestion below change your oppose? -- ( ) Delete - is not the correct property of replacement, however.  The correct one would be .  The data is not used in any wiki, which means we can encourage the use of this more generic property trivially.  -- ( ) Keep : It seems its only sin is to be as yet underused.  is not a valid substitute, but may work.   Still, I don't see any value to deleting it.  ( ) Keep Maybe underused, but clearly defined sub-property of .  Using would be ambiguous, if not used with qualifiers.  -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P3247:   Speedy deleted.  ( ) Speedy deleted.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  contains_the_administrative_territorial_entity_(P150):   no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) I agree that it should be deleted, but it is currently being used by the French Wikipedia (see ) and I don't think it would be fair to delete it until there is another way to fetch the data.  - ( ) Sigh, this is a very fair point.  Plus I can totally see the value in editing them all in one place (linked from the WP article) rather than editing all the different subdivisions one by one.  or , is there any way to solve this?  Ideal case: In the infobox, show the list of { ? item P151 Qnnnnn } subjects, but with additional condition (e.g. only those that are subclusses of an administrative district.  Easy to edit multiple items to add a property pointing to the given subject (editing the foreign key on subjects so they all link to the current one).   This way info boxes would contain the list, but users can change it easily.  TBD: what if that property is already set, but points somewhere else?  -- ( ) The only suggestion I have for doing this is to write a gadget that provides this kind of editing interface would be two write a Gadget that does what you suggest. However, this isn't just about editing, it's also about showing a list of things in a single place. This is easy to do with an outside tool based on a SPARQL query, but we currently have no way to show the result on a wikitext page, now somehow on a data item. -- ( ) Sigh, this is a very fair point.  Plus I can totally see the value in editing them all in one place (linked from the WP article) rather than editing all the different subdivisions one by one.  or , is there any way to solve this?  Ideal case: In the infobox, show the list of { ? item P151 Qnnnnn } subjects, but with additional condition (e.g. only those that are subclusses of an administrative district.  Easy to edit multiple items to add a property pointing to the given subject (editing the foreign key on subjects so they all link to the current one).   This way info boxes would contain the list, but users can change it easily.  TBD: what if that property is already set, but points somewhere else?  In the infobox, show the list of { ? item P151 Qnnnnn } subjects, but with additional condition (e.g. only those that are subclusses of an administrative district.  Easy to edit multiple items to add a property pointing to the given subject (editing the foreign key on subjects so they all link to the current one).   This way info boxes would contain the list, but users can change it easily.  TBD: what if that property is already set, but points somewhere else?  -- ( ) The only suggestion I have for doing this is to write a gadget that provides this kind of editing interface would be two write a Gadget that does what you suggest. However, this isn't just about editing, it's also about showing a list of things in a single place. This is easy to do with an outside tool based on a SPARQL query, but we currently have no way to show the result on a wikitext page, now somehow on a data item. -- ( ) The only suggestion I have for doing this is to write a gadget that provides this kind of editing interface would be two write a Gadget that does what you suggest.  However, this isn't just about editing, it's also about showing a list of things in a single place.  This is easy to do with an outside tool based on a SPARQL query, but we currently have no way to show the result on a wikitext page, now somehow on a data item.  -- ( ) keep - Czech Wikipedie uses this in its template .  We don't know any method of displaying settlements which are located in a municipality other than using this property. -- ( ) keep. P131 is used not only for administrative entities but for any geographic entities, for example: monument, building and so on. That's way there can be many ""P131"" links for some division but only a few direct P150 links. -- ( ) Comment personally, I think we should do away with this, but apparently there isn't really a way around it: Keep --- ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Booking.com_hotel_ID_(P3607):   consensus to keep -- ( ) consensus to keep -- ( ) Keep .  When it comes to hotels, there is no better source for up-to-date information about the services and equipments on offer than websites such as and the likes.  Advertising is in the intent.  We only judge the content.  ( ) Keep Why is the fact that there's a commerical interest a problem.  I think the website has an interest in providing truthful information.  ( ) Keep .  I think this is useful for WV.  We have property links to a great number of proprietary databases.  As long as the IDs are stable it's fine to have them.  ( ) Keep .  As per everybody else.   The issue is whether the external database is one people might find useful to link to, and whether the identifier is stable.  ( ) So the main purpose of pages like = is not ?  How does it helps us to provide more independent open data about the domain of ?  Reloading the page serves me a popup „Save up to 50% in Saint-Leu Get exclusive access to member-only deals by email. ” -- ( ) and are clearly independent from one another. ( ) Delete Clearly a case of advertising, like it was said before. collects to much personal information: . I don't think WD should promote its use. -- ( ) Delete  1. Advertising.  2. it's not a reliable source of information (clearly it's a conflict of interest to provide neutral information and try to sell the product at the same time). -- ( ) Comment I'm not sure I'm understanding the objection here.   So what if the site's purpose is to advertise/promote the facilities offered by the hotels?  (And presumably to take a percentage of each booking made through it?)  So what?   Why should that be an objection?  ( ) Keep  1. The criteria of advertising and conflict of interest in Wikivoyageis much lower than Wikipedia and Wikidata have  no conflict of interest rescriction.  2. Not every Wikidata properties indicates reliable sources. -- ( ) Comment Has anyone sought the opinion of Wikivoyages on this matter? Part of our role is to support the wikis to have infoboxes, and if they use the id, then we should support it. Just like images/files in use at Commons by other wikis puts them within scope as long as licensing requirements are met. So if used by Voyages, then keep; if not used, then delete.  — In the Russian Wikivoyage we do not use this property. One needs to ask at the English Wikivoyage, I do not know whether they use it.-- ( ) In the German Wikivoyage we are planning to support this and similar properties.  We already widely use Wikidata.  In some cases we have several hundreds Wikidata calls per article.  -- ( ) In the Russian Wikivoyage we do not use this property. One needs to ask at the English Wikivoyage, I do not know whether they use it.-- ( ) In the German Wikivoyage we are planning to support this and similar properties.  We already widely use Wikidata.  In some cases we have several hundreds Wikidata calls per article.  -- ( ) Keep This is far from being advertising.  Comment ""collects to much personal information"" - we shouldn't add/remove external ids in order to support/punish companies for their moves.  ( ) Keep count me as ""keep"" for any RFD of an active booking/publishing business: few of them would shoot their foot and allow inaccurate data for prolonged periods of time.  ( ) Keep Main goal of Wikivoyage is to support travelers as much as possible.  Direct links to a booking service bring support not advertising.  And it is the reader's decision to use this support or not.  A property like booking.com hotel id means that we should have properties to other services like Ctrip and so on.  Of course we cannot suppress any advertising.  But Wikipedia cannot do it, too.  -- ( ) Keep - if the rationale for deletion is that Wikimedians doesn't approve of the business tactics of the organisation (e.g. that it collects personal information) or that it's a commercial organisation, then I don't see how that's relevant to this Authority Control property existing on Wikidata.  We have property for example, and other equivalently commercial organisations without any problem.  ( ) Keep the fact that a website is commercial in intent is no reason not to link to it, so long as it has useful information.  