diff --git "a/en/label_masked/wikidata_properties/train.csv" "b/en/label_masked/wikidata_properties/train.csv" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/en/label_masked/wikidata_properties/train.csv" @@ -0,0 +1,352 @@ +text,outcome +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P107: Some users (like me) supported this property as a kind of ready-made high-level classification. However, because of quirks in the GND system, and because of our particular Wikipedia-related needs, it does not work well at all. For instance, families are classified as ""person"", or Wikipedia category pages are not part of the system. Currently, this property currently uses items like , but it is wrong: GND do not define person exactly the same way as usual person, and should thus use of separate item. There seems to be consensus on that. That means bots have to do a massive cleanup, and so the current wide use of this property should have have too much weight in the decision. Currently, the main use of the property in to classify people as ""person"". THe property can do that as well. If there the GND classification scheme is useful, we can use it in full. There is no need to restrict to ""main types"". That would be a 3-letter string. The first one defines the ""main type"". That means that we could easily move all current P107 to the new property without any loss of information. The new system would make it clearer that the GND type is a controlled vocabulary with its own way of doing things, and that we should not always rely on common word usage there. -- ( ) Delete completely. We can and should use ""instance of"" or ""subclass of"" as necessary to define an item, and for actual items defined by the GND, switch to use the claim . There's no reason to document their database on top of ours. While the property was probably a good one for the purposes of ""getting our feet under us"", I think its use has passed. (On top of which, there are far too many wasted bytes on discussion related to the property.) -- ( ) I think it's good to have a property that allows some basic sorting for all items. I don't actually care if this is GND or not. With anything basic, eventually you will have items that aren't easy to comprehend and might not matter that much as they are better sorted through other properties. -- at On that point, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. From one point of view, everything via subclass of or instance of will be traceable to that ""basic sorting"". A second point of view, closely aligned with the first, is that it shows no real relationship. Something is a ""term""; great! That... doesn't actually tell me what it is. From an opposing point of view, something like might be chaotic instead. Just musing; I guess I more disagree in that no, not everything needs that ""basic"" element of organization. -- ( ) Certainly though, I think you'd agree that P107 doesn't do the job it needs to do, and is certainly more of a job than it needs to do. -- ( ) I think it does. It already allows consistent identification of ""persons"" which are sorted into male/female/etc. That you could build multi-parameter queries that eventually might achieve the same seems very ambitious and not likely to happen soon. Even ""term"" helps as it tells you that an item is not about a person . . -- at I think it's good to have a property that allows some basic sorting for all items. I don't actually care if this is GND or not. With anything basic, eventually you will have items that aren't easy to comprehend and might not matter that much as they are better sorted through other properties. -- at On that point, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. From one point of view, everything via subclass of or instance of will be traceable to that ""basic sorting"". A second point of view, closely aligned with the first, is that it shows no real relationship. Something is a ""term""; great! That... doesn't actually tell me what it is. From an opposing point of view, something like might be chaotic instead. Just musing; I guess I more disagree in that no, not everything needs that ""basic"" element of organization. -- ( ) Certainly though, I think you'd agree that P107 doesn't do the job it needs to do, and is certainly more of a job than it needs to do. -- ( ) I think it does. It already allows consistent identification of ""persons"" which are sorted into male/female/etc. That you could build multi-parameter queries that eventually might achieve the same seems very ambitious and not likely to happen soon. Even ""term"" helps as it tells you that an item is not about a person . . -- at On that point, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. From one point of view, everything via subclass of or instance of will be traceable to that ""basic sorting"". A second point of view, closely aligned with the first, is that it shows no real relationship. Something is a ""term""; great! That... doesn't actually tell me what it is. From an opposing point of view, something like might be chaotic instead. Just musing; I guess I more disagree in that no, not everything needs that ""basic"" element of organization. -- ( ) Certainly though, I think you'd agree that P107 doesn't do the job it needs to do, and is certainly more of a job than it needs to do. -- ( ) I think it does. It already allows consistent identification of ""persons"" which are sorted into male/female/etc. That you could build multi-parameter queries that eventually might achieve the same seems very ambitious and not likely to happen soon. Even ""term"" helps as it tells you that an item is not about a person . . -- at I think it does. It already allows consistent identification of ""persons"" which are sorted into male/female/etc. That you could build multi-parameter queries that eventually might achieve the same seems very ambitious and not likely to happen soon. Even ""term"" helps as it tells you that an item is not about a person . . -- at One of the main problems with P107 is that it actually does not allow consistent identification of ""persons"". If you see a P107 value (i.e. GND main type) of ""person"", the item could be a person, or it could be a , , , , or a . All of those items that are clearly not persons are captured by the P107 value ""person"". ( ) One of the main problems with P107 is that it actually does not allow consistent identification of ""persons"". If you see a P107 value (i.e. GND main type) of ""person"", the item could be a person, or it could be a , , , , or a . All of those items that are clearly not persons are captured by the P107 value ""person"". ( ) One of the main problems with P107 is that it actually does not allow consistent identification of ""persons"". If you see a P107 value (i.e. GND main type) of ""person"", the item could be a person, or it could be a , , , , or a . All of those items that are clearly not persons are captured by the P107 value ""person"". ( ) One of the main problems with P107 is that it actually does not allow consistent identification of ""persons"". If you see a P107 value (i.e. GND main type) of ""person"", the item could be a person, or it could be a , , , , or a . All of those items that are clearly not persons are captured by the P107 value ""person"". ( ) One of the main problems with P107 is that it actually does not allow consistent identification of ""persons"". If you see a P107 value (i.e. GND main type) of ""person"", the item could be a person, or it could be a , , , , or a . All of those items that are clearly not persons are captured by the P107 value ""person"". ( ) Oppose P107 is the most popular property: Used nearly 1 million times ( ). It has a clear function and a defined vocabulary ( ). It is used by authority templates in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. (BTW: Two weeks ago I've started a discussion if P107 should have separate properties items, .) -- ( ) Oppose This is an important property for its use in Authority control. It might have been overused into sections where it's not relevant, but at least in the Typ = P, case it's extremely useful. I have already created a bot proposal, with a lot of support to import lots of Authority control data, including P107, . It's close to completion, and will make P107 seem less lonely at the only current Authority control property as it adds, VIAF, LCCN, BNF, and ISNI data along side of it. We don't have to use GND where it doesn't make sense, and I don't think that every wikidata item should have a GND property, but it is relevant and appropriate for a lot of pages. ( ) None of which needs this claim to exist. The GND identification number is more than enough for this task. Anything else we can use for our own, homegrown categorization scheme. From where I sit, that revolves around instance of/subclass of. -- ( ) I'm going to agree with Izno here. The rationale seems to be comparing apples and oranges: are all simply authority identifiers; this property is not an authority identifier. The function details at make no mention of this property: "" Find transclusions of the Deutsche Template Vorlage:Normdaten and English Template Template:Authority control, search for the VIAF template parameter, and if there's no disagreement, write the Property:VIAF (approved, waiting for StringValue) to the Wikidata item, following the enwiki Wikidata interlanguage link. If consensus allows, there's possibility to also Populate the Property:ISNI (approved, waiting for StringValue simulataenously as for ~90% of ISNIs, there is a one-to-one correspondence. "" And makes no mention of this property. Did the folks who supported the approval of VIAFbot know they were supporting this feature? ( ) None of which needs this claim to exist. The GND identification number is more than enough for this task. Anything else we can use for our own, homegrown categorization scheme. From where I sit, that revolves around instance of/subclass of. -- ( ) I'm going to agree with Izno here. The rationale seems to be comparing apples and oranges: are all simply authority identifiers; this property is not an authority identifier. The function details at make no mention of this property: "" Find transclusions of the Deutsche Template Vorlage:Normdaten and English Template Template:Authority control, search for the VIAF template parameter, and if there's no disagreement, write the Property:VIAF (approved, waiting for StringValue) to the Wikidata item, following the enwiki Wikidata interlanguage link. If consensus allows, there's possibility to also Populate the Property:ISNI (approved, waiting for StringValue simulataenously as for ~90% of ISNIs, there is a one-to-one correspondence. "" And makes no mention of this property. Did the folks who supported the approval of VIAFbot know they were supporting this feature? ( ) Support P107 has several major problems that make it an apt candidate for deletion, or at least strong deprecation. With this property: Any item that is not a person, place, event, organization or work is classified as a ""term"", which conveys no information. We need to be able to classify things like , , , , , , , and as more than simply ""terms"". One sixth of this property is kruft. The nature of P107 implies that the property is only for the highest level of classification, and that additional properties would be needed for each level in the hierarchy of classification for lower-level types. This would entail lots of unnecessary work to create and update classifications. For example, want to specifically classify ? If this property persists, then you'll need to add something to the effect of ""main type: Place"" and ""subtype: Administrative unit"". The problem gets drastically worse for subjects with more levels of classification, like organisms, instruments, molecules, diseases, towns, etc. , , , , and are called persons. The standard response to this glaring problem is ""'person' is meant to generalize, don't take the term literally"". That is not a sufficient solution. Really, the GND main type ""person"" means ""any instance of an anthropomorphic thing, or a pen name, or a group of such instances."" This stretches the definition of ""person"" well beyond recognition, which will perennially confuse Wikidata users (and rightly so). Not even the GND directly uses GND main types. GND main types (or ""high level entities"") are treated as internal details, and hidden from both human and machine users in favor of more specific types. For example, the ""type"" (German: 'Typ') parameter for the GND entry on has the values (territorial corporate body or administrative unit) and (country) -- these classes are both derived from (i.e. more specific than) the GND main type (place or geographic name). If the GND thought GND main types made sense to apply to items, then you would expect to see 'Nauru' with a ""type"" of ""g"" (place or geographic name) -- but that's not the case. I would invite anyone who opposes the deletion of this property to address these issues point by point, specifically. Feel free to leave comments immediately below the relevant point above, or however works best. ( ) Well, your fight against this property is legendary, but I can't see any new arguments. Just take for example topic 4: ""Not even the GND directly uses GND main types."" One click proves that this statement is false: Barack Obama, Type ""Person"". Peter Gast, Type ""Name"" (= disambiguation). -- ( ) Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted in . To reiterate: the 'Typ' parameter value used in that entry is not ""p"", it is ""piz"". , which means a class's status as a GND main type is an internal detail that the GND ontology intentionally obscures. The Barack Obama entry is an example of the GND hiding the fact that ""person"" is a main type; it is using ""person"" in the same exact way it uses the dozens of other classes listed in the 'Classes Overview' section at the top of . This indicates that the GND senses that the GND main types are not appropriate to use as they are with P107. ( ) Any item that is not a person, place, event, organization or work is classified as a ""term"", which conveys no information. We need to be able to classify things like , , , , , , , and as more than simply ""terms"". One sixth of this property is kruft. The nature of P107 implies that the property is only for the highest level of classification, and that additional properties would be needed for each level in the hierarchy of classification for lower-level types. This would entail lots of unnecessary work to create and update classifications. For example, want to specifically classify ? If this property persists, then you'll need to add something to the effect of ""main type: Place"" and ""subtype: Administrative unit"". The problem gets drastically worse for subjects with more levels of classification, like organisms, instruments, molecules, diseases, towns, etc. , , , , and are called persons. The standard response to this glaring problem is ""'person' is meant to generalize, don't take the term literally"". That is not a sufficient solution. Really, the GND main type ""person"" means ""any instance of an anthropomorphic thing, or a pen name, or a group of such instances."" This stretches the definition of ""person"" well beyond recognition, which will perennially confuse Wikidata users (and rightly so). Not even the GND directly uses GND main types. GND main types (or ""high level entities"") are treated as internal details, and hidden from both human and machine users in favor of more specific types. For example, the ""type"" (German: 'Typ') parameter for the GND entry on has the values (territorial corporate body or administrative unit) and (country) -- these classes are both derived from (i.e. more specific than) the GND main type (place or geographic name). If the GND thought GND main types made sense to apply to items, then you would expect to see 'Nauru' with a ""type"" of ""g"" (place or geographic name) -- but that's not the case. I would invite anyone who opposes the deletion of this property to address these issues point by point, specifically. Feel free to leave comments immediately below the relevant point above, or however works best. ( ) Well, your fight against this property is legendary, but I can't see any new arguments. Just take for example topic 4: ""Not even the GND directly uses GND main types."" One click proves that this statement is false: Barack Obama, Type ""Person"". Peter Gast, Type ""Name"" (= disambiguation). -- ( ) Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted in . To reiterate: the 'Typ' parameter value used in that entry is not ""p"", it is ""piz"". , which means a class's status as a GND main type is an internal detail that the GND ontology intentionally obscures. The Barack Obama entry is an example of the GND hiding the fact that ""person"" is a main type; it is using ""person"" in the same exact way it uses the dozens of other classes listed in the 'Classes Overview' section at the top of . This indicates that the GND senses that the GND main types are not appropriate to use as they are with P107. ( ) Well, your fight against this property is legendary, but I can't see any new arguments. Just take for example topic 4: ""Not even the