Provided the requirement for stable IDs is met, and there is some sort of useful information there, Wikidata can link to competing commercial websites too.  The intentions of the web site owner shouldn't count, only how useful/reliable the data is (and data maintained for commercial purposes usually is reasonably reliable since it is in the commercial interests of the web site owner to keep their data current and accurate.) ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  station_code_(P296):   Consensus to keep.  ( ) Consensus to keep.  ( ) Keep Are you looking at the same property?  It's been used 4500+ times.  It was proposed for deletion 3 years ago and decided not to - see discussion .  Yes there are more specific properties that should be used if they apply, but this one is suitable for generic use with a qualifier indicating what system the code is for, I seem no reason to delete.  ( ) Keep It is good to keep a record of it.  Plus usage is alot.  ( ) Delete missed qualifiers.  So currently we have 5536 unknown codes.  Separate properties will bring structure to this data hell.  — ( ) I'm torn.  The fact that and etc exist means that this is somewhat redundant if we insist on having the mandatory qualifier .  On the other hand, if we remove the mandatory qualifier constraint, this property can be used more liberally with various transport systems.  Other properties of the station item can be used to tell us which transport system it's in.  On balance I vote deprecate and Delete .  ( ) I'll be willing to change to keep if we relax the \w+ format requirement so that the Japanese and Norwegian uses of this property - which are the vast majority of uses not already covered by more specific properties - cease to be constraint violations.  ( ) I'll be willing to change to keep if we relax the \w+ format requirement so that the Japanese and Norwegian uses of this property - which are the vast majority of uses not already covered by more specific properties - cease to be constraint violations.  ( ) Prefer Keep , unless if someone can tell me which property should be used for Japanese .  -- ( ) Keep In most case, the code system can easily be guessed by using or . Deleting this property at this time is inappropriate, I think. -- ( ) Keep unless and until all uses are migrated to more specific properties.  ( ) Same, but there should finally be some decision on whether this should be done, or the more specific properties migrated to this one.  -- ( ) Same, but there should finally be some decision on whether this should be done, or the more specific properties migrated to this one. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  race_time_(P2781):   Keep .  This property is admittedly a bit out of form, but it is very useful to have something like that.  In an event, includes much more time than just the plain race/game time, and is only useful in case of (more or less) fixed (game) durations.  I would suggest to work on its definition on the property talk page (clearly define scope, maybe make it qualifier only, etc.).  Btw. there was plenty of support for this property at .  Also ping @ as the original proposer.  — ( ) Info I started a discussion at and invite all interested users to participate.  — ( ) Info I started a discussion at and invite all interested users to participate.  — ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P3873_(P3873):   Consensus to delete.  -- Consensus to delete. -- Oops.  Yup Delete .  ( ) Should the domain of be expanded to include other establishments and facilities, since it currently only applies to transportation stations and services?  ( ) I agree to Delete and expand the scope of as proposed by Jc86035.  ( ) Delete exact duplicate, right?  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  BVMC_place_ID_(P4098):   no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) 10228306: / 1690570: / 1701668: / 2509538: / 2510112: / 3126031: / ... and the remaining ~655 Delete duplication.  - ( ) Keep we need custom formatter URL.  We don't have another property or alternative way to get custom URL for specific items from Geonames 1000 values are harmless, even if duplicates ( ) Delete we have for 3rd party formatters. -- ( ) Delete per nom.  Comment The problem with is that most of the time the third party does not use all the identifiers available in the first database and we have no way to know this before we actually click on the link and discover this very one is not covered.  With this in mind, I've come to believe that in its current form is a bad thing, and that we should have a standalone property every time the formatter URL varies, even when most of the IDs it points to are shared.  ( ) Keep per this comment.  - ( ) That's not a reason to keep this property; the use-case is what response headers are for.  Keep per this comment.  - ( ) That's not a reason to keep this property; the use-case is what response headers are for.  Keep I'd say keep for now.   I agree with Thierry Caro is not a solution.  This thing worries me, for example, with , as the ""identifier"" there is the : .  A way of storing this data (that journal being indexed there) is using -> (see ).  But "" -> "" would be kind of a reach , so P972's scope would need somehow to be expanded. .  And after we wouldn't even have a ""click-able link"" here.  Anyway, if we are gonna have these properties, a specific constraint like «if P4098 exists, then its value has to be equal to P1566's»... would be nice.  Strakhov ( ) I don't think it can be done with normal constraints right now, but it would be easy to do with a complex constraint, using something like .  - ( ) I don't think it can be done with normal constraints right now, but it would be easy to do with a complex constraint, using something like .  - ( ) Keep per Thierry Caro too, @ : the property that you suggested, , should be the actual property for deletion as its value can be confusing.  -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  translation_(P5972):   Kept I don't see consensus for deletion.  ( ) Kept I don't see consensus for deletion.  ( ) it will create items whose meanings are only slightly different because some senses differ only in nuances; it will create items for verbs, adverbs, prepositions and adjectives.     I think the explanation by @ : at makes sense.  I don't see an advantage to start creating even more items for words than we already have.  --- I agree that if is used extensively, it will become unruly.  I personally agree that creating Q-Items for Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives and Adverbs and linking those senses using is a good idea, as those categories clearly represent conceptual entities.  However, I think that more functional lexical categories (such as prepositions, conjuctions, affixes, particles, articles etc.) should be kept out of the Q namespace, and should still be used for those.  ( ) @ , : I see your point.  What about limiting the scope of to and rename it to something like ""functional equivalence""? -- ( ) @ , : I see your point. What about limiting the scope of to and rename it to something like ""functional equivalence""?-- ( ) Before we can limit its scope, the community still needs to decide whether adding thousands of Senses to the Main namespace is a good idea.  I believe it is an important direction to move towards, but there is yet to be any consensus on the issue.  ( ) Before we can limit its scope, the community still needs to decide whether adding thousands of Senses to the Main namespace is a good idea.  I believe it is an important direction to move towards, but there is yet to be any consensus on the issue.  ( ) Before we can limit its scope, the community still needs to decide whether adding thousands of Senses to the Main namespace is a good idea.  I believe it is an important direction to move towards, but there is yet to be any consensus on the issue.  ( ) Weak oppose .  I agree with and here.  Translations aren't necessarily symmetric so linking to an item doesn't automatically solve all our problems.  I see this as the centralized equivalent of the translation table on Wiktionary.  Storing these in the Sense entry may make it unwieldy in Wikidata view, but seems to be what Wiktionary requires.  ( ) It’s not necessarily an easy task, but the fact that translations differs just a little bit is also an opportunity to describe the relationship between them by statements.  @ : To me it seems unnecessary to think of this in terms of translation.  I think sense entities (i.e. items in the existing main namespace or in a dedicated sense namespace) can handle this perfectly if we leave minimal room for ambiguity.  That is, if two languages have slightly different concepts for the colour blue, we create two separate sense entities for these two concepts and mark one as a subset of the other, or both as overlapping - whichever is correct.  An important property of this implementation is that it is up to the user that queries for translations what counts as a ""translation"": should the translated word be a virtually exact match (i.e. uses the same sense entity), could the word have a broader or narrower meaning, and could it have an overlapping meaning?  -- ( ) @ , , : The current description says word in another language that corresponds exactly to this meaning of the lexeme . ""corresponds exactly"" suggests that the property is symmetrical.-- ( ) Change to Neutral .  It seems that this property is (badly) trying to solve a different problem as what I expect it to solve.  Maybe we need to wait till Wiktionary can transclude Lexemes and then figure this out.  ( ) It’s not necessarily an easy task, but the fact that translations differs just a little bit is also an opportunity to describe the relationship between them by statements.  @ : To me it seems unnecessary to think of this in terms of translation.  I think sense entities (i.e. items in the existing main namespace or in a dedicated sense namespace) can handle this perfectly if we leave minimal room for ambiguity.  That is, if two languages have slightly different concepts for the colour blue, we create two separate sense entities for these two concepts and mark one as a subset of the other, or both as overlapping - whichever is correct.  An important property of this implementation is that it is up to the user that queries for translations what counts as a ""translation"": should the translated word be a virtually exact match (i.e. uses the same sense entity), could the word have a broader or narrower meaning, and could it have an overlapping meaning?  -- ( ) @ : To me it seems unnecessary to think of this in terms of translation.  I think sense entities (i.e. items in the existing main namespace or in a dedicated sense namespace) can handle this perfectly if we leave minimal room for ambiguity.  That is, if two languages have slightly different concepts for the colour blue, we create two separate sense entities for these two concepts and mark one as a subset of the other, or both as overlapping - whichever is correct.  An important property of this implementation is that it is up to the user that queries for translations what counts as a ""translation"": should the translated word be a virtually exact match (i.e. uses the same sense entity), could the word have a broader or narrower meaning, and could it have an overlapping meaning?  -- ( ) @ , , : The current description says word in another language that corresponds exactly to this meaning of the lexeme . ""corresponds exactly"" suggests that the property is symmetrical.-- ( ) Change to Neutral .  It seems that this property is (badly) trying to solve a different problem as what I expect it to solve.  Maybe we need to wait till Wiktionary can transclude Lexemes and then figure this out.  ( ) Change to Neutral .  It seems that this property is (badly) trying to solve a different problem as what I expect it to solve.  Maybe we need to wait till Wiktionary can transclude Lexemes and then figure this out.  ( ) My view is - I think we need for now, but it should be reserved for cases that can't obviously be handled by , and we should be actively figuring out how to migrate all uses of the first property to the second in some manner... ( ) Oppose I think in current shape of lexemes we need it, but use it only where does not work.  ( ) I (also) think that we should use , but fall back on .  — ( ) Oppose per KaMan.  ❪ ❫ temporary keep until we have a sane system to query Lexemes locally.  -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  male_form_of_label_(P3321):   Kept no consensus for deletion and no alternative available yet.  ( ) ) Kept no consensus for deletion and no alternative available yet.  ( ) ) Keep Per above, there are usages elsewhere where really can't be replaced by Lexemes.  -- Delete and replace with more general modeling. applies analogously. ― ( ) Keep This is an excellent solution which is understood by all and has been put to good use. It works, allowing infoboxes to be flexible and relevant. -- ( ) Keep I think it can be useful.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P2035:   consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete Looks like it's ready to go - thanks!  ( ) Could somebody fix the errors listed in ?  ( ) What's the point, if the property is deprecated, and due for deletion?  The point is to avoid loosing data, if possible.  ( ) What's the point, if the property is deprecated, and due for deletion?  The point is to avoid loosing data, if possible.  ( ) The point is to avoid loosing data, if possible.  ( ) Comment What about other templates using ?  At its talkpage I can see much more templates and even that list is incomplete (most of wiki using modules are omitted). -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete Consensus to replace.  -- ( ) Delete but need to inform all the sister project that are list to use this property with date to delete it (let say and of may).  - ( ) Delete too.  ( ) .  Delete looks good to be replaced now.  -- ( ) Delete given the previous consensus to replace -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P4828:   Done − ( ) Done − ( ) Delete per request.  ( ) .  Delete − ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete ( ) Delete -- ( ) It's still used on many items, the existing claims must be removed first.  - ( ) OK; I thought it didn't matter.  I've opened a .  ( ) .  OK; I thought it didn't matter.  I've opened a .  ( ) . ###Output: "
+keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P2396:   Kept , as this request clearly wasn't meant to contest the property.  There was some vandalism which I reverted, and that's it.  -- ( ) Kept , as this request clearly wasn't meant to contest the property. There was some vandalism which I reverted, and that's it. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  country_(P17):   Not deleted : the consensus is that we should keep this property, even though it may not be perfect.  ( ) Not deleted : the consensus is that we should keep this property, even though it may not be perfect.  ( ) This is a very widely used property.  Migrating off of it would be very difficult without losing information.  There are cases where it's very unclear what to transition to.  For example a company might be ""American"" but have multiple HQs.  Should we use country of origin?  It's not clear.  I say we need to keep at least until there is a transition plan and a long deprecation period.  ( ) Keep Deleting this property is not the right way to go IMHO.  But it need to be further clarified that it is a geographical property.  There are other properties already in place for non-geographical objects like , , and .  / @ : Not the right way to go?  Would you go the opposite way?  To create analogous specific properties for all existing levels of geographic and administrative division?  I once proposed one, and it was rejected on the grounds that a geographical belonging should be derived hierarchically from below.  It is a fact that it would be useful to can find affiliation to the municipality, affiliation to the region, to the federal state, etc. with a single question.  This now requires a relatively sophisticated script that is not available in many projects.  -- ( ) That approach would make Wikidata objects more useful. Not just for geographical properties but particularly for even more hierarchical objects like species. / @ : Sometimes P17 values can also be targeted as roots of edit wars, just if the affected items are having territory conflicts, e.g. do you remember what happened on ? Edits from though to , I would say that we are developing an edit war platform via this property. -- ( ) If we delete P17, the war will just move to .  / @ : Not the right way to go?  Would you go the opposite way?  To create analogous specific properties for all existing levels of geographic and administrative division?  I once proposed one, and it was rejected on the grounds that a geographical belonging should be derived hierarchically from below.  It is a fact that it would be useful to can find affiliation to the municipality, affiliation to the region, to the federal state, etc. with a single question.  This now requires a relatively sophisticated script that is not available in many projects.  -- ( ) That approach would make Wikidata objects more useful. Not just for geographical properties but particularly for even more hierarchical objects like species. / @ : Sometimes P17 values can also be targeted as roots of edit wars, just if the affected items are having territory conflicts, e.g. do you remember what happened on ? Edits from though to , I would say that we are developing an edit war platform via this property. -- ( ) If we delete P17, the war will just move to .  / That approach would make Wikidata objects more useful.  Not just for geographical properties but particularly for even more hierarchical objects like species.  / @ : Sometimes P17 values can also be targeted as roots of edit wars, just if the affected items are having territory conflicts, e.g. do you remember what happened on ?  Edits from though to , I would say that we are developing an edit war platform via this property.  -- ( ) If we delete P17, the war will just move to . / @ : Sometimes P17 values can also be targeted as roots of edit wars, just if the affected items are having territory conflicts, e.g. do you remember what happened on ? Edits from though to , I would say that we are developing an edit war platform via this property. -- ( ) If we delete P17, the war will just move to .  / If we delete P17, the war will just move to .  / what does it mean to be a geographical property?  wouldn't cover the cases you're talking about?  ( ) can be large enough to be located in multiple countries, like a mountain.  is usually in only one country, though.  / Right but when would you propose be used?  ( ) what does it mean to be a geographical property?  wouldn't cover the cases you're talking about?  ( ) can be large enough to be located in multiple countries, like a mountain.  is usually in only one country, though.  / Right but when would you propose be used?  ( ) can be large enough to be located in multiple countries, like a mountain.  is usually in only one country, though.  / Right but when would you propose be used?  ( ) Right but when would you propose be used?  ( ) Does not make sense to me.  States are not administraiton areas.  The latter never has sovereignity over its area.  I d' like to recommend to read reelevant literature on what a state is.  Keep -- ( ) Delete To me widely used isn't a reason to not delete something, if something is confused by themselves, then we may slowly defunct it. -- ( ) Keep used 12,847,294 times.  Mandatory statement on plenty of properties.  Without this property it's nearly impossible to work on specific countries because crawling the tree is too slow.  ( ) Keep .  is subproperty of .  As such, it is used for things located in an administrative entity.  However, is also used for institutions, companies etc. which are under jurisdiction of a given country.  ( ) Delete Very widely used shouldn't mean we should continue to tread in the wrong direction.  As long there is an entity to denote the same thing, we won't lose any information.  ( ) Keep I do not think we should delete without a more clear policy of what the follow-up is. I agree the property is suboptimal but given the lack of guidance it is better than nothing.  ( ) Keep Good point for ( • • ) ( ) Keep Good point for ( • • ) ( ) Keep Hugely useful for efficient querying (eg as a pre-filter) -- the time and complication and memory expense of having to have a query create a whole P131 tree can be very expensive, and would break many queries that currently can run within the time.   Also very important for many items that have a country association, but often no sharp geographical localisation.  ( ) Keep .  P17 is much more useful in the daily practice than it is doing harm.  Apart from that, I agree with Vojtěch.  → Man77 Keep in addition of what has been already said, this property is useful with the constrain .  ( ) Keep .  P17 is necessary to get additional country-specific parameters (currencies, calling codes, etc.) and reduces computing time because it saves the analysis of the sequence of administrative units.  -- ( ) Keep . Agreeing with Vojtěch.-- ( ) Keep per above.  ( ) Keep P131 could potentially cause a loop, since nobody here still hasn't provided sufficient information what ""located in the administrative territorial entity"" means in every case.  ( ) Keep definitely does more good than harm.  ( ) Keep per comments above.  ( ) Keep per above.  -- ( / ) (Please {{ }} me) Keep Usefull for querrying. -- ( ) Keep per comments above.  - ( ) Keep , huge list of is a blocker for deletion, removing properties like this would break ontological standards and render Wikidata unusable for many of organizations.  -- ( ) Keep for now, but I agree that P131 is sufficient.  This problem is similar to the P373 problem, both are easy-to-use properties, but both are wrong ways to structure data.  -- ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  number_of_vaccinations_(P9107):   There is no consensus to delete this property.  Discussions on changes of scope can happen on the property talk page.  More general discussions about numerical data of countries could go to Project chat.  — Martin ( · ) There is no consensus to delete this property.  Discussions on changes of scope can happen on the property talk page.  More general discussions about numerical data of countries could go to Project chat.  — Martin ( · ) Keep For reference .  While it's true that nobody provided a specific solution to ChristianKl's question, we generally use qualifiers to specify such details; in practice addressing this is going to come up immediately for anybody trying to use the property; I would hope the resolution finds a place on the property talk page.  I don't think this broadly supported and clearly useful property needs to be deleted for this reason.  ( ) @ : It's a property that's likely to misinform people in an important public health area.  Basically your idea is that people are likely to use qualifiers for this property, which means they won't use it in the way it was proposed to be used.  Don't worry, nobody is going to use the property in the way it was suggested in the property proposal seems to me a bad argument.  If we find out that people actually use it in the way that it was proposed, would you think your assessment is wrong?  ❪ ❫ @ : It's a property that's likely to misinform people in an important public health area.  Basically your idea is that people are likely to use qualifiers for this property, which means they won't use it in the way it was proposed to be used.  Don't worry, nobody is going to use the property in the way it was suggested in the property proposal seems to me a bad argument.  If we find out that people actually use it in the way that it was proposed, would you think your assessment is wrong?  ❪ ❫ Comment I have never understood why WD did not simply model this way [number] /of/ [what] -- ● ● Agree - ( ) Because it's unspecific and doesn't tell us the predicate of the relationship.  English users will find it in many cases easy to guess what's meant based on context.  Speakers of languages that don't have a direct equivalent to of will find it harder and generally there are cases where it might not be 100% clear what the predicate is.  In many cases In many cases with takes the same effort as [number] /of/ [what] would need but is more precise and it's clear to everyone what the predicate is.  Agree - ( ) Because it's unspecific and doesn't tell us the predicate of the relationship.  English users will find it in many cases easy to guess what's meant based on context.  Speakers of languages that don't have a direct equivalent to of will find it harder and generally there are cases where it might not be 100% clear what the predicate is.  In many cases In many cases with takes the same effort as [number] /of/ [what] would need but is more precise and it's clear to everyone what the predicate is.  Furthermore having the property proposal process gets data to be standardized so that different people don't understand the relationship differently and put in different things with the same properties.  I don't think requiring people who want to add data about vaccinations to Wikidata to first decide on which data they actually want to add before they get a property that allows them to input data to be unreasonable.  It prevents people from getting mislead by inconsistent data with matter for important health data.  ❪ ❫ Speedy keep in use in at the Spanish Wikipedia.  -- ( ) Furthermore having the property proposal process gets data to be standardized so that different people don't understand the relationship differently and put in different things with the same properties. I don't think requiring people who want to add data about vaccinations to Wikidata to first decide on which data they actually want to add before they get a property that allows them to input data to be unreasonable. It prevents people from getting mislead by inconsistent data with matter for important health data. ❪ ❫ Speedy keep in use in at the Spanish Wikipedia. -- ( ) Comment It may be worth clarifying whether this property includes number of persons vaccinated to immunity or number of vaccines administered.  In particular for COVID-19, where two-dose and single-dose vaccines are co-marketed, this is important.  – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at 23:47, June 21, 2021‎ (UTC).  Keep but change to ""number of full vaccinations"" or ""number of vaccine doses given"", or make a new property for either.  ( ) On which basis ?  Since the creation of a vaccine ?  Among living people ?  During 1 year ?  Including 3th, 4th or may be more boosters ?  How woul be the property managed in the case of polio vaccine, for instance ?  -- ( ) Delete in the current usage.  The property is likeable but lacks a good definition as pointed above.  Moreover, this will once again flood country items with numerical data which are updated at regular intervals, something that would much better reside on Wikimedia Commons.  It's just not sustainable to store numerical data in country-wide properties like this.  In the original proposal, I suggested at least moving these data to vaccine items such as if anything.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P4886_(P4886):   Deleting — Martin ( · ) Deleting — Martin ( · ) Notified Notified ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P8510_(P8510):   Deleted Consensus for deletion.  ( ) Deleted Consensus for deletion.  ( ) +This explanation in French .  -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Hello, OK but please be careful about these items...  The two webpages does not show exacly same information, when same ID.  ● ● Actually it is the same information (same article): Maitron des Fusillés ID means only that the article with Maitron ID was used in ""Maitron des Fusillés"" online.  -- ( ) Example with Marc Bloch and same text, same data, same images. Only the CSS is different. -- ( ) Actually it is the same information (same article): Maitron des Fusillés ID means only that the article with Maitron ID was used in ""Maitron des Fusillés"" online.  -- ( ) Example with Marc Bloch and same text, same data, same images. Only the CSS is different. -- ( ) FYI, there are currently 164 uses of .  Let us wait until the end of the months to get more opinion and after, could you remove all statements that use before I delete this property?  ( ) I can manage these 164 usages.  Before or just after the property deletion?  @ :.  -- ( ) I would say, just before before, so that it is easy to find them using a query :-) ( ) I do that this evening :) Thanks.  -- ( ) Not at all usage of this property now (in the main). -- ( ) I can manage these 164 usages.  Before or just after the property deletion?  @ :.  -- ( ) I would say, just before before, so that it is easy to find them using a query :-) ( ) I do that this evening :) Thanks.  -- ( ) Not at all usage of this property now (in the main). -- ( ) I would say, just before before, so that it is easy to find them using a query :-) ( ) I do that this evening :) Thanks.  -- ( ) Not at all usage of this property now (in the main). -- ( ) I do that this evening :) Thanks.  -- ( ) Not at all usage of this property now (in the main). -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Microsoft_Academic_ID_(P6366):   Kept .  Consensus to keep this.  Thanks.  ( ) Kept .  Consensus to keep this.  Thanks.  ( ) As a side note, the Microsoft Academic IDs on Wikidata are all messed up with Wayback Machine.  For example, check , the archive.org link leads to Plant & Food Research in New Zealand.  This occurs for all the entries I checked.  In addition, the references, which are all from gric.ac) are invalid because grid.ac has dropped Microsoft Academic ID. ( ) I agree on the observation, so Delete ( ) As there are snapshots of Microsoft Academic Graph we should first get some data of how consistent the data is.-- ( ) As I checked, all snapshots are oddly wrong because of JavaScript process. In any case, the snapshots are useless here. Next years, it is meaningless to have a link showing citations until 2021. There are other resources showing the same information. ( ) I think with ""snapshop"", GZWDer meant database dumps. What you seems to bother are broken links to archive.org. This is being fixed. --- My bad then!  The available database dumps are much older, and back to a few years ago when Microsoft decided to abandon the project.  It is unlikely to capture anything meaningful from those database dumps because Microsoft Academic was not producing any new contents in the first place.  The best case scenario is that someone create a website from the latest database dumps and change the URL of the property to redirect to the new website.  Otherwise, the current archive.org links are incorrect and misleading, and should be avoided at any cost.  ( ) They should be gone in a couple of days.  Let's keep this then.  --- I agree on the observation, so Delete ( ) As there are snapshots of Microsoft Academic Graph we should first get some data of how consistent the data is.-- ( ) As I checked, all snapshots are oddly wrong because of JavaScript process.  In any case, the snapshots are useless here.  Next years, it is meaningless to have a link showing citations until 2021.  There are other resources showing the same information.  ( ) I think with ""snapshop"", GZWDer meant database dumps.  What you seems to bother are broken links to archive.org.  This is being fixed.  --- My bad then! The available database dumps are much older, and back to a few years ago when Microsoft decided to abandon the project. It is unlikely to capture anything meaningful from those database dumps because Microsoft Academic was not producing any new contents in the first place. The best case scenario is that someone create a website from the latest database dumps and change the URL of the property to redirect to the new website. Otherwise, the current archive.org links are incorrect and misleading, and should be avoided at any cost. ( ) They should be gone in a couple of days. Let's keep this then. --- As I checked, all snapshots are oddly wrong because of JavaScript process.  In any case, the snapshots are useless here.  Next years, it is meaningless to have a link showing citations until 2021.  There are other resources showing the same information.  ( ) I think with ""snapshop"", GZWDer meant database dumps.  What you seems to bother are broken links to archive.org.  This is being fixed.  --- My bad then! The available database dumps are much older, and back to a few years ago when Microsoft decided to abandon the project. It is unlikely to capture anything meaningful from those database dumps because Microsoft Academic was not producing any new contents in the first place. The best case scenario is that someone create a website from the latest database dumps and change the URL of the property to redirect to the new website. Otherwise, the current archive.org links are incorrect and misleading, and should be avoided at any cost. ( ) They should be gone in a couple of days. Let's keep this then. --- I think with ""snapshop"", GZWDer meant database dumps.  What you seems to bother are broken links to archive.org.  This is being fixed.  --- My bad then! The available database dumps are much older, and back to a few years ago when Microsoft decided to abandon the project. It is unlikely to capture anything meaningful from those database dumps because Microsoft Academic was not producing any new contents in the first place. The best case scenario is that someone create a website from the latest database dumps and change the URL of the property to redirect to the new website. Otherwise, the current archive.org links are incorrect and misleading, and should be avoided at any cost. ( ) They should be gone in a couple of days. Let's keep this then. --- My bad then!  The available database dumps are much older, and back to a few years ago when Microsoft decided to abandon the project.  It is unlikely to capture anything meaningful from those database dumps because Microsoft Academic was not producing any new contents in the first place.  The best case scenario is that someone create a website from the latest database dumps and change the URL of the property to redirect to the new website.  Otherwise, the current archive.org links are incorrect and misleading, and should be avoided at any cost.  ( ) They should be gone in a couple of days.  Let's keep this then.  --- They should be gone in a couple of days. Let's keep this then. --- Keep OpenAlex took the last available dump of MAG and has published it as an open database, and will continue maintaining the data, see .  There's also discussion how to migrate the identifier values: OpenAlex IDs are same as MAG ID, but with a prefix letter indicating the kind of item (Author, Institution, Venue, Work, Concept).  So we need to keep it until it's migrated.  -- ( ) It's wonderful to have a new project distributing the data, but there are two problems: (1) I anticipate major data discrepancies. Having the old data is not sufficient to continue producing the same data. The OpenAlex project needs the exact same program Microsoft used for identifying authors, institutions, etc. (2) If OpenAlex simply visualizes the Microsoft Academic data until 2021, it is fine to redirect the Microsoft Academic ID to OpenAlex. Otherwise, it is misleading to use the Microsoft brand for another project. As I checked the official website, OpenAlex uses different sources including Microsoft Academic. The purpose of the present proposal is to avoid misleading over the dead project of Microsoft Academic Graph. ( ) It's wonderful to have a new project distributing the data, but there are two problems: (1) I anticipate major data discrepancies. Having the old data is not sufficient to continue producing the same data. The OpenAlex project needs the exact same program Microsoft used for identifying authors, institutions, etc. (2) If OpenAlex simply visualizes the Microsoft Academic data until 2021, it is fine to redirect the Microsoft Academic ID to OpenAlex. Otherwise, it is misleading to use the Microsoft brand for another project. As I checked the official website, OpenAlex uses different sources including Microsoft Academic. The purpose of the present proposal is to avoid misleading over the dead project of Microsoft Academic Graph. ( ) Keep no reason to delete. maybe a mirror will be stood up using the dump. even without a mirror it's fine to keep. ( ) Keep until the question around OpenAlex (or other mirrors) is resolved. As long as the data is useful (to someone) it should not be deleted. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Familypedia_person_ID_(P4193):   No consensus to delete at this time — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete at this time — Martin ( · ) Delete Just once parameters migrations are done.  -- ( ) All identifiers could be replaced by , but the as for any other identifier, it can helpful to have a distinct property for this. It doesn't really matter if the database/website is currently hosted at Wikia or elsewhere. In any case, don't use or in addition to . --- Delete Per nomination.  The Property is very redundant.  Current uses should be migrated.  – Comment In use at at the English Wikipedia.  Please discuss at the first.  -- ( ) Comment In use at at the English Wikipedia. Please discuss at the first. -- ( ) Keep per above.  --- Keep per above. No need to delete the property, as Jura explained it is not ""redundant"" it is simply specific. -- ( ) Keep per Jura1 -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Argentinian_Historic_Heritage_ID_(P4587):   No consensus - a fine balance between ""not worth keeping"" and ""might be useful one day"" — Martin ( · ) No consensus - a fine balance between ""not worth keeping"" and ""might be useful one day"" — Martin ( · ) Keep and mark as historic.  If it was used a lot I would say mark as historic, but I see it's used less than 50 times so in this case it's not really worth the effort to keep it around.  @ : what's the replacement for Argentina?  Looking in the I see links, but these go nowhere.  ( ) Nothing.  It was really kind of a test, i did not see the property request in time to vote negative.  They do not have a URI or unique ID for them, not even in physical paper.  From my position in WMAR, and as a museology student in the school that depend on the National Commission of Monuments, already advised them in better practices and the uses of URIs. .but there is no budget.  ( ) Nothing.  It was really kind of a test, i did not see the property request in time to vote negative.  They do not have a URI or unique ID for them, not even in physical paper.  From my position in WMAR, and as a museology student in the school that depend on the National Commission of Monuments, already advised them in better practices and the uses of URIs. .but there is no budget.  ( ) Delete Since no archive.org archives available for em.  -- ( ) Keep shutdown of other site is no reason for deletion of information from own site. ( ) @ : says ""If there is no archived version mark for deletion with ""obsolete Wikidata property"""", so do you have any archive places of this? If not, then shutted down is just a valid reason to delete this. -- ( ) @ : says ""If there is no archived version mark for deletion with ""obsolete Wikidata property"""", so do you have any archive places of this?  If not, then shutted down is just a valid reason to delete this.  -- ( ) It's hardly used, otherwise I'd keep it. --- Delete Neither archives nor replacements available.  -- Keep . How can we be sure the data isn't available somewhere (there are archives other than archive.org) and this wouldn't be eventually useful? Just add a notice that it's historical. ( ) Keep , as some of the links from monumentos.culturagob.ar are still accessible through the Wayback machine. See e.g. . -- ( ) Keep Keep and mark as historic.  -- ( ) Delete per the above. ( ) Delete with less than 50 entries this is not crucial data to keep. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P5330_(P5330):   Consensus to migrate data to then delete — Martin ( · ) Consensus to migrate data to then delete — Martin ( · ) Delete after data migration.  Keep The general property explicitly says ""use subproperties where available"" and has constraints that conflict with their use.  No apparent benefit to generalisation over specificity so data migration would just be makework.  ( ) Delete I agree with GZWDer and Andy, not need to have a special property and delete after migration.  ( ) Delete The specific property (P5330) is largely redundant to the general property (P5606).  An argument could be made that the general property should be deleted instead and replaced with specific properties for each network, but here the relationship with the network can be inferred from the station category items, so including the network as part of the property is functionally unnecessary.  ( ) Delete Per above, unlike station codes and line numbers where both may triage URL schemes, linking to these items for ranking of stations are good enough.  -- ( ) Additionally, should we redesign the {{ |Railways}} to be {{ |Taxonomy}} like? -- ( ) Additionally, should we redesign the {{ |Railways}} to be {{ |Taxonomy}} like?  -- ( ) Keep per description of P5606: ""Use subproperties where available"" ( ) @ , : If there's no URL schemes for ""subproperties"" available, then there are entirely no reason to have subproperties, we can merge them back to this one now. -- ( ) @ : If you think a property needs to be merged then what you need to do is get consensus to merge it, not nominate it for deletion.  My recommendation to keep this stands.  ( ) @ , : If there's no URL schemes for ""subproperties"" available, then there are entirely no reason to have subproperties, we can merge them back to this one now.  -- ( ) @ : If you think a property needs to be merged then what you need to do is get consensus to merge it, not nominate it for deletion. My recommendation to keep this stands. ( ) @ : If you think a property needs to be merged then what you need to do is get consensus to merge it, not nominate it for deletion. My recommendation to keep this stands. ( ) @ : Hmm, is there be possible to merge two or more properties without deleting? -- ( ) @ : Hmm, is there be possible to merge two or more properties without deleting?  -- ( ) @ : Hmm, is there be possible to merge two or more properties without deleting? -- ( ) @ : Hmm, is there be possible to merge two or more properties without deleting?  -- ( ) Keep clear scope. Enables reports with @ :'s Krbot.  --- Delete replacement available, no need to create any subproperties for anything that don't affect URL schemes.  ForIvan_A._Krestinin'sbot, Ithink weshouldasktheproblem viatheirGithub?  -- Delete As values are only items, merge em back won't hurt anything. -- Delete No need to fragment data into multiple properties.  -- ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Roman_agnomen_(P2366):   No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) Delete yeah, it is probably too precise to be helpful.  -- ( ) Comment This is part of a series of properties for Roman nomen: , , , . Obviously, not all are used with equal frequency and they could all be seen as subproperties of a ""Roman name part"" property. Depending on the use, one can query one or several of these properties. That they are generally single valued allows to determine easily if they are present or not (or if others are missing, e.g. cognomen is present, but not praenomen). The question is if P2366 would misidentify names as agnomen or not. That the property could have the alias ""additional Cognomina"" or ""Roman name part 4* doesn't require it to be merged with the other properties. As mentioned, one can query one or several properties together. That terminology varies isn't really a reason not to use any of it. --- Keep It is very helpful in cases where a name is derived from adoption or similar.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P6893_(P6893):   Delete — Martin ( · ) Delete — Martin ( · ) @ : I agree the ID number is more useful.  I suggest you propose a new property using the ID number you mention, and perhaps people can help convert the data?  — Martin ( · ) @ , , : you supported/proposed this property.  Would you like to comment?  — Martin ( · ) Numerical is always better, I'm all for making the change 👍 ( ) Only composer/producer ID are nummeric and it's different than performer ID so we could have two separate ID's.  ( ) @ : Could you give an example for a composer ID and performer ID?  I only find person- $1 .  Greetings ( ) Indeed it looks that way, one is for the composer role and the other for the role of recording artist.  I'll have to retract my support of deletion until *we can figure out what the hell is going on* :) ( ) @ , , : you supported/proposed this property.  Would you like to comment?  — Martin ( · ) Numerical is always better, I'm all for making the change 👍 ( ) Only composer/producer ID are nummeric and it's different than performer ID so we could have two separate ID's.  ( ) @ : Could you give an example for a composer ID and performer ID?  I only find person- $1 .  Greetings ( ) Indeed it looks that way, one is for the composer role and the other for the role of recording artist.  I'll have to retract my support of deletion until *we can figure out what the hell is going on* :) ( ) Numerical is always better, I'm all for making the change 👍 ( ) Only composer/producer ID are nummeric and it's different than performer ID so we could have two separate ID's.  ( ) @ : Could you give an example for a composer ID and performer ID?  I only find person- $1 .  Greetings ( ) Indeed it looks that way, one is for the composer role and the other for the role of recording artist.  I'll have to retract my support of deletion until *we can figure out what the hell is going on* :) ( ) Only composer/producer ID are nummeric and it's different than performer ID so we could have two separate ID's.  ( ) @ : Could you give an example for a composer ID and performer ID?  I only find person- $1 .  Greetings ( ) Indeed it looks that way, one is for the composer role and the other for the role of recording artist.  I'll have to retract my support of deletion until *we can figure out what the hell is going on* :) ( ) @ : Could you give an example for a composer ID and performer ID?  I only find person- $1 .  Greetings ( ) Indeed it looks that way, one is for the composer role and the other for the role of recording artist.  I'll have to retract my support of deletion until *we can figure out what the hell is going on* :) ( ) @ : would you be able to start a property proposal for the numeric ID?  Then we can revisit this deletion discussion once the data has been migrated.  — Martin ( · ) @ : A property proposal is already running here: .  Greetings ( ) That's great.  @ : would you mind commenting at the property proposal?  — Martin ( · ) Property has been created — Martin ( · ) @ : A property proposal is already running here: .  Greetings ( ) That's great.  @ : would you mind commenting at the property proposal?  — Martin ( · ) Property has been created — Martin ( · ) That's great.  @ : would you mind commenting at the property proposal?  — Martin ( · ) Property has been created — Martin ( · ) Property has been created — Martin ( · ) Perfect, I will replace P6893, so that it can be deleted soon.  ( ) @ : where are we with the data migration to ?  — Martin ( · ) .  I'm working on it by automatic import but I'm not sure if I find all the IDs for the rest.  Many IDs are for actors or actress and didn't compose anything.  ( ) @ : where are we with the data migration to ?  — Martin ( · ) .  I'm working on it by automatic import but I'm not sure if I find all the IDs for the rest.  Many IDs are for actors or actress and didn't compose anything.  ( ) ###Output: "
+no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P10809:   Don't need to delete ( ) Don't need to delete ( ) Seems use of this property have started in some qualifyers.  No longer asking deletion.  ● ● ###Output: "
+no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P11650:   Don't need to delete.  ( ) Don't need to delete.  ( ) Accidentally created before one-week period ( ) Withdrawn , I misread the date of proposal.  — ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Unknown Title:   Deleted ( ) Deleted ( )            Delete ― ( ) Delete ― I agree that the one use on was erroneous, so I removed that claim.  I do not see how would apply there, so I did not add that.  ― ( ) Delete ― ( ) Convert and delete ― → and → are the remaining usages.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  P10613_(P10613):   Deleted ( ) Deleted ( ) @ , : (proposer and creator); @ , , , , :, @ , , , , , : who commented on the deletion discussion; @ , : who I also discussed this with.  ( ) Delete bad quality to start with (junk), questionably if it should even in the first place.  2 out of 5 examples deleted.  Used less than 100 times.  This property is not making Wikidata a better place.  Not something to waste any more time on.  ( ) Comment notifying the top 5 users of this property @ , , , , : (according to ).  Cheers, ( ) Oppose partially covered by archive.org.  also and probably others.  not hurting anything.  ( ) Delete Yeah, if it's used less than 100 times and 80+%-ish are bad links already maybe there's not much point.  Yes we could add the archive.org link but what does that add, really?  ( ) Delete This site was a SEO spam magnet.  Adding archive.org links does not add anything of value.  -- ( ) Delete I agree with the deletion proposal.  –– ( ) Delete RIP in peace.  – Delete ( ) Delete ( ) ###Output: "
+keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P6096:   Keep -- ( ) Keep -- ( ) @ : could you elaborate on why this property was created without addressing 's concern?  — (he/him · ) @ : since it was marked as a ""comment"" and not as an ""oppose"" I probably did not see it as being a blocker.  By the way, I would recommend restoring the state of the property proposal page: someone removed the comments there about the property being created, which gives a rather confusing log I would say… I would recommend restoring the page in its previous state.  − ( ) I see that not much has changed since this request.  I did not oppose creation and I can live with the property in its current state.  -- ( ) P.S. I repaired the vandalized proposal page. -- ( ) @ : since it was marked as a ""comment"" and not as an ""oppose"" I probably did not see it as being a blocker.  By the way, I would recommend restoring the state of the property proposal page: someone removed the comments there about the property being created, which gives a rather confusing log I would say… I would recommend restoring the page in its previous state.  − ( ) I see that not much has changed since this request.  I did not oppose creation and I can live with the property in its current state.  -- ( ) P.S. I repaired the vandalized proposal page. -- ( ) I see that not much has changed since this request.  I did not oppose creation and I can live with the property in its current state.  -- ( ) P.S. I repaired the vandalized proposal page. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Unknown Title:   Done (thanks @ :!) @ , , : ( ) Done (thanks @ :!) @ , , : ( ) This has currently 1057 uses as main statements.  --- Also seems to be based on this. --- This has currently 1057 uses as main statements.  --- Also seems to be based on this. --- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Notified , ( ) Notified — ( ) There are still 1100+ statements.  @ : do you know if all data has been migrated to ?  — Martin ( · ) Ping with new username @ : — Martin ( · ) @ No, the data has not been migrated.  Therefore, a special bot is needed here to transfer all identifiers before deleting the property.  ( ) In the question was asked about how to map one to the other.  Can you provide any detail on this?  — Martin ( · ) @ With regards to this, the Bashkir Encyclopedia used to have two different versions with different pages.  Now there is one version with three languages - Russian, Bashkir and English.  ( ) Ping with new username @ : — Martin ( · ) @ No, the data has not been migrated.  Therefore, a special bot is needed here to transfer all identifiers before deleting the property.  ( ) In the question was asked about how to map one to the other.  Can you provide any detail on this?  — Martin ( · ) @ With regards to this, the Bashkir Encyclopedia used to have two different versions with different pages.  Now there is one version with three languages - Russian, Bashkir and English.  ( ) @ No, the data has not been migrated.  Therefore, a special bot is needed here to transfer all identifiers before deleting the property.  ( ) In the question was asked about how to map one to the other.  Can you provide any detail on this?  — Martin ( · ) @ With regards to this, the Bashkir Encyclopedia used to have two different versions with different pages.  Now there is one version with three languages - Russian, Bashkir and English.  ( ) In the question was asked about how to map one to the other.  Can you provide any detail on this?  — Martin ( · ) @ With regards to this, the Bashkir Encyclopedia used to have two different versions with different pages.  Now there is one version with three languages - Russian, Bashkir and English.  ( ) @ With regards to this, the Bashkir Encyclopedia used to have two different versions with different pages.  Now there is one version with three languages - Russian, Bashkir and English.  ( ) What is the problem?  If it's discountinued project just modify url with archived version to Wayback Archive to property or just update to new url if project was just moved.  Don't remove properties just becasuse they are unavailable - use archived version instead.  ( ) @ : There is no need to remove anything.  Just add link to archived versions to Wayback Machine in current ID with old name + add new ID with new name.  ( ) You're a bit late to the party.  Since all properties from the old version have already been moved to the new property and the old ones have been deleted.  I think that in this case there is no need to keep two (three) different properties for two versions of the same site, given that the material on the site itself has not changed.  The same articles now have a new sequential numeric system of identifiers, which required manual replacement.  And as I have already said in the discussion of the Bashkir version, I feel that no more than 10% of the articles have been preserved in the archive.  The Bashkir version is also almost done, having ~100 left.  ( ) @ In the near future I will finish analyzing the identifiers of the Bashkir version and from this it will be possible to raise the question of the final removal of properties.  ( ) @ : I have already prepared the lists for making quick replacements: - old bashkir ids list with titles + Qitems - new bash ids with titles + alt titles + descriptions So it just needs some gradual work to find titles and update ids on WD.  ( ) You're a bit late to the party.  Since all properties from the old version have already been moved to the new property and the old ones have been deleted.  I think that in this case there is no need to keep two (three) different properties for two versions of the same site, given that the material on the site itself has not changed.  The same articles now have a new sequential numeric system of identifiers, which required manual replacement.  And as I have already said in the discussion of the Bashkir version, I feel that no more than 10% of the articles have been preserved in the archive.  The Bashkir version is also almost done, having ~100 left.  ( ) @ In the near future I will finish analyzing the identifiers of the Bashkir version and from this it will be possible to raise the question of the final removal of properties.  ( ) @ : I have already prepared the lists for making quick replacements: - old bashkir ids list with titles + Qitems - new bash ids with titles + alt titles + descriptions So it just needs some gradual work to find titles and update ids on WD.  ( ) @ In the near future I will finish analyzing the identifiers of the Bashkir version and from this it will be possible to raise the question of the final removal of properties.  ( ) @ : I have already prepared the lists for making quick replacements: - old bashkir ids list with titles + Qitems - new bash ids with titles + alt titles + descriptions So it just needs some gradual work to find titles and update ids on WD.  ( ) @ : I have already prepared the lists for making quick replacements: - old bashkir ids list with titles + Qitems - new bash ids with titles + alt titles + descriptions - old bashkir ids list with titles + Qitems - new bash ids with titles + alt titles + descriptions So it just needs some gradual work to find titles and update ids on WD.  ( ) Remove , as ids have been fully transferred to the new property.  ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P8981:   Delete and replace with ( ) Delete and replace with ( ) Delete per nom.  Furthermore, it seems that the only support the proposal received was from editors that the nominator blatantly canvassed.  And that proposal was only made after was rejected with only a single supporter.  The objectors on the original proposal were not pinged when the second one was made; and neither were the relevant projects (who were pinged for the first proposal).  Keep See above on Martian coordinates.  I don't recall any of the details Andy mentions, but really, property proposals are announced every week in the newsletter, is pinging so critical?  ( ) Also see my reply at .  Looking back at the newsletter, this was buried amongst other proposals and was very easy to miss (I completely missed it).  Thanks.  ( ) All of the details I mentioned are gleanable from the pages mentioned, which is where I found them on the 24th.  The issue in this case was the partisan pinging.  Also see my reply at .  Looking back at the newsletter, this was buried amongst other proposals and was very easy to miss (I completely missed it).  Thanks.  ( ) All of the details I mentioned are gleanable from the pages mentioned, which is where I found them on the 24th.  The issue in this case was the partisan pinging.  Delete .  With the creation of Bamyer's globe tool (see discussion at ) and a bot being created to convert incorrect uses of (see ), there is no need for this property or anymore.  Ok, no longer voting to keep.  Fine if it's deleted with the coordinates moved to P625.  ( ) Thanks for closing it.  I should be able to migrate values over soon.  Thanks.  ( ) @ : reminder ^ ( ) @ : As I said at , this is currently stuck as I don't have an easy way to migrate them while keeping the reference.  Thanks.  ( ) @ : reminder ^ ( ) @ : As I said at , this is currently stuck as I don't have an easy way to migrate them while keeping the reference.  Thanks.  ( ) @ : As I said at , this is currently stuck as I don't have an easy way to migrate them while keeping the reference.  Thanks.  ( ) @ , : Manual replacement has been completed.  Sourced from .  -- ( ) Done -- ( ) Done -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P5176:   Delete because it's unused.  ❪ ❫ Done -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P10861:   Delete -- ( ) Delete Not usable. -- Delete Not usable.  -- Done Clear consensus for deletion, not usable -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P12778:   Uncontested deletion of a duplicate property, closing as delete .  The 4 affected statements have been moved.  -- ( ) Uncontested deletion of a duplicate property, closing as delete . The 4 affected statements have been moved. -- ( ) Delete pretty clear this should be deleted I think.  ( ) ###Output: "
+keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Property:P2263:   @ , what do you (as the proposer) think about the further usage of this property?  ( ) @ I should have checked the wayback machine first before writting this deletion proposal.  In this case, if it's not against Wikidata's policy I'm for keeping the property and adding "" "" at the beginning of the formatter URL -- ( ) Does that make sense? The data in the Wayback Machine will eventually be outdated, for example the number of seats per room. Images are not available. New cinemas will not be added, closed cinemas will not be identified as such. I see that it was a lot of work to add the identifiers, but as the website is offline and it does not look like it will come back again, I assume that the deletion will be the best solution, unfortunately. ( ) @ As historical data for someone wanting to write an article about one of those cinemas that might be still useful as a source. ( ) This is a good point, I don't personally see what good it does to delete the property if archived links are avalable. ( ) Keep historic data can be useful. ❪ ❫ @ As historical data for someone wanting to write an article about one of those cinemas that might be still useful as a source. ( ) This is a good point, I don't personally see what good it does to delete the property if archived links are avalable. ( ) Keep historic data can be useful. ❪ ❫ This is a good point, I don't personally see what good it does to delete the property if archived links are avalable. ( ) Keep historic data can be useful. ❪ ❫ Keep historic data can be useful. ❪ ❫ Not done No consensus for deletion, formatter URL is now using archived versions. -- ( ) ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Unknown Title:   Delete - ( ) Done : Consensus for deletion due to unclear use of this property.  Could be undeleted if someone has an idea of how this property should be used.  -- ###Output: "
+deleted,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Unknown Title:     Support deletion Support deletion ( ) Support i haven't checked wikidata much this year but clearly i'm for this as I brought it up in the first place lol ( ) Deleted clear concenous, deleted per nom.  -- ###Output: "