GND directly uses GND main types."" One click proves that this statement is false: Barack Obama, Type ""Person"". Peter Gast, Type ""Name"" (= disambiguation). -- ( ) Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted in . To reiterate: the 'Typ' parameter value used in that entry is not ""p"", it is ""piz"". , which means a class's status as a GND main type is an internal detail that the GND ontology intentionally obscures. The Barack Obama entry is an example of the GND hiding the fact that ""person"" is a main type; it is using ""person"" in the same exact way it uses the dozens of other classes listed in the 'Classes Overview' section at the top of . This indicates that the GND senses that the GND main types are not appropriate to use as they are with P107. ( ) Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted in . To reiterate: the 'Typ' parameter value used in that entry is not ""p"", it is ""piz"". , which means a class's status as a GND main type is an internal detail that the GND ontology intentionally obscures. The Barack Obama entry is an example of the GND hiding the fact that ""person"" is a main type; it is using ""person"" in the same exact way it uses the dozens of other classes listed in the 'Classes Overview' section at the top of . This indicates that the GND senses that the GND main types are not appropriate to use as they are with P107. ( ) Oppose five of the six main types are a help. It is only ""term"" that doesn´t work. For example, we may have a million items of animals and plants and therefore we should increase the number of ""main types"". -- ( ) Comment We could add a type for species if we want to import but then we would have a general discussion why we create this type and not others. In the end we would have an unfinished classification system that is redundant to other generic properties. -- ( ) Comment We could add a type for species if we want to import but then we would have a general discussion why we create this type and not others. In the end we would have an unfinished classification system that is redundant to other generic properties. -- ( ) In the end Wikipedia/Wikidata is no library. There are no books about single species or stars and therefore libraries stick them all in one basket called term. By the way, ""event"" is difficult too, because ""historic events"" are no events, but ""term"". A sports event from 1930 is a ""term"" and one from 2010 an ""event""? That is strange. -- ( ) 13:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe ""event"" is a new main type and they didn´t want to relabel their old books. Manpower is always short in libraries. -- ( ) I would also tend to think that it could be useful to have a very general property that would help sort out items in a very general way. But as you point out, we would need more types, and also, I think, redefining some GND types. That would not be the GND main type anymore, rather a different property. -- ( ) In the end Wikipedia/Wikidata is no library. There are no books about single species or stars and therefore libraries stick them all in one basket called term. By the way, ""event"" is difficult too, because ""historic events"" are no events, but ""term"". A sports event from 1930 is a ""term"" and one from 2010 an ""event""? That is strange. -- ( ) 13:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe ""event"" is a new main type and they didn´t want to relabel their old books. Manpower is always short in libraries. -- ( ) I would also tend to think that it could be useful to have a very general property that would help sort out items in a very general way. But as you point out, we would need more types, and also, I think, redefining some GND types. That would not be the GND main type anymore, rather a different property. -- ( ) In the end Wikipedia/Wikidata is no library. There are no books about single species or stars and therefore libraries stick them all in one basket called term. By the way, ""event"" is difficult too, because ""historic events"" are no events, but ""term"". A sports event from 1930 is a ""term"" and one from 2010 an ""event""? That is strange. -- ( ) 13:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe ""event"" is a new main type and they didn´t want to relabel their old books. Manpower is always short in libraries. -- ( ) I would also tend to think that it could be useful to have a very general property that would help sort out items in a very general way. But as you point out, we would need more types, and also, I think, redefining some GND types. That would not be the GND main type anymore, rather a different property. -- ( ) I would also tend to think that it could be useful to have a very general property that would help sort out items in a very general way. But as you point out, we would need more types, and also, I think, redefining some GND types. That would not be the GND main type anymore, rather a different property. -- ( ) Oppose Maybe I don't understand all critics correctly, but I see no harm in leave this property be. Wikidata will probably use the richest set of identifiers for its entities, and this will both make Wikidata (and Wikipedias) richer and libraries aware of quirks, errors, and overlappings. They would be able to compare use of their IDs and maybe correct their system. Having us (wiki*dians) to help them is one of the best feature I can think of Wikidata, because of course this feedback to us again. We can put some stricter rules in the use of this property, but delete it seems to me overkill. Identifiers are not panacea, they are tools written by librarians in different contexts for slightly different purposes. Still, they are useful to integrate different cataloging systems. ( ) Comment , then I think you agree with my proposal: use the full GND system in a string property, instead of just the ""main type"" in an item property. -- ( ) To change this property form ""main type"" into a kind of GND-RDF-Schema has been proposed by Emw on 26 February 2013 (see ). I don't want to repeat the whole discussion but if you take a look at you will see that three letter code types like ""wie"" (use still unclear) or ""sip"" (products and brand names except type ""siw"") are no help for Wikidata. It would reverse the intentions of a basic property easy to use. -- ( ) If I understand Aubrey correctly, his point is that this property would help make the GND system better. For that, it would make sense to use the full GND system here, not just the main type. -- ( ) Comment , then I think you agree with my proposal: use the full GND system in a string property, instead of just the ""main type"" in an item property. -- ( ) To change this property form ""main type"" into a kind of GND-RDF-Schema has been proposed by Emw on 26 February 2013 (see ). I don't want to repeat the whole discussion but if you take a look at you will see that three letter code types like ""wie"" (use still unclear) or ""sip"" (products and brand names except type ""siw"") are no help for Wikidata. It would reverse the intentions of a basic property easy to use. -- ( ) If I understand Aubrey correctly, his point is that this property would help make the GND system better. For that, it would make sense to use the full GND system here, not just the main type. -- ( ) To change this property form ""main type"" into a kind of GND-RDF-Schema has been proposed by Emw on 26 February 2013 (see ). I don't want to repeat the whole discussion but if you take a look at you will see that three letter code types like ""wie"" (use still unclear) or ""sip"" (products and brand names except type ""siw"") are no help for Wikidata. It would reverse the intentions of a basic property easy to use. -- ( ) If I understand Aubrey correctly, his point is that this property would help make the GND system better. For that, it would make sense to use the full GND system here, not just the main type. -- ( ) If I understand Aubrey correctly, his point is that this property would help make the GND system better. For that, it would make sense to use the full GND system here, not just the main type. -- ( ) Oppose It´s usefull and a important system. -- ( ) Support : several conceptual problems as explained by , and ""instance of"" or ""subclass of"" are much more accurate. -- ( ) Comment the problem with calling it a ""useful"" or ""important"" is that ""instance of"" and ""subclass of"" can do the exact same things as this property. Where this property is used, one of those can say the exact same things , and that's without being tied to a system which is certainly flawed by its definitions (as explained by Emw). More importantly, we don't need to replicate an external database here by adding types and using types which duplicate that database's types . It is useful enough only to use the GND identification value, because a) that restricts it to those items which even have a GND type to begin with , and reduces the work we have in maintaining this site. Every single type we end up adding to the system ends up in some amount of work for us. This type has little benefit and several illustrated problems associated with it. I'm still not seeing arguments against those points. Eliminating the property forces people to associate Wikidata's database with the GND's database only where it is possible to associate it . -- ( ) Oppose per Maximilianklein & Kolja21. Oppose I love this property. It turns Wikidata into an international database. If you want to see the difference to ""instance of"" just turn your language code into ja or ru. -- ( ) Comment If the only thing internationalized we had to offer was ""person"" or ""event"", it would seem kind of pointless to me. Luckily many other things are already translated, and things should progress pretty fast. -- ( ) That's an odd reason to oppose this, because it's not a problem with this type but a problem with this being a wiki. (One of the problems being that this wiki does not have fallback languages installed, when it really should.) The deprecation of this property could (should) include a transfer of all of the claims where GND type is used and which are not already defined by instance of/subclass of into instance of/subclass of, as appropriate. -- ( ) Comment If the only thing internationalized we had to offer was ""person"" or ""event"", it would seem kind of pointless to me. Luckily many other things are already translated, and things should progress pretty fast. -- ( ) That's an odd reason to oppose this, because it's not a problem with this type but a problem with this being a wiki. (One of the problems being that this wiki does not have fallback languages installed, when it really should.) The deprecation of this property could (should) include a transfer of all of the claims where GND type is used and which are not already defined by instance of/subclass of into instance of/subclass of, as appropriate. -- ( ) Support . In present form (strictly 6 counter-intuitive values derived from one of the hundreds librarian systems) it is much less useful than ""homegrown categorization scheme"" (c) Izno. But due to some (accidental or not) reasons P:107 was accepted as a ""main type"" which distracted community powers from truly useful things. Another possible solution is to mark out this property from all rules, clean up from the items not mentioned at official site and switch values to String value. ( ) Oppose Even though this item may be vague (esp. with regards to ""term""), I can still think of several very useful applications of it. Since it's a system with a limited number of options, it makes it much easier to use this to weed out incorrect uses of other properties. Say item A with main type=person claims item B with main type=place. Then you can safely say that either item A has an incorrect claim, or item B has an incorrect main type. In either case it is something you can find out and fix easily (with the right tools). You simply can't do anything like that easily with , since it's an open system with endless possible values for items. And, yes, this main property is by no means perfect or even useful for Wikipedia articles, but as a maintenance tool it can be immensely useful. ( ) Comment I will build something like this in my tool. For example, the value of the designer-property should be a person or an organisation. And, we could build vandal-bots, that scan new statements in this way. -- ( ) Comment Jon, that's an interesting argument, but I think it's incorrect on two fronts. The central assertion seems to be that (P279) would make it much easier to weed out incorrect statements with the right tools, and that it would not be easy to do so with (P31). This argument would assert, for example, that it would not be easy to say that a statement like ""item A with instance of=person claims item B with instance of=monument"" is invalid. In fact, this sort of evaluation -- which would use with P31 -- is a core feature of querying in the Semantic Web. Since P31 is mapped to , queries can ""walk up the chain"" of hierarchy to get all instances of a certain class. So, the rough queries to get all items with such a statement with P279 and P31 would be very similar. With 'GND main type' (P279): SELECT ? item_a 'married to' ? item_b WHERE { ? item_a 'GND main type' 'person' . MINUS { ? item_b 'GND main type' 'person' } } With 'instance of' (P31): SELECT ? item_a 'married to' ? item_b WHERE { ? item_a 'instance of' 'person' . MINUS { ? item_b 'instance of' 'person' } } The difference is that with P31, you could say that item_a 'instance of' monument (and monument ' ' place) and item_b 'instance of' person -- whereas with P279, you can only say 'Eiffel Tower' GND main type 'place' and 'Tony Blair' GND main type 'person'. Also, I would dispute the more basic idea that a 'married by' claim (or any claim restricted to persons) is valid if both subjects have GND main type 'person', because as mentioned in my original list of arguments against this property, the GND main type person includes , , , , and . Is a claim that a person is married to a literary character valid, or that family is married to a family? ( ) Comment @Emw: If you want to improve the use of this property, it would be easy to create separate items, since you know this threat: . -- ( ) Sorry, I don't see how that relates to the points above. Are you proposing to change P107 from its current basis on the GND main types as defined in the to some (more reasonable) basis on custom-defined ""main"" types? If so, then I think that warrants considerably wider discussion. If not, then I think the major problems with this property's definition of ""person"" persist. Those problems include things like invalidating Jon Harald Søby's rationale for opposing this property's deletion, and the simple absurdity of considering families and literary figures to be persons. (Also, when you say ""threat"", do you mean "" "" or "" ""? They are very different. ""Threat"" is rather accusatory and ""thread"" is totally normal. Until your comment just above I thought your consistent usage of the word ""threat"" towards me over the past week or two was intended to have the word's actual meaning, but now I suspect that you very well might mean ""thread"".) ( ) A proposal: Since de:WP has several hundred thousands of GNDs a solution could be to create additional main types for Wikidata and the template in de:WP knows that the new main types will be translated to one of the GND-types. For example, there could be a new main-type called ""non-person"" which will be translated to ""person"" or ""astronomical object"" that will be translated to ""geographical feature"". -- ( ) Are you suggesting using (P227) instead of P107? This seems to be in line with Izno's comment below. If so, what would be done with this property? I think using GND identifier would be better than using GND main type, and I think it's an another argument to deprecate and then delete this property. ( ) P227 is a string-property. It is not usable as a main-type property. -- ( ) You are right. I will change my tool in such a way, that the user has the option to choose between GND-type and ""instance of"". You could ask ""User:Magnus Manske"", since he is the original author of my tool to change his tool too. You should know, that a lot of people are using his tool. -- ( ) Comment I will build something like this in my tool. For example, the value of the designer-property should be a person or an organisation. And, we could build vandal-bots, that scan new statements in this way. -- ( ) Comment Jon, that's an interesting argument, but I think it's incorrect on two fronts. The central assertion seems to be that (P279) would make it much easier to weed out incorrect statements with the right tools, and that it would not be easy to do so with (P31). This argument would assert, for example, that it would not be easy to say that a statement like ""item A with instance of=person claims item B with instance of=monument"" is invalid. In fact, this sort of evaluation -- which would use with P31 -- is a core feature of querying in the Semantic Web. Since P31 is mapped to , queries can ""walk up the chain"" of hierarchy to get all instances of a certain class. So, the rough queries to get all items with such a statement with P279 and P31 would be very similar. With 'GND main type' (P279): SELECT ? item_a 'married to' ? item_b WHERE { ? item_a 'GND main type' 'person' . MINUS { ? item_b 'GND main type' 'person' } } With 'instance of' (P31): SELECT ? item_a 'married to' ? item_b WHERE { ? item_a 'instance of' 'person' . MINUS { ? item_b 'instance of' 'person' } } With 'GND main type' (P279): SELECT ? item_a 'married to' ? item_b WHERE { ? item_a 'GND main type' 'person' . MINUS { ? item_b 'GND main type' 'person' } } With 'instance of' (P31): SELECT ? item_a 'married to' ? item_b WHERE { ? item_a 'instance of' 'person' . MINUS { ? item_b 'instance of' 'person' } } The difference is that with P31, you could say that item_a 'instance of' monument (and monument ' ' place) and item_b 'instance of' person -- whereas with P279, you can only say 'Eiffel Tower' GND main type 'place' and 'Tony Blair' GND main type 'person'. Also, I would dispute the more basic idea that a 'married by' claim (or any claim restricted to persons) is valid if both subjects have GND main type 'person', because as mentioned in my original list of arguments against this property, the GND main type person includes , , , , and . Is a claim that a person is married to a literary character valid, or that family is married to a family? ( ) Comment @Emw: If you want to improve the use of this property, it would be easy to create separate items, since you know this threat: . -- ( ) Sorry, I don't see how that relates to the points above. Are you proposing to change P107 from its current basis on the GND main types as defined in the to some (more reasonable) basis on custom-defined ""main"" types? If so, then I think that warrants considerably wider discussion. If not, then I think the major problems with this property's definition of ""person"" persist. Those problems include things like invalidating Jon Harald Søby's rationale for opposing this property's deletion, and the simple absurdity of considering families and literary figures to be persons. (Also, when you say ""threat"", do you mean "" "" or "" ""? They are very different. ""Threat"" is rather accusatory and ""thread"" is totally normal. Until your comment just above I thought your consistent usage of the word ""threat"" towards me over the past week or two was intended to have the word's actual meaning, but now I suspect that you very well might mean ""thread"".) ( ) A proposal: Since de:WP has several hundred thousands of GNDs a solution could be to create additional main types for Wikidata and the template in de:WP knows that the new main types will be translated to one of the GND-types. For example, there could be a new main-type called ""non-person"" which will be translated to ""person"" or ""astronomical object"" that will be translated to ""geographical feature"". -- ( ) Are you suggesting using (P227) instead of P107? This seems to be in line with Izno's comment below. If so, what would be done with this property? I think using GND identifier would be better than using GND main type, and I think it's an another argument to deprecate and then delete this property. ( ) P227 is a string-property. It is not usable as a main-type property. -- ( ) Sorry, I don't see how that relates to the points above. Are you proposing to change P107 from its current basis on the GND main types as defined in the to some (more reasonable) basis on custom-defined ""main"" types? If so, then I think that warrants considerably wider discussion. If not, then I think the major problems with this property's definition of ""person"" persist. Those problems include things like invalidating Jon Harald Søby's rationale for opposing this property's deletion, and the simple absurdity of considering families and literary figures to be persons. (Also, when you say ""threat"", do you mean "" "" or "" ""? They are very different. ""Threat"" is rather accusatory and ""thread"" is totally normal. Until your comment just above I thought your consistent usage of the word ""threat"" towards me over the past week or two was intended to have the word's actual meaning, but now I suspect that you very well might mean ""thread"".) ( ) A proposal: Since de:WP has several hundred thousands of GNDs a solution could be to create additional main types for Wikidata and the template in de:WP knows that the new main types will be translated to one of the GND-types. For example, there could be a new main-type called ""non-person"" which will be translated to ""person"" or ""astronomical object"" that will be translated to ""geographical feature"". -- ( ) Are you suggesting using (P227) instead of P107? This seems to be in line with Izno's comment below. If so, what would be done with this property? I think using GND identifier would be better than using GND main type, and I think it's an another argument to deprecate and then delete this property. ( ) P227 is a string-property. It is not usable as a main-type property. -- ( ) A proposal: Since de:WP has several hundred thousands of GNDs a solution could be to create additional main types for Wikidata and the template in de:WP knows that the new main types will be translated to one of the GND-types. For example, there could be a new main-type called ""non-person"" which will be translated to ""person"" or ""astronomical object"" that will be translated to ""geographical feature"". -- ( ) Are you suggesting using (P227) instead of P107? This seems to be in line with Izno's comment below. If so, what would be done with this property? I think using GND identifier would be better than using GND main type, and I think it's an another argument to deprecate and then delete this property. ( ) P227 is a string-property. It is not usable as a main-type property. -- ( ) Are you suggesting using (P227) instead of P107? This seems to be in line with Izno's comment below. If so, what would be done with this property? I think using GND identifier would be better than using GND main type, and I think it's an another argument to deprecate and then delete this property. ( ) P227 is a string-property. It is not usable as a main-type property. -- ( ) P227 is a string-property. It is not usable as a main-type property. -- ( ) You are right. I will change my tool in such a way, that the user has the option to choose between GND-type and ""instance of"". You could ask ""User:Magnus Manske"", since he is the original author of my tool to change his tool too. You should know, that a lot of people are using his tool. -- ( ) Oppose We need anyway some kind of classification independently of the classifications made by Wikipedias. At now we have . If we will remove it, we will need to make another kind of classification. As explained , I propose to use this property in conjunction with and to improve the classification. In fact 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. -- ( ) Support This property is inseparably tied to a particular ontology (GND), created by German librarians for library-related purposes. Wikidata is not a German library, nor is it a library at all. It is a general semantic database supposed to be useful to anyone in the world, just like Wikipedia. From what I've seen in multiple places, this property is officially endorsed on Wikidata to be used on all items to classify them. However, due to this property being tied to the GND ontology, this unavoidably and effectively means Wikidata officially uses and endorses the GND ontology. Where is the community consensus that Wikidata should officially adopt the worldview of German librarians ? As to specific points: Popularity is irrelevant. If something is inferior, it should be improved, no matter how popular it is in its existing state. We can classify every item on Wikidata without this property by using the properties and , and we can do it much better . See above for explanations of how this property defines things that are not persons as persons, and how it classifies a large majority of things as ""terms"", which is just a synonym for ""thing that's not in any other class""--and those are likely not the only problems. This is not good . As for and , they are based on , making them compatible with the rest of the Semantic Web. This property is not used for authority control, (GND identifier) is. ( ) @no 3: P107 is used by authority templates in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as ""parameter: TYP"". Entering ""wife"", ""lady"", ""girl"", ""woman"", ""female"" etc. in P31 can not be used by these templates. -- ( ) I see no reason why this property should be inseparably tied to a particular ontology. Actually I would never use the 'person' (I don´t call it GND-type) for fictional persons. They are 'character (fictional)' (Q95074) and 'work'. I don´t care what people write in pdf-files. In Wikipedia I use wikilinks to foreign Wikipedias in the text, although they get [MASK] soon. Sometimes rules are wrong. -- ( ) @Kolja21. Commons does not use the GND type. The only “type” I see there is in . As it happens, it was introduced precisely to do what the GND main type does not: distinguish clearly between people and groups of people. Is there any real use of the GND type in de.wikipedia ? It is not displayed in articles. I do not consider as real use. It is a maintenance tool, and we could easily have similar things without this property. – ( ) @Goldzahn. The current property is called “GND main type” and the name was chosen to make it clear that it should comply with the GND’s classification system. If you do not want to comply with them, I do not see why you want to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Because there are a million of them and we need main types (at least, I will use them together with and in my tool). We have refocused other properties, why not this one too? Task force infoboxes has to find a solution which serves its use in de:Wikipedia and its use as a maintenance help in Wikidata. Maybe, in the long run, , and will take its role. But, I don´t know if people do understand those three properties. I´m sure there are lots of wrong uses (Is it possible to write a maintenance bot that correct maintenance properties? Maybe if there are two maintenance systems?). could be an easier solution, if its problems are solved. If not, people will use parts of and the three other properties together. At least, that is what I´m doing. By the way, someone should write such a maintenance bot and the experience will tell us what to do. At the moment it is just theory. -- ( ) That seems to make sense. I also tend to think that a very general property can be useful, and (whatever the solution who choose), provided we have just one of them, I do not think it can have much negative impact (I am much more worried about the ""type of"" properties of the above request). However, what you are suggesting is to change the meaning of the property, and it would not be the GND main type anymore. In that case, I really think you should make a more formal proposal to change the label and the possible values of this property. -- ( ) Goldzahn, this property is tied to a particular ontology because that was the result of a vote on the section of the P107 talk page. The nature of P107 has been voted on and established: P107 is based on the GND ontology, and confined to the GND main types person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term. This discussion is about the deletion of such a property. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't support P107. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) Popularity is irrelevant. If something is inferior, it should be improved, no matter how popular it is in its existing state. We can classify every item on Wikidata without this property by using the properties and , and we can do it much better . See above for explanations of how this property defines things that are not persons as persons, and how it classifies a large majority of things as ""terms"", which is just a synonym for ""thing that's not in any other class""--and those are likely not the only problems. This is not good . As for and , they are based on , making them compatible with the rest of the Semantic Web. This property is not used for authority control, (GND identifier) is. ( ) @no 3: P107 is used by authority templates in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as ""parameter: TYP"". Entering ""wife"", ""lady"", ""girl"", ""woman"", ""female"" etc. in P31 can not be used by these templates. -- ( ) I see no reason why this property should be inseparably tied to a particular ontology. Actually I would never use the 'person' (I don´t call it GND-type) for fictional persons. They are 'character (fictional)' (Q95074) and 'work'. I don´t care what people write in pdf-files. In Wikipedia I use wikilinks to foreign Wikipedias in the text, although they get [MASK] soon. Sometimes rules are wrong. -- ( ) @Kolja21. Commons does not use the GND type. The only “type” I see there is in . As it happens, it was introduced precisely to do what the GND main type does not: distinguish clearly between people and groups of people. Is there any real use of the GND type in de.wikipedia ? It is not displayed in articles. I do not consider as real use. It is a maintenance tool, and we could easily have similar things without this property. – ( ) @Goldzahn. The current property is called “GND main type” and the name was chosen to make it clear that it should comply with the GND’s classification system. If you do not want to comply with them, I do not see why you want to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Because there are a million of them and we need main types (at least, I will use them together with and in my tool). We have refocused other properties, why not this one too? Task force infoboxes has to find a solution which serves its use in de:Wikipedia and its use as a maintenance help in Wikidata. Maybe, in the long run, , and will take its role. But, I don´t know if people do understand those three properties. I´m sure there are lots of wrong uses (Is it possible to write a maintenance bot that correct maintenance properties? Maybe if there are two maintenance systems?). could be an easier solution, if its problems are solved. If not, people will use parts of and the three other properties together. At least, that is what I´m doing. By the way, someone should write such a maintenance bot and the experience will tell us what to do. At the moment it is just theory. -- ( ) That seems to make sense. I also tend to think that a very general property can be useful, and (whatever the solution who choose), provided we have just one of them, I do not think it can have much negative impact (I am much more worried about the ""type of"" properties of the above request). However, what you are suggesting is to change the meaning of the property, and it would not be the GND main type anymore. In that case, I really think you should make a more formal proposal to change the label and the possible values of this property. -- ( ) Goldzahn, this property is tied to a particular ontology because that was the result of a vote on the section of the P107 talk page. The nature of P107 has been voted on and established: P107 is based on the GND ontology, and confined to the GND main types person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term. This discussion is about the deletion of such a property. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't support P107. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) @no 3: P107 is used by authority templates in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as ""parameter: TYP"". Entering ""wife"", ""lady"", ""girl"", ""woman"", ""female"" etc. in P31 can not be used by these templates. -- ( ) I see no reason why this property should be inseparably tied to a particular ontology. Actually I would never use the 'person' (I don´t call it GND-type) for fictional persons. They are 'character (fictional)' (Q95074) and 'work'. I don´t care what people write in pdf-files. In Wikipedia I use wikilinks to foreign Wikipedias in the text, although they get [MASK] soon. Sometimes rules are wrong. -- ( ) @Kolja21. Commons does not use the GND type. The only “type” I see there is in . As it happens, it was introduced precisely to do what the GND main type does not: distinguish clearly between people and groups of people. Is there any real use of the GND type in de.wikipedia ? It is not displayed in articles. I do not consider as real use. It is a maintenance tool, and we could easily have similar things without this property. – ( ) @Goldzahn. The current property is called “GND main type” and the name was chosen to make it clear that it should comply with the GND’s classification system. If you do not want to comply with them, I do not see why you want to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Because there are a million of them and we need main types (at least, I will use them together with and in my tool). We have refocused other properties, why not this one too? Task force infoboxes has to find a solution which serves its use in de:Wikipedia and its use as a maintenance help in Wikidata. Maybe, in the long run, , and will take its role. But, I don´t know if people do understand those three properties. I´m sure there are lots of wrong uses (Is it possible to write a maintenance bot that correct maintenance properties? Maybe if there are two maintenance systems?). could be an easier solution, if its problems are solved. If not, people will use parts of and the three other properties together. At least, that is what I´m doing. By the way, someone should write such a maintenance bot and the experience will tell us what to do. At the moment it is just theory. -- ( ) That seems to make sense. I also tend to think that a very general property can be useful, and (whatever the solution who choose), provided we have just one of them, I do not think it can have much negative impact (I am much more worried about the ""type of"" properties of the above request). However, what you are suggesting is to change the meaning of the property, and it would not be the GND main type anymore. In that case, I really think you should make a more formal proposal to change the label and the possible values of this property. -- ( ) Goldzahn, this property is tied to a particular ontology because that was the result of a vote on the section of the P107 talk page. The nature of P107 has been voted on and established: P107 is based on the GND ontology, and confined to the GND main types person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term. This discussion is about the deletion of such a property. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't support P107. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) @Kolja21. Commons does not use the GND type. The only “type” I see there is in . As it happens, it was introduced precisely to do what the GND main type does not: distinguish clearly between people and groups of people. Is there any real use of the GND type in de.wikipedia ? It is not displayed in articles. I do not consider as real use. It is a maintenance tool, and we could easily have similar things without this property. – ( ) @Goldzahn. The current property is called “GND main type” and the name was chosen to make it clear that it should comply with the GND’s classification system. If you do not want to comply with them, I do not see why you want to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Because there are a million of them and we need main types (at least, I will use them together with and in my tool). We have refocused other properties, why not this one too? Task force infoboxes has to find a solution which serves its use in de:Wikipedia and its use as a maintenance help in Wikidata. Maybe, in the long run, , and will take its role. But, I don´t know if people do understand those three properties. I´m sure there are lots of wrong uses (Is it possible to write a maintenance bot that correct maintenance properties? Maybe if there are two maintenance systems?). could be an easier solution, if its problems are solved. If not, people will use parts of and the three other properties together. At least, that is what I´m doing. By the way, someone should write such a maintenance bot and the experience will tell us what to do. At the moment it is just theory. -- ( ) That seems to make sense. I also tend to think that a very general property can be useful, and (whatever the solution who choose), provided we have just one of them, I do not think it can have much negative impact (I am much more worried about the ""type of"" properties of the above request). However, what you are suggesting is to change the meaning of the property, and it would not be the GND main type anymore. In that case, I really think you should make a more formal proposal to change the label and the possible values of this property. -- ( ) Goldzahn, this property is tied to a particular ontology because that was the result of a vote on the section of the P107 talk page. The nature of P107 has been voted on and established: P107 is based on the GND ontology, and confined to the GND main types person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term. This discussion is about the deletion of such a property. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't support P107. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) Because there are a million of them and we need main types (at least, I will use them together with and in my tool). We have refocused other properties, why not this one too? Task force infoboxes has to find a solution which serves its use in de:Wikipedia and its use as a maintenance help in Wikidata. Maybe, in the long run, , and will take its role. But, I don´t know if people do understand those three properties. I´m sure there are lots of wrong uses (Is it possible to write a maintenance bot that correct maintenance properties? Maybe if there are two maintenance systems?). could be an easier solution, if its problems are solved. If not, people will use parts of and the three other properties together. At least, that is what I´m doing. By the way, someone should write such a maintenance bot and the experience will tell us what to do. At the moment it is just theory. -- ( ) That seems to make sense. I also tend to think that a very general property can be useful, and (whatever the solution who choose), provided we have just one of them, I do not think it can have much negative impact (I am much more worried about the ""type of"" properties of the above request). However, what you are suggesting is to change the meaning of the property, and it would not be the GND main type anymore. In that case, I really think you should make a more formal proposal to change the label and the possible values of this property. -- ( ) Goldzahn, this property is tied to a particular ontology because that was the result of a vote on the section of the P107 talk page. The nature of P107 has been voted on and established: P107 is based on the GND ontology, and confined to the GND main types person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term. This discussion is about the deletion of such a property. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't support P107. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) That seems to make sense. I also tend to think that a very general property can be useful, and (whatever the solution who choose), provided we have just one of them, I do not think it can have much negative impact (I am much more worried about the ""type of"" properties of the above request). However, what you are suggesting is to change the meaning of the property, and it would not be the GND main type anymore. In that case, I really think you should make a more formal proposal to change the label and the possible values of this property. -- ( ) Goldzahn, this property is tied to a particular ontology because that was the result of a vote on the section of the P107 talk page. The nature of P107 has been voted on and established: P107 is based on the GND ontology, and confined to the GND main types person, place, organization, event, creative work, and term. This discussion is about the deletion of such a property. From what you've said, it sounds like you don't support P107. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) Are you speaking of those three pro votes? If someone finds a better solution, I guess, there will be more than three pro votes. Maybe we should say, that we discourage (is that an English word?) the use of the -property for certain topics. Instead and should be used in those areas. And there is something else. 'x' 'river' 'watercourse' 'body of water' 'geographical feature'. That means, the is part of the hierarchy. Another example: 'Toyota WISH' 'automobile', but if you look further into this tree of class, it is getting strange. 'vehicle' is a 'machine', which is an 'tool' and between you will find lots of 'term'. It seems, that / is no hierarchy, but a net, similar to some categories in Wikipedia. I´m not active in this topic in Wikipedia, but I know that people do work hard in de:WP to move the category-system away from a net. On the contrary the GND-type, which we use only parts of, is a hierarchy. I don´t know how useful and really are for maintenance work. Maybe less than I thought. And it seems, that the are just certain points in a net of class-relations. The question is, what value do these points have? It seems, that they are different for each main type. -- ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) How are the examples you cited strange? The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties form a hierarchy known as a rooted (DAG). The root of the hierarchy is , which is the same as in established like , and assumed in widely used languages like and . I'm not familiar with category curation on German Wikipedia, but I imagine their efforts to move the category system away from being a net are significantly focused on removing . The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties do not permit cycles; if one exists, then it's an error. I don't think having a property specifically for certain ""main types"" makes sense. It doesn't befit a project that aims to structure all knowledge. ( ) The thing I still don't get is why does not satisfy whatever need P107 is supposed to fix. P227 is scoped to real uses of the GND library and allows us to classify things as we wish. If we want, we can have a ""high level"" classification system, but whatever we do, P107 simply cannot fill that high level need (if it really exists; I don't think it does) satisfactorily. -- ( ) P227 is only a number (= GND identifier). If you look at the authority temples they have different identifiers (like GND, LCCN, VIAF etc.) plus the main type. We work with the Parameter TYP successfully since a year. For example: Type n tells use that disambiguation and persons are mixed; Type p without P227 that a GND is missing. Since 2005 we have a list to apply for a GND, type p (former PND) etc. Have you ever tried ? It's a great tool also based on P107. (It does not need a GND.) -- ( ) Comment , it seems that the most useful GND type is ""person"", and it is by far the most widely used in German Wikipedia. I think all person items should have their ""instance of"" property set to ""person"". That means we would get the same result, without even needing inference, except that we would not have to adopt the GND's definition of person. -- ( ) I´ve proposed to split . Maybe a better solution would be to turn into a virtual type. That means, each person is 'person' and only the item 'person' is . The same would be for the items , , , ... Because bots would have a problem to move each item into the right class, we would have in practice a hybrid property. This could be a solution if it is possible to write a template that can handle such a hybrid property. And we would need a way to lock this statement, similar to some articles in Wikipedia. If a test shows that this is possible, we should write a WD:RFC -- ( ) Goldzahn, this proposal seems reasonable. It's been proposed before, e.g. as part of the discussion at . This would effectively be the ""GND but not only main types"" option in . The overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion don't seem to dispute that having a property for only GND main types is a bad idea. But that's what P107 is, and thus it's a bad idea. P107 is a property where ""person"" includes , , , , and . Why do we need the GND ontology -- main types or both main and non-main types -- to say something like ' instance of '? ( ) Comment that has historical reasons. GND, type p is the former (PND) and is used in Wikipedia since 2005. -- ( ) P227 is only a number (= GND identifier). If you look at the authority temples they have different identifiers (like GND, LCCN, VIAF etc.) plus the main type. We work with the Parameter TYP successfully since a year. For example: Type n tells use that disambiguation and persons are mixed; Type p without P227 that a GND is missing. Since 2005 we have a list to apply for a GND, type p (former PND) etc. Have you ever tried ? It's a great tool also based on P107. (It does not need a GND.) -- ( ) Comment , it seems that the most useful GND type is ""person"", and it is by far the most widely used in German Wikipedia. I think all person items should have their ""instance of"" property set to ""person"". That means we would get the same result, without even needing inference, except that we would not have to adopt the GND's definition of person. -- ( ) I´ve proposed to split . Maybe a better solution would be to turn into a virtual type. That means, each person is 'person' and only the item 'person' is . The same would be for the items , , , ... Because bots would have a problem to move each item into the right class, we would have in practice a hybrid property. This could be a solution if it is possible to write a template that can handle such a hybrid property. And we would need a way to lock this statement, similar to some articles in Wikipedia. If a test shows that this is possible, we should write a WD:RFC -- ( ) Goldzahn, this proposal seems reasonable. It's been proposed before, e.g. as part of the discussion at . This would effectively be the ""GND but not only main types"" option in . The overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion don't seem to dispute that having a property for only GND main types is a bad idea. But that's what P107 is, and thus it's a bad idea. P107 is a property where ""person"" includes , , , , and . Why do we need the GND ontology -- main types or both main and non-main types -- to say something like ' instance of '? ( ) I´ve proposed to split . Maybe a better solution would be to turn into a virtual type. That means, each person is 'person' and only the item 'person' is . The same would be for the items , , , ... Because bots would have a problem to move each item into the right class, we would have in practice a hybrid property. This could be a solution if it is possible to write a template that can handle such a hybrid property. And we would need a way to lock this statement, similar to some articles in Wikipedia. If a test shows that this is possible, we should write a WD:RFC -- ( ) Goldzahn, this proposal seems reasonable. It's been proposed before, e.g. as part of the discussion at . This would effectively be the ""GND but not only main types"" option in . The overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion don't seem to dispute that having a property for only GND main types is a bad idea. But that's what P107 is, and thus it's a bad idea. P107 is a property where ""person"" includes , , , , and . Why do we need the GND ontology -- main types or both main and non-main types -- to say something like ' instance of '? ( ) Goldzahn, this proposal seems reasonable. It's been proposed before, e.g. as part of the discussion at . This would effectively be the ""GND but not only main types"" option in . The overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion don't seem to dispute that having a property for only GND main types is a bad idea. But that's what P107 is, and thus it's a bad idea. P107 is a property where ""person"" includes , , , , and . Why do we need the GND ontology -- main types or both main and non-main types -- to say something like ' instance of '? ( ) Comment that has historical reasons. GND, type p is the former (PND) and is used in Wikipedia since 2005. -- ( ) Oppose an ontology of all is impossible so we'll always have properties that are very useful in one domain and completely useless in another one. We'll just end up with multiple overlapping systems that coexist. ( ) Multichill, could you please clarify how that's a rationale for opposing the deletion of this property? I don't know if I agree with your statement, but in either case it seems orthogonal to the discussion of whether this property should be [MASK]. ( ) Multichill, could you please clarify how that's a rationale for opposing the deletion of this property? I don't know if I agree with your statement, but in either case it seems orthogonal to the discussion of whether this property should be [MASK]. ( ) Support For the reasons I've given on the talk page, and explained perfectly well by Emw. Trying to coerce the world into seven broad categories is a recipe for utter failure. Wikidata is too important to tie it inextricably to the GND. ""Ah, but it's used by German Wikipedia"". So? Based on the use I've seen for it so far, it's being used badly . Anything which doesn't fall within the remit of the ""main types"" is being flung into ""term"". is not a ""term"", it's a programming language. The use of term as a general catch-all category for things that don't fit into the other categories means that we are failing to draw out the use-mention distinction. Python isn't a term, it's a programming language. When I use the word 'Python' to refer to the programming language, it is a term. Terms have properties that are distinct from things. We can say 'Python' is six characters, but Python is not six characters because it isn't a term, it's a programming language. It has properties like compiled or interpreted , type system etc. P107 fails to draw that important distinction. Any statistics that one derives from it are essentially useless. German Wikipedia says ""oh, we use it to work out how many people there are?"" Okay. But given that the ""person"" type includes things that aren't people like families, that information is basically wrong. Deriving uninteresting statistics from incorrect data because of a strange desire to fit the world into seven boxes? Yeah, no. Stop that silliness now. — ( ) Citing (GND main types): The terms ""person"", ""place"" etc. are meant to generalize. Please don't take them literally. P107 allows quality control, not only in Wikipedia but also in Wikidata. Just take a look at . The list helps for example to prevent . -- ( ) That's rare case. The list is not about vandalism, but about misunderstanding of the property in discussion. Worshipping this property is already used for losing information. ( ) "" Citing (GND main types): The terms ""person"", ""place"" etc. are meant to generalize. Please don't take them literally. "" Kolja21 This is precisely the standard reply I referred to in my original description of the major flaws in this property. When someone notes the glaring problem that families are not persons, they're told the above. This is simply not an adequate solution to that problem. The comment from Jon Harald Søby above is an excellent example of why: contributors and tool developers assume that ""person"" does not mean ""family"" (or ""literary figure"", etc.), and then assume we can use it to validate properties like ""married to"". As explained above, the fact that the GND main type ""person"" means things that are clearly outside the definition of ""person"" means that this property's potential role in claim validation is drastically less than it seems at a glance. This basic, significant problem, as well as the others noted in my original description, have not been resolved. ( ) Citing (GND main types): The terms ""person"", ""place"" etc. are meant to generalize. Please don't take them literally. P107 allows quality control, not only in Wikipedia but also in Wikidata. Just take a look at . The list helps for example to prevent . -- ( ) That's rare case. The list is not about vandalism, but about misunderstanding of the property in discussion. Worshipping this property is already used for losing information. ( ) "" Citing (GND main types): The terms ""person"", ""place"" etc. are meant to generalize. Please don't take them literally. "" Kolja21 This is precisely the standard reply I referred to in my original description of the major flaws in this property. When someone notes the glaring problem that families are not persons, they're told the above. This is simply not an adequate solution to that problem. The comment from Jon Harald Søby above is an excellent example of why: contributors and tool developers assume that ""person"" does not mean ""family"" (or ""literary figure"", etc.), and then assume we can use it to validate properties like ""married to"". As explained above, the fact that the GND main type ""person"" means things that are clearly outside the definition of ""person"" means that this property's potential role in claim validation is drastically less than it seems at a glance. This basic, significant problem, as well as the others noted in my original description, have not been resolved. ( ) That's rare case. The list is not about vandalism, but about misunderstanding of the property in discussion. Worshipping this property is already used for losing information. ( ) "" Citing (GND main types): The terms ""person"", ""place"" etc. are meant to generalize. Please don't take them literally. "" Kolja21 This is precisely the standard reply I referred to in my original description of the major flaws in this property. When someone notes the glaring problem that families are not persons, they're told the above. This is simply not an adequate solution to that problem. The comment from Jon Harald Søby above is an excellent example of why: contributors and tool developers assume that ""person"" does not mean ""family"" (or ""literary figure"", etc.), and then assume we can use it to validate properties like ""married to"". As explained above, the fact that the GND main type ""person"" means things that are clearly outside the definition of ""person"" means that this property's potential role in claim validation is drastically less than it seems at a glance. This basic, significant problem, as well as the others noted in my original description, have not been resolved. ( ) Oppose With there currently are no policies / guidelines regarding (partial) redundancy of properties. The flaws of GND typology range from ""minor"" to ""severe"" depending on intended use / the viewpoint one has. There are other schemes which don't force one to ""fit the world into seven boxes"" – But are these valid reasons that justify deletion of P107? No: GND main type can be used in productive ways and I can't see how it hurts, or could potentially hurt Wikidata progress. -- ( ) Major flaws in this property are enumerated in my original post in this discussion, . They have not been addressed. It would help if the supporters of this property would specifically comment on those concerns, and engage in follow-up discussion about them. ( ) “We'll just end up with multiple overlapping systems that coexist. “ (above) – Makes sense to me. The flaws of GND high-level classification are well documented at this point and they won't go away. See for a solution on how to make P107 consistent: “ Imho we need seperate items for the GND main types. This also would help to distinguish between properties that use ""controlled vocabulary"" (P107: GND main types) and those who use ""uncontrolled vocabularies"" (P279: generalization and P31: is a)” . – This RfD asssumes that there should be ""one main ontology"" for Wikidata items. But that is not consensus (and won't work in my opinion). -- ( ) How does this RfD assume there should be one main ontology for Wikidata items? Deleting this property would not mean getting rid of the GND ontology, nor would it imply some rigid ontological monoculture. (Where is this notion coming from?) As I imply in point 4 in my original description, using the GND types like the actual GND does -- by classifying items with the most specific GND type/class available -- would be much better than the GND-main-type-only approach P107 uses. But I don't consider this nomination to be about changing the nature of P107, since . To me and I think many others, this discussion assumes that P107's nature has been established, and is about whether such a property should exist. This is a peculiar situation. Noone seems to be seriously disputing that there are major flaws with this property -- as evidenced by the lack of engaged discussion about the major flaws outlined in my original description -- yet many support it. If this property really isn't so bad, then why not rebut those specific points? ( ) You've started multiple threats about P107 and have received in the last two months dozens of answers to your questions, also the questions mentioned above. On the other hand I don't see any answer of you on . I still think (thanx to Make to bring it you again) that separate items for the GND tpyes would help your idea to establish a classification system without controlled vocabulary. (For example: P107 would have the item ""Typ p, person"" and P31 values like ""single person"", ""family"" or ""literary figure"".) -- ( ) Kolja, do you read my replies to you? I've made several in this discussion, but you don't follow-up, and seem to ignore them. For example, I asked you a few days ago in this thread: ""when you say 'threat', do you mean ' ' or ' '? They are very different."" No reply. That reply had other, more on-topic points that related specifically to the P107-specific comments you made -- those got no reply from you either. The re-rebuttal of your point about 'person' (see ""Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted"" above) also got no response. These replies of yours are not answers, they are drive-by comments. The replies go one level deep, rehashing arguments that have been rebutted, and then aren't followed up on when they're rebutted yet again. They're also peppered liberally with ad-hominem comments about how I ""open a new threat ( ? ) every other day"", which avoids engaging in discussion about the actual issue. This pattern has played out (no reply to ""I'll speak to each concern in order""), (no reply to ""Why shouldn't the authority templates be changed...?""), (no reply to ""If an item has a value of person, place, organization or event for P107, then would it not be valid to apply the same value on that item for P31?"") and (no reply to ""Are you opposing this proposal? If so, how does what you wrote relate?""). Your recent replies seem to assume that exacerbated expressions about the regularity of complaints about this property are somehow an adequate answer to those complaints, and that I am the only person raising these issues. They aren't, and I'm not. With that meta-commentary out of the way, I'll reply to the substantive part of your response. If I understand it correctly, you suggest that creating separate values for GND non-main types and specifying them with P31 would help solve the major flaws of this GND-main-type-only property. I disagree. Even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would A) still classify most of human knowledge as merely a ""term"", B) persist the bad idea of having multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, C) still conflate ""person"" and ""family"" and ""literary figure"" etc., and D) still not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND. Is that incorrect? If so, how? ( ) Major flaws in this property are enumerated in my original post in this discussion, . They have not been addressed. It would help if the supporters of this property would specifically comment on those concerns, and engage in follow-up discussion about them. ( ) “We'll just end up with multiple overlapping systems that coexist. “ (above) – Makes sense to me. The flaws of GND high-level classification are well documented at this point and they won't go away. See for a solution on how to make P107 consistent: “ Imho we need seperate items for the GND main types. This also would help to distinguish between properties that use ""controlled vocabulary"" (P107: GND main types) and those who use ""uncontrolled vocabularies"" (P279: generalization and P31: is a)” . – This RfD asssumes that there should be ""one main ontology"" for Wikidata items. But that is not consensus (and won't work in my opinion). -- ( ) How does this RfD assume there should be one main ontology for Wikidata items? Deleting this property would not mean getting rid of the GND ontology, nor would it imply some rigid ontological monoculture. (Where is this notion coming from?) As I imply in point 4 in my original description, using the GND types like the actual GND does -- by classifying items with the most specific GND type/class available -- would be much better than the GND-main-type-only approach P107 uses. But I don't consider this nomination to be about changing the nature of P107, since . To me and I think many others, this discussion assumes that P107's nature has been established, and is about whether such a property should exist. This is a peculiar situation. Noone seems to be seriously disputing that there are major flaws with this property -- as evidenced by the lack of engaged discussion about the major flaws outlined in my original description -- yet many support it. If this property really isn't so bad, then why not rebut those specific points? ( ) You've started multiple threats about P107 and have received in the last two months dozens of answers to your questions, also the questions mentioned above. On the other hand I don't see any answer of you on . I still think (thanx to Make to bring it you again) that separate items for the GND tpyes would help your idea to establish a classification system without controlled vocabulary. (For example: P107 would have the item ""Typ p, person"" and P31 values like ""single person"", ""family"" or ""literary figure"".) -- ( ) Kolja, do you read my replies to you? I've made several in this discussion, but you don't follow-up, and seem to ignore them. For example, I asked you a few days ago in this thread: ""when you say 'threat', do you mean ' ' or ' '? They are very different."" No reply. That reply had other, more on-topic points that related specifically to the P107-specific comments you made -- those got no reply from you either. The re-rebuttal of your point about 'person' (see ""Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted"" above) also got no response. These replies of yours are not answers, they are drive-by comments. The replies go one level deep, rehashing arguments that have been rebutted, and then aren't followed up on when they're rebutted yet again. They're also peppered liberally with ad-hominem comments about how I ""open a new threat ( ? ) every other day"", which avoids engaging in discussion about the actual issue. This pattern has played out (no reply to ""I'll speak to each concern in order""), (no reply to ""Why shouldn't the authority templates be changed...?""), (no reply to ""If an item has a value of person, place, organization or event for P107, then would it not be valid to apply the same value on that item for P31?"") and (no reply to ""Are you opposing this proposal? If so, how does what you wrote relate?""). Your recent replies seem to assume that exacerbated expressions about the regularity of complaints about this property are somehow an adequate answer to those complaints, and that I am the only person raising these issues. They aren't, and I'm not. With that meta-commentary out of the way, I'll reply to the substantive part of your response. If I understand it correctly, you suggest that creating separate values for GND non-main types and specifying them with P31 would help solve the major flaws of this GND-main-type-only property. I disagree. Even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would A) still classify most of human knowledge as merely a ""term"", B) persist the bad idea of having multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, C) still conflate ""person"" and ""family"" and ""literary figure"" etc., and D) still not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND. Is that incorrect? If so, how? ( ) “We'll just end up with multiple overlapping systems that coexist.“ (above) – Makes sense to me. The flaws of GND high-level classification are well documented at this point and they won't go away. See for a solution on how to make P107 consistent: “ Imho we need seperate items for the GND main types. This also would help to distinguish between properties that use ""controlled vocabulary"" (P107: GND main types) and those who use ""uncontrolled vocabularies"" (P279: generalization and P31: is a)” . – This RfD asssumes that there should be ""one main ontology"" for Wikidata items. But that is not consensus (and won't work in my opinion). -- ( ) How does this RfD assume there should be one main ontology for Wikidata items? Deleting this property would not mean getting rid of the GND ontology, nor would it imply some rigid ontological monoculture. (Where is this notion coming from?) As I imply in point 4 in my original description, using the GND types like the actual GND does -- by classifying items with the most specific GND type/class available -- would be much better than the GND-main-type-only approach P107 uses. But I don't consider this nomination to be about changing the nature of P107, since . To me and I think many others, this discussion assumes that P107's nature has been established, and is about whether such a property should exist. This is a peculiar situation. Noone seems to be seriously disputing that there are major flaws with this property -- as evidenced by the lack of engaged discussion about the major flaws outlined in my original description -- yet many support it. If this property really isn't so bad, then why not rebut those specific points? ( ) You've started multiple threats about P107 and have received in the last two months dozens of answers to your questions, also the questions mentioned above. On the other hand I don't see any answer of you on . I still think (thanx to Make to bring it you again) that separate items for the GND tpyes would help your idea to establish a classification system without controlled vocabulary. (For example: P107 would have the item ""Typ p, person"" and P31 values like ""single person"", ""family"" or ""literary figure"".) -- ( ) Kolja, do you read my replies to you? I've made several in this discussion, but you don't follow-up, and seem to ignore them. For example, I asked you a few days ago in this thread: ""when you say 'threat', do you mean ' ' or ' '? They are very different."" No reply. That reply had other, more on-topic points that related specifically to the P107-specific comments you made -- those got no reply from you either. The re-rebuttal of your point about 'person' (see ""Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted"" above) also got no response. These replies of yours are not answers, they are drive-by comments. The replies go one level deep, rehashing arguments that have been rebutted, and then aren't followed up on when they're rebutted yet again. They're also peppered liberally with ad-hominem comments about how I ""open a new threat ( ? ) every other day"", which avoids engaging in discussion about the actual issue. This pattern has played out (no reply to ""I'll speak to each concern in order""), (no reply to ""Why shouldn't the authority templates be changed...?""), (no reply to ""If an item has a value of person, place, organization or event for P107, then would it not be valid to apply the same value on that item for P31?"") and (no reply to ""Are you opposing this proposal? If so, how does what you wrote relate?""). Your recent replies seem to assume that exacerbated expressions about the regularity of complaints about this property are somehow an adequate answer to those complaints, and that I am the only person raising these issues. They aren't, and I'm not. With that meta-commentary out of the way, I'll reply to the substantive part of your response. If I understand it correctly, you suggest that creating separate values for GND non-main types and specifying them with P31 would help solve the major flaws of this GND-main-type-only property. I disagree. Even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would A) still classify most of human knowledge as merely a ""term"", B) persist the bad idea of having multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, C) still conflate ""person"" and ""family"" and ""literary figure"" etc., and D) still not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND. Is that incorrect? If so, how? ( ) How does this RfD assume there should be one main ontology for Wikidata items? Deleting this property would not mean getting rid of the GND ontology, nor would it imply some rigid ontological monoculture. (Where is this notion coming from?) As I imply in point 4 in my original description, using the GND types like the actual GND does -- by classifying items with the most specific GND type/class available -- would be much better than the GND-main-type-only approach P107 uses. But I don't consider this nomination to be about changing the nature of P107, since . To me and I think many others, this discussion assumes that P107's nature has been established, and is about whether such a property should exist. This is a peculiar situation. Noone seems to be seriously disputing that there are major flaws with this property -- as evidenced by the lack of engaged discussion about the major flaws outlined in my original description -- yet many support it. If this property really isn't so bad, then why not rebut those specific points? ( ) You've started multiple threats about P107 and have received in the last two months dozens of answers to your questions, also the questions mentioned above. On the other hand I don't see any answer of you on . I still think (thanx to Make to bring it you again) that separate items for the GND tpyes would help your idea to establish a classification system without controlled vocabulary. (For example: P107 would have the item ""Typ p, person"" and P31 values like ""single person"", ""family"" or ""literary figure"".) -- ( ) Kolja, do you read my replies to you? I've made several in this discussion, but you don't follow-up, and seem to ignore them. For example, I asked you a few days ago in this thread: ""when you say 'threat', do you mean ' ' or ' '? They are very different."" No reply. That reply had other, more on-topic points that related specifically to the P107-specific comments you made -- those got no reply from you either. The re-rebuttal of your point about 'person' (see ""Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted"" above) also got no response. These replies of yours are not answers, they are drive-by comments. The replies go one level deep, rehashing arguments that have been rebutted, and then aren't followed up on when they're rebutted yet again. They're also peppered liberally with ad-hominem comments about how I ""open a new threat ( ? ) every other day"", which avoids engaging in discussion about the actual issue. This pattern has played out (no reply to ""I'll speak to each concern in order""), (no reply to ""Why shouldn't the authority templates be changed...?""), (no reply to ""If an item has a value of person, place, organization or event for P107, then would it not be valid to apply the same value on that item for P31?"") and (no reply to ""Are you opposing this proposal? If so, how does what you wrote relate?""). Your recent replies seem to assume that exacerbated expressions about the regularity of complaints about this property are somehow an adequate answer to those complaints, and that I am the only person raising these issues. They aren't, and I'm not. With that meta-commentary out of the way, I'll reply to the substantive part of your response. If I understand it correctly, you suggest that creating separate values for GND non-main types and specifying them with P31 would help solve the major flaws of this GND-main-type-only property. I disagree. Even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would A) still classify most of human knowledge as merely a ""term"", B) persist the bad idea of having multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, C) still conflate ""person"" and ""family"" and ""literary figure"" etc., and D) still not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND. Is that incorrect? If so, how? ( ) You've started multiple threats about P107 and have received in the last two months dozens of answers to your questions, also the questions mentioned above. On the other hand I don't see any answer of you on . I still think (thanx to Make to bring it you again) that separate items for the GND tpyes would help your idea to establish a classification system without controlled vocabulary. (For example: P107 would have the item ""Typ p, person"" and P31 values like ""single person"", ""family"" or ""literary figure"".) -- ( ) Kolja, do you read my replies to you? I've made several in this discussion, but you don't follow-up, and seem to ignore them. For example, I asked you a few days ago in this thread: ""when you say 'threat', do you mean ' ' or ' '? They are very different."" No reply. That reply had other, more on-topic points that related specifically to the P107-specific comments you made -- those got no reply from you either. The re-rebuttal of your point about 'person' (see ""Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted"" above) also got no response. These replies of yours are not answers, they are drive-by comments. The replies go one level deep, rehashing arguments that have been rebutted, and then aren't followed up on when they're rebutted yet again. They're also peppered liberally with ad-hominem comments about how I ""open a new threat ( ? ) every other day"", which avoids engaging in discussion about the actual issue. This pattern has played out (no reply to ""I'll speak to each concern in order""), (no reply to ""Why shouldn't the authority templates be changed...?""), (no reply to ""If an item has a value of person, place, organization or event for P107, then would it not be valid to apply the same value on that item for P31?"") and (no reply to ""Are you opposing this proposal? If so, how does what you wrote relate?""). Your recent replies seem to assume that exacerbated expressions about the regularity of complaints about this property are somehow an adequate answer to those complaints, and that I am the only person raising these issues. They aren't, and I'm not. With that meta-commentary out of the way, I'll reply to the substantive part of your response. If I understand it correctly, you suggest that creating separate values for GND non-main types and specifying them with P31 would help solve the major flaws of this GND-main-type-only property. I disagree. Even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would A) still classify most of human knowledge as merely a ""term"", B) persist the bad idea of having multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, C) still conflate ""person"" and ""family"" and ""literary figure"" etc., and D) still not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND. Is that incorrect? If so, how? ( ) Kolja, do you read my replies to you? I've made several in this discussion, but you don't follow-up, and seem to ignore them. For example, I asked you a few days ago in this thread: ""when you say 'threat', do you mean ' ' or ' '? They are very different."" No reply. That reply had other, more on-topic points that related specifically to the P107-specific comments you made -- those got no reply from you either. The re-rebuttal of your point about 'person' (see ""Your point about the GND entry for Barack Obama is a facsimile of one I rebutted"" above) also got no response. These replies of yours are not answers, they are drive-by comments. The replies go one level deep, rehashing arguments that have been rebutted, and then aren't followed up on when they're rebutted yet again. They're also peppered liberally with ad-hominem comments about how I ""open a new threat ( ? ) every other day"", which avoids engaging in discussion about the actual issue. This pattern has played out (no reply to ""I'll speak to each concern in order""), (no reply to ""Why shouldn't the authority templates be changed...?""), (no reply to ""If an item has a value of person, place, organization or event for P107, then would it not be valid to apply the same value on that item for P31?"") and (no reply to ""Are you opposing this proposal? If so, how does what you wrote relate?""). Your recent replies seem to assume that exacerbated expressions about the regularity of complaints about this property are somehow an adequate answer to those complaints, and that I am the only person raising these issues. They aren't, and I'm not. With that meta-commentary out of the way, I'll reply to the substantive part of your response. If I understand it correctly, you suggest that creating separate values for GND non-main types and specifying them with P31 would help solve the major flaws of this GND-main-type-only property. I disagree. Even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would A) still classify most of human knowledge as merely a ""term"", B) persist the bad idea of having multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, C) still conflate ""person"" and ""family"" and ""literary figure"" etc., and D) still not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND. Is that incorrect? If so, how? ( ) 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:P150: After 7 days of discussion, consensus is to [MASK] the property. — After 7 days of discussion, consensus is to [MASK] the property. — When every city/region is updated with the historical population every year since 1850 to today divided by sex, age, occupation and ethnic groups, they will also be ""too long to read"". Better to solve that with the possibility to ""collapse"" such statements. -- ( ) Oppose When we say that district Foo is subdivision of region Bar, we should have way to say it in reverse direction - region Bar consist of districts Foo, Lorem and Ipsum. Unfortunatelly, there are also regions which have tens or over hundret subdivisions. ( ) Are you opposing deleting the property, or opposing it's usage, hence a delete vote? ( ) For 'Foo is subdivision of region Bar', I would suggest using 'Foo (P361) Bar'. ( ) Are you opposing deleting the property, or opposing it's usage, hence a delete vote? ( ) For 'Foo is subdivision of region Bar', I would suggest using 'Foo (P361) Bar'. ( ) [MASK], per Jan Dudik. We need to be able to say that ""this is X, X is broken down into A, B, and C."" ( ) [MASK] , per JAn Dudík. ( ) [MASK] , this property provides useful information on place-related items. , ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P405: KEPT - In the absence of a clear consensus for deletion, I will not delete a property that is in use. It is clear that there are significant divisions as to how best to convert taxon authors, but a deletion discussion is not the proper venue for resolving it. Please take this discussion to the so that the broader community can reach a consensus on the issue. KEPT - In the absence of a clear consensus for deletion, I will not delete a property that is in use. It is clear that there are significant divisions as to how best to convert taxon authors, but a deletion discussion is not the proper venue for resolving it. Please take this discussion to the so that the broader community can reach a consensus on the issue. Question Is there a discussion that overrules the interpretation of the consensus at the item's creation, where the closer says ""I understand the proposer's ideal behind using StringValue, but the community thinks this can be done with items""? commented: Cannot be an Item because there are standardized author syntax like '(L.) Oken' where L. is the first author and Oken the author renaming . Thats true and only a simple example, but to render ist right two items are required: ( ) . -- ( ) (conflict) Most taxon author are a person if a line see , it sould be abble to put [[Carl von Linné|L.]] if it is a plant or [[Carl von Linné|Linnaeus]] if it is a animal. I beleive item is the best value for this properties, since generally taxon autor have the notoriety for a article. -- ( ) @Succu The best will be a creation of StringValue «botanist autor acronym» and «zoologist autor acronym» to put with the autor. -- ( ) This is a complitly other question: vs. ist always . -- ( ) If this would be String wouldn't it be possible to store the Item to the Persons in the References with another extra Property? -- ( ) Linking to persons like ( ) would be a nice feature, but it requests a sophisticated new datatype. One that can handle structures like this: (Person1, Person2 & Person3 ex Person4) Person 5 ex Person6 et al. -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) commented: Cannot be an Item because there are standardized author syntax like '(L.) Oken' where L. is the first author and Oken the author renaming . Thats true and only a simple example, but to render ist right two items are required: ( ) . -- ( ) (conflict) Most taxon author are a person if a line see , it sould be abble to put [[Carl von Linné|L.]] if it is a plant or [[Carl von Linné|Linnaeus]] if it is a animal. I beleive item is the best value for this properties, since generally taxon autor have the notoriety for a article. -- ( ) @Succu The best will be a creation of StringValue «botanist autor acronym» and «zoologist autor acronym» to put with the autor. -- ( ) This is a complitly other question: vs. ist always . -- ( ) If this would be String wouldn't it be possible to store the Item to the Persons in the References with another extra Property? -- ( ) Linking to persons like ( ) would be a nice feature, but it requests a sophisticated new datatype. One that can handle structures like this: (Person1, Person2 & Person3 ex Person4) Person 5 ex Person6 et al. -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) (conflict) Most taxon author are a person if a line see , it sould be abble to put [[Carl von Linné|L.]] if it is a plant or [[Carl von Linné|Linnaeus]] if it is a animal. I beleive item is the best value for this properties, since generally taxon autor have the notoriety for a article. -- ( ) @Succu The best will be a creation of StringValue «botanist autor acronym» and «zoologist autor acronym» to put with the autor. -- ( ) This is a complitly other question: vs. ist always . -- ( ) If this would be String wouldn't it be possible to store the Item to the Persons in the References with another extra Property? -- ( ) Linking to persons like ( ) would be a nice feature, but it requests a sophisticated new datatype. One that can handle structures like this: (Person1, Person2 & Person3 ex Person4) Person 5 ex Person6 et al. -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) This is a complitly other question: vs. ist always . -- ( ) If this would be String wouldn't it be possible to store the Item to the Persons in the References with another extra Property? -- ( ) Linking to persons like ( ) would be a nice feature, but it requests a sophisticated new datatype. One that can handle structures like this: (Person1, Person2 & Person3 ex Person4) Person 5 ex Person6 et al. -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) If this would be String wouldn't it be possible to store the Item to the Persons in the References with another extra Property? -- ( ) Linking to persons like ( ) would be a nice feature, but it requests a sophisticated new datatype. One that can handle structures like this: (Person1, Person2 & Person3 ex Person4) Person 5 ex Person6 et al. -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) Linking to persons like ( ) would be a nice feature, but it requests a sophisticated new datatype. One that can handle structures like this: (Person1, Person2 & Person3 ex Person4) Person 5 ex Person6 et al. -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) No I don't think that we have to link it. The correct String would be enough. But we could store the information to the items in the references, but I am not sure if this is a valid and wanted use of the references. -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) I dont't like bot-created statements like ""Quelle=Deuschsprachige Wikipedia"". Smart references are another and really complex topic. But please: lets us try this little suggested correction. Its usefull. -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) Couldn't the datatype be a normal string with wiki syntax, like literally ""([[Q1043|L.]]) [[Q61993|Oken]]"" The user (most likely a Lua-function in the Wikipedias) could then look up the referenced items. ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) Hint: There is a new (botanist author abbreviation). -- ( ) Use of taxon author is described at and . It can be done using items and qualifiers, but will be complicated. You will need qualifiers for ""year"" (zooology), ""not original placement"" (to place author and possibly year in parenthesis), order of authors if several, ""ex"" (first publication not valid), ""in"" (if authorship of the publication is different), ""emend."" (if changed) and possibly others. A string is much simpler, but has the disadvantage that there will be no direct links to items for the authors. ( ) Oppose - hewiki already uses it to link to taxonom. e,g: . ( ) Eran, please read the discussion and understand the problem. -- ( ) I read the discussions both here and in the talk page (creation proposal) and I think item is the correct type for it. Item type allows linking and string doesn't. In non latin Wikipedias the author isn't always specified in latin ( , ). String can't be used here... ( ) You can't handle author citations like , 2011 with this property. That's the main point. -- ( ) You can handle citations for this case with Lua: iterating over the items associated with this property, extracting the last names and adding the year as different parameter. The real problem is actually for latin names. ( ) As a proof of concept: go to , edit the page, add {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox}} and show preview (please dont save - the new taxobox isn't yet ready). ( ) I found a the wrong author citation (Brown, Amézquita, Mejía-Vargas, Twomey) - parentheses, no year. What about (botanist author abbreviation), special abbr. as ""ex"", ""et al"" (see above)? -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) I read the discussions both here and in the talk page (creation proposal) and I think item is the correct type for it. Item type allows linking and string doesn't. In non latin Wikipedias the author isn't always specified in latin ( , ). String can't be used here... ( ) You can't handle author citations like , 2011 with this property. That's the main point. -- ( ) You can handle citations for this case with Lua: iterating over the items associated with this property, extracting the last names and adding the year as different parameter. The real problem is actually for latin names. ( ) As a proof of concept: go to , edit the page, add {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox}} and show preview (please dont save - the new taxobox isn't yet ready). ( ) I found a the wrong author citation (Brown, Amézquita, Mejía-Vargas, Twomey) - parentheses, no year. What about (botanist author abbreviation), special abbr. as ""ex"", ""et al"" (see above)? -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) You can't handle author citations like , 2011 with this property. That's the main point. -- ( ) You can handle citations for this case with Lua: iterating over the items associated with this property, extracting the last names and adding the year as different parameter. The real problem is actually for latin names. ( ) As a proof of concept: go to , edit the page, add {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox}} and show preview (please dont save - the new taxobox isn't yet ready). ( ) I found a the wrong author citation (Brown, Amézquita, Mejía-Vargas, Twomey) - parentheses, no year. What about (botanist author abbreviation), special abbr. as ""ex"", ""et al"" (see above)? -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) You can handle citations for this case with Lua: iterating over the items associated with this property, extracting the last names and adding the year as different parameter. The real problem is actually for latin names. ( ) As a proof of concept: go to , edit the page, add {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox}} and show preview (please dont save - the new taxobox isn't yet ready). ( ) I found a the wrong author citation (Brown, Amézquita, Mejía-Vargas, Twomey) - parentheses, no year. What about (botanist author abbreviation), special abbr. as ""ex"", ""et al"" (see above)? -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) As a proof of concept: go to , edit the page, add {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox}} and show preview (please dont save - the new taxobox isn't yet ready). ( ) I found a the wrong author citation (Brown, Amézquita, Mejía-Vargas, Twomey) - parentheses, no year. What about (botanist author abbreviation), special abbr. as ""ex"", ""et al"" (see above)? -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) I found a the wrong author citation (Brown, Amézquita, Mejía-Vargas, Twomey) - parentheses, no year. What about (botanist author abbreviation), special abbr. as ""ex"", ""et al"" (see above)? -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) OK I removed the parentheses, but the case is that you can handle multiple authors with Lua, and items can allow correct links, and support i18n (as mentioned before - in non latin wikipedias the author isn't cited the same way). To get botanist abbr we need support either in Lua or with phase 3 queries to get property of linked item (P428 of the author), which isn't yet supported. Regarding et al and ex I'm not sure what is the correct solution here. Maybe we should add to the authors ""et al"" (or some fake entity) as the author, or define it as a different property. ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) Your proposal has other drawbacks. The statement cound be read as four different claims: Brown or Amézquita or Mejía-Vargas or Twomey is the one and only taxon author. -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P293: [MASK] (or more accurately, will be [MASK] once depreciated). Clear consensus for this. [MASK] (or more accurately, will be [MASK] once depreciated). Clear consensus for this. No, you won't: 4-eyes-guideline. — It is already used. It is best to use it, as long as we dont have the right replacement. For the user it makes no difference what kind of datatype is used, as long as it is displayed correctly. It only makes a difference, when you try to calculate something. We can delete it after migrating its contents to the future datatype . -- ( ) Support deletion . So far the community's felt that the number/string dichotomy is one we should respect, and I agree. For instance, if a client project is using {{#property:p293}} m. ({{#expr: {{#property:p293}} * 0.3048}} }} ft.) , they shouldn't have to worry about getting big red errors every time someone accidentally puts letters in the Wikidata entry. Oh, and is there any reason that isn't included in this PFD? — Support deletion (also for P294) – Better sooner than later, so there will be less to correct then the right datatype is implemented. ( ) Wait to delete until the number datatype is actually available, then have a bot copy things over, fixing entries with non-numeric data as it goes. If people want to start collecting this data now, they will need a place to put it. Better to start getting the information in the database earlier, so we can accumulate it faster. We can automatically change it to the ""right"" format later. — Support deletion . It is not easy to track usage of properties in Wikipedias, and if they start using these ones, it will be rather tiresome to switch to new ones. We are not exactly short on work in Wikidata. -- ( ) Wait until number datatype is available. — Support deletion per Zolo. -- - ( ) Support deletion per Zolo. -- ( ) Support deletion per Zolo. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P91: Not [MASK] . 3 months is enough time for consensus to form. The pro-deletion arguments were concerns about sourcing, and the opposing arguments are that this property can be used, albeit with the appropriate caution. Even if the arguments of both sides weren't considered, the result has been 4 in favor and 6 opposing deletion, which is not consensus to delete. What both sides agreed on is that sourcing for the use of this property is important, so we must [MASK] that in mind in the future. For future reference, developing would help prevent problems with this property. -- ( ) Not [MASK] . 3 months is enough time for consensus to form. The pro-deletion arguments were concerns about sourcing, and the opposing arguments are that this property can be used, albeit with the appropriate caution. Even if the arguments of both sides weren't considered, the result has been 4 in favor and 6 opposing deletion, which is not consensus to delete. What both sides agreed on is that sourcing for the use of this property is important, so we must [MASK] that in mind in the future. For future reference, developing would help prevent problems with this property. -- ( ) The key term there is ""personal stuff"". One's sexual orientation is no more personal than any number of attributes we frequently list. I mean, which do I identify as more? Someone born in Washington, D.C., or someone who is gay? The latter, hands-down. Where does Harvey Milk's notability come from, primarily? Having been a San Francisco councilman, or having been a gay U.S. politician? Sure, the infobox doesn't say it, but it is listed as a category, and Milk appears on ; the word ""gay"" appears 157 times in his article. The day that sexual orientation comes completely non-notable, I'll RFD this property myself, but until then, this is useful data. As to your other point, for someone like , a ""size of penis"" field could be very useful. Not sure about U.S. presidents, though I can think of at least where you could argue it's historically notable. — The info boxes and templates in the English Wikipedia are extremely broad. If we do not limit the properties, there are good reasons to mistrust Wikidata as a kind of open intelligence agency. Right now we don't even have the possibility to add a source, so every property is problematic. To add ""sexual orientation"" as one of the first poperties is imho irresponsible. -- ( ) The info boxes and templates in the English Wikipedia are extremely broad. If we do not limit the properties, there are good reasons to mistrust Wikidata as a kind of open intelligence agency. Right now we don't even have the possibility to add a source, so every property is problematic. To add ""sexual orientation"" as one of the first poperties is imho irresponsible. -- ( ) Are you honestly suggesting that information about whether or not someone is gay is equivalent to the size of their penis? Because... there's really no rational response to that kind of ridiculousness. ( ) I'm not clear why the discussion about penis sizes is in the same discussion as keeping or deleting the sexual orientation property, but here's my two cents. The sexual orientation attribute should absolutely stay. Removing it would be a mistake, create more work for us later, and send the wrong message to LGBT editors (sorry, but that particular part of your existence isn't worth noting). Comically, I actually can see the value in penis sizes, but that definitely seems premature to me and not needed now. I also think there's a good debate to be had on the value of that property - but this page is without question not the place to have that debate. -- ( ) As far as I'm aware there is no requirement for a property to exist in an infobox on wikipedia. Wikidata isn't just about infoboxes, nor is it just about wikipedia. Properties should not be [MASK] just on the basis that they don't appear in infoboxes. But, it is useful to focus our efforts on infoboxes. ( ) This point deserves reiteration: ""Properties should not be [MASK] just on the basis that they don't appear in infoboxes."" Wikipedia infobox properties should be neither necessary nor sufficient as a basis for Wikidata properties. ( ) This point deserves reiteration: ""Properties should not be [MASK] just on the basis that they don't appear in infoboxes."" Wikipedia infobox properties should be neither necessary nor sufficient as a basis for Wikidata properties. ( ) Support deletion. This kind of property needs very good examples of sources, good use cases, and infobox connection, and non of that is provided. I think there are laws in some countries against keeping track of such things in databases without special permission from the authorities. ( ) Support deletion. Since there are no infoboxes with such a matter, no need in it now. Wikidata is currently and for indefinite time in future is not for categorization, so existence of (btw although many personalii of it exist and referred as gays in articles) says nothing to such a property. Number of sexual orientations is disputed. Homogenity of historical and modern western kinds of sexuality is strongly disputed. Speaking of person hirself is not a RS. Why on Earth do we need this property and not many others like mentioned by topicstarter? ( ) Comment . I am really unsure about this property, but I would not say that something is relevant a relevant Wikidata property just because it is sometimes important. The sexual life of Harvey Milk or Dominique Strauss Kahn may be important, but I doubt you can say anything relevant about it in Wikidata format (the penis size of a porn star may be a better fit here :) -- ( ) The point about sexual orientation is that it's not the same as sexual life . If someone identifies as lesbian, gay or bisexual, in many societies that puts them in opposition to the law, popular morality and/or social attitudes... regardless of whether they actually have sex or not. It's an identity category, much like being British—I'm British even if I don't march down the street on St George's Day waving a Union Flag. — ( ) The point about sexual orientation is that it's not the same as sexual life . If someone identifies as lesbian, gay or bisexual, in many societies that puts them in opposition to the law, popular morality and/or social attitudes... regardless of whether they actually have sex or not. It's an identity category, much like being British—I'm British even if I don't march down the street on St George's Day waving a Union Flag. — ( ) Support deletion. A property that is only used for only some of its permissible values does not make sense. That means it is poor fit for Wikidata. Also, it is a vandal magnet and we can not enter sources against it. ( ) Comment My grumpy comment, copied above, is more than two months old. Since then it has shown that this property is used mainly to stigmatize homosexuals, even if the editors didn't think about it. If the property ""sexual orientation"" would be used in a non-discriminatory way there should be at least the same number of heterosexuals. There is a fundamental difference between writing about the sexual orientation of a person in an Wikipedia article (incl. differentiation, sources etc.) or creating a database. -- ( ) And what, pray tell, is the difference? What if I want to write a query against the Wikidata database for all self-identified gay people who have won a major scientific award (the Nobel Prize, say)? The presence of categories on Wikipedia for, say, LGBT writers or LGBT comedians allow someone to look for that kind of information. As for your suggestion that this is even broadly equivalent to penis size, that's absolutely ridiculous. There are organisations that study the history and sociology of LGBT movements. Sexual orientation forms an important part of some people's self-identification: like nationality or religion, identification as being part of a sexual minority can place someone in a particularly uncomfortable or problematic relation with the mainstream of society. If Wikidata is to be a useful database that reflects humanity's difficult relationship with sexuality, we can't whitewash it of sexuality, any more than we can religion or gender or political affiliation or nationality. The historian Richard Davenport-Hines explains the importance of them : Sexuality and gender are at the heart of understanding human motivation. Treated with intelligence and authorial modesty, the innate differences, indoctrinated codes and enforced disciplines of masculinity and femininity – to say nothing of the sumptuous diversity of sexual inclinations and expressions – should be central to historical understanding. These inspiriting topics underlie many kinds of conduct: aggression, loyalty, fear, altruism, envy, intuition, hatred, creativity. But, yes, because occasionally people vandalise things, and because of problematic BLP issues on Wikipedia, this is as relevant to inclusion of a database of human knowledge to provide the machine-readable backing for Wikipedia as penis length. What wretched and shallow barbarianism. Oppose deletion , obviously. — ( ) And what, pray tell, is the difference? What if I want to write a query against the Wikidata database for all self-identified gay people who have won a major scientific award (the Nobel Prize, say)? The presence of categories on Wikipedia for, say, LGBT writers or LGBT comedians allow someone to look for that kind of information. As for your suggestion that this is even broadly equivalent to penis size, that's absolutely ridiculous. There are organisations that study the history and sociology of LGBT movements. Sexual orientation forms an important part of some people's self-identification: like nationality or religion, identification as being part of a sexual minority can place someone in a particularly uncomfortable or problematic relation with the mainstream of society. If Wikidata is to be a useful database that reflects humanity's difficult relationship with sexuality, we can't whitewash it of sexuality, any more than we can religion or gender or political affiliation or nationality. The historian Richard Davenport-Hines explains the importance of them : Sexuality and gender are at the heart of understanding human motivation. Treated with intelligence and authorial modesty, the innate differences, indoctrinated codes and enforced disciplines of masculinity and femininity – to say nothing of the sumptuous diversity of sexual inclinations and expressions – should be central to historical understanding. These inspiriting topics underlie many kinds of conduct: aggression, loyalty, fear, altruism, envy, intuition, hatred, creativity. Sexuality and gender are at the heart of understanding human motivation. Treated with intelligence and authorial modesty, the innate differences, indoctrinated codes and enforced disciplines of masculinity and femininity – to say nothing of the sumptuous diversity of sexual inclinations and expressions – should be central to historical understanding. These inspiriting topics underlie many kinds of conduct: aggression, loyalty, fear, altruism, envy, intuition, hatred, creativity. But, yes, because occasionally people vandalise things, and because of problematic BLP issues on Wikipedia, this is as relevant to inclusion of a database of human knowledge to provide the machine-readable backing for Wikipedia as penis length. What wretched and shallow barbarianism. Oppose deletion , obviously. — ( ) Comment There is also some legal issues regarding membership in political organisations. I would not recommend anybody under Swedish jurisdiction to add such information into Wikidata, not even that Obama is a Democrat. Into the article, no problem, but not into a database. -- ( ) oppose deletion I view gender identity in the same way that I view religious identity or political leanings in that they are useful identifiers that can be viewed or used both positively or negatively, depending on the intent and pre-existing beliefs of the person doing the viewing or using of the information. That a person's sexual identity can be used to stigmatize and that the data field can be a target for vandalism do not, in my opinion, qualify as reasons that we should not log that information. Probably best to [MASK] , but I think we really need strict guidelines for when it's okay to use this property. -- ( ) Oppose deletion , but I can see a lot of vandals abusing this if they find out about this, so it should definitely be used with extreme caution. Support deletion. As I predicted this property can be used to diskriminate against special gruops. There are very few people marked as ""heterosexuality"" so this property is mainly to mark homosexuals. Reminds me on something... a time when gay poeple had to wear a pink badges .-- ( ) This isn't used to discriminate, this is used to state facts. This can't really be used to discriminate. Think about it, will an openly homosexual person be mad that the sexuality they've already announced is on this site? It's not like we're deleting their item because they're homosexual or something extreme like that. This isn't used to discriminate, this is used to state facts. This can't really be used to discriminate. Think about it, will an openly homosexual person be mad that the sexuality they've already announced is on this site? It's not like we're deleting their item because they're homosexual or something extreme like that. Oppose deletion : It's data like every other data, not using it out of fear of discrimination is the real discrimination. And by the way, labels lose their negative connotations by using them in a neutral manner, there is no other way for that. — Oppose deletion, but obviously conform to guidelines when using it. ... , Oppose deletion I think PowerZ puts it nicely when it comes to discrimination. If people want to come up with guidelines, I welcome them to comment on my months-old thread on the property talk page. As for the ""discrimination"" that arises in the property being used more for gay/bisexual people than for straight people... how many people ever actually describe themselves as straight, and get quoted by a reliable source as saying so? Someday in the future, maybe it will be something people say on the record. But for now, it's generally assumed that someone's straight unless they say otherwise. But if it makes anyone feel any better, I just added that is straight, since that is something he's actually publicly acknowledged. — ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P402: Kept In the absence of a clear consensus, I will not delete an in-use property. It's been two weeks and there clearly isn't a consensus. Kept In the absence of a clear consensus, I will not delete an in-use property. It's been two weeks and there clearly isn't a consensus. leaving a link to the here. Cheers. — Support under the assumption that it is true about OSM-IDs being unstable. ... , Support deletion , there are no stable IDs in OSM. Some may be more stable than others, but there really is no guarantee that one ID also not one for a relation will stay the same. Because of that there is that promotes users to tag OSM objects with . Secondly and I think that would be the way to go there is the OSM-tag wikidata, though not used very often at the moment (see: ). See also: for another solution to permanently link to a OSM object. -- ( ) Comment I do not see the point of collecting the information in an other Database as a solution specially because wikidata Items are not more stable than OSM realtions also it is about access to geographic information _over_ wikidata. -- ( ) Oppose The fact that these IDs change does not seem like a cogent reason in itself to delete this property. The nominator has even suggested a solution: automate the updates (""extract wikipedia tags ( ) from OSM in order to [MASK] this property updated""). ( ) Oppose OSM Rel IDs are not that unstable. some random examples: has been connected with relation 51490 which was created in 2010-01-03 and has since then represented the same thing has been connected with relation 365331 which was created in 2009-12-16 and has since then represented the same thing has been connected with relation 389341 which was created in 2009-29-03 and has since then represented the same thing has been connected with relation 51490 which was created in 2010-01-03 and has since then represented the same thing has been connected with relation 365331 which was created in 2009-12-16 and has since then represented the same thing has been connected with relation 389341 which was created in 2009-29-03 and has since then represented the same thing right now it seems quite stable to me. I know that its not a perfect solution and we should rather establish a wikidata tag in openstreetmap but on the other hand: lets try it this way around -- ( ) Oppose It seems that a lot of IDs aren't as unstable as the nominator thought. If the updates can be automated, then this will be a great property to [MASK]. Comment. This is maybe a matter of definition. You should try to define what stability is first. -- ( ) Indeed. As long as it isn't changing every minute I would think its ok. I think it's more important that we have a system that is able to [MASK] up with the updates, which seems possible. ( ) Indeed. As long as it isn't changing every minute I would think its ok. I think it's more important that we have a system that is able to [MASK] up with the updates, which seems possible. ( ) Comment I think we should work with the OSM team to figure out which property to link with OSM<-->Wikipedia is the most accurate (since it seems like there are multiple options), and then base our property on that. ( ) [MASK] . -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P482: [MASK]. the order of the statements are due to the entering time. This means, both statements could be scattered over the item page. how should we handle when importing actors from external databases? With two properties, we've to decide the actors should either be important to starring or supporting property. I don't think it's possible to automatically recognize the right type of role. With only one property 'actors', actors can be important to this property and information (qualifier) about starring role or not can be enter later manually? Support also because not all the wiki split in starring and support actor. -- ( ) Support merging with P161 pr. Nightwish62 (The sources may not differentiate) -- ( ) Support merging with P161. ( ) Support per Nightwish62 and ValterVB. -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P18: Not [MASK] - no consensus to delete after one week of discussion. -- ( ) Not [MASK] - no consensus to delete after one week of discussion. -- ( ) Support deletion. -- ( ) Oppose 1.) better to use a generic image property with qualifiers ( image shows ), than have thousand of specific image-property ( opening ceremony image ) 2.) every language version should have the artistic freedom to choose it's own representation. It would be boring to see articles in every language version using the same image ? Sorry, but collection image information centralized doesn't mean every Wikipedia use the same picture?! -- ( ) But a generic image is not a well defined property of an item. There can be several opening ceremony images , who says that the chosen is the right one? All other properties are well-defined: capital of a country, population, area size... Images are making at most sense, if you have a specific purpose, f.e. an album cover. I think there are not too many useful cases for defining an image as property. -- ( ) Sometimes, we have a lot of images about a topic in Commons, and some are fairly obviously better than others. It is true that is is somewhat subjective, but so is choosing an image in an infobox is subjective. I suppose there could be item by item discussions in some cases. Also, we could probably have guidelines like giving priority to "" "". -- ( ) But a generic image is not a well defined property of an item. There can be several opening ceremony images , who says that the chosen is the right one? All other properties are well-defined: capital of a country, population, area size... Images are making at most sense, if you have a specific purpose, f.e. an album cover. I think there are not too many useful cases for defining an image as property. -- ( ) Sometimes, we have a lot of images about a topic in Commons, and some are fairly obviously better than others. It is true that is is somewhat subjective, but so is choosing an image in an infobox is subjective. I suppose there could be item by item discussions in some cases. Also, we could probably have guidelines like giving priority to "" "". -- ( ) Sometimes, we have a lot of images about a topic in Commons, and some are fairly obviously better than others. It is true that is is somewhat subjective, but so is choosing an image in an infobox is subjective. I suppose there could be item by item discussions in some cases. Also, we could probably have guidelines like giving priority to "" "". -- ( ) Support per Sinuhe20's above comment. ... , Oppose . Qualifiers, and more specific properties may be useful, but this property makes sense but for many ""image"" parameters in infoboxes. If small languages want to automatically create infobox, they should be able to do it without the need to look for the most appropriate one in Commons. Fairly often the variety in Wikipedia images is due to some languages using older, lower quality images, rather than to a deliberate choice. And if it is a deliberate choice, Wikipedias can always override Wikidata. -- ( ) Images in infoboxes are mostly not mandatory. Wikidata should only provide basic data, being essential for the item. Because this property is so subjective, it could lead to a lot of discussions and edit-wars. -- ( ) Images in infoboxes are mostly not mandatory. Wikidata should only provide basic data, being essential for the item. Because this property is so subjective, it could lead to a lot of discussions and edit-wars. -- ( ) . Saving choosing an image is useful, but in my experience, different images are better suited to different wikis, as they are often culturally different. This is obvious in places like Jerusalem, where Hebrew will probably prefer Western wall, Arabic Al-Aqsa mosque and Latin a Church. Portraits of people are easier in this question, so maybe limiting it to Pics of people, stars, plants and animals cab be helpful. ( ) Oppose deletion. To create infoboxes automatically with wikidata an image of the object is essential. -- ( ) Images are mostly not essential for infoboxes. By the way, the first aim of Wikidata is to provide consistent data, not the automatic creation of infoboxes. Take an example: has the image , which is solely used in en.wp. de.wp, fr.wp and es.wp are using completely different images, but everyone wants to use wikidata for creating infoboxes. So images are the only elements that differ in the infoboxes, they cannot be centralized.-- ( ) Images are mostly not essential for infoboxes. By the way, the first aim of Wikidata is to provide consistent data, not the automatic creation of infoboxes. Take an example: has the image , which is solely used in en.wp. de.wp, fr.wp and es.wp are using completely different images, but everyone wants to use wikidata for creating infoboxes. So images are the only elements that differ in the infoboxes, they cannot be centralized. -- ( ) Oppose but use it with care. It's not a property for the average item. It's useful in the work-domain, less so in the place-domain. -- ( ) Oppose deletion. I think linking items to commons (and vice versa) is useful data. We don't need to show/use it all but it's all good. ( ) Support — we have the Commons category link property to serve this purpose. — Weak oppose — artistic freedom is possible for many properties, and most infoboxes with images only have one image; if there is an edit war, you can specify images locally or delete the property from the item. -- ( ) (weak because of screenshots in articles on Firefox) -- ( ) (weak because of screenshots in articles on Firefox) -- ( ) Support - I've wondered why we have a generic ""image"" item. I might understand something like Property:Logo, but image seems not only unnecessary but almost totally useless. Most items will or do have a commons category associated with them as well. -- ( ) On a side note, the ""best"" image from a photographic standpoint (""valued image"") is not always the lead image. Maybe a separate property could be ""valued image of this topic"" or something, but that kind of leads us down the road of stuff like {{GA icon|es}}, etc. (Which I believe we'll be adding at some point from what I understand.). -- ( ) On a side note, the ""best"" image from a photographic standpoint (""valued image"") is not always the lead image. Maybe a separate property could be ""valued image of this topic"" or something, but that kind of leads us down the road of stuff like {{GA icon|es}}, etc. (Which I believe we'll be adding at some point from what I understand.). -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P96: [MASK] -- [MASK] -- Support deletion. Unused, obsolete property. ( ) Support deletion, of course. -- ( ) Support -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P388: [MASK] [MASK] Support Redundant. — Support -- I agree, this is pretty redundant. Support , better handled by queries. — ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P46: Depreciation in progress, will be [MASK] when all entries using P46 are converted to P6. has finished the mass-migration of all claims ( ) -- And now it has been [MASK] by ( • • ). -- ( ) ( ) [MASK] Depreciation in progress, will be [MASK] when all entries using P46 are converted to P6. has finished the mass-migration of all claims ( ) -- And now it has been [MASK] by ( • • ). -- ( ) ( ) [MASK] And now it has been [MASK] by ( • • ). -- ( ) ( ) [MASK] ( ) ( ) [MASK] Support and also suggest merging to make a general organization executive head property. -- ( ) A Swedish municipality has no ""goverment"", and therefor no ""head"". This will look awful back home... -- ( ) According to there is something in the Swedish municipalities called kommunalråd or kommunstyrelsens ordförande . The (merged) property when applied to a Swedish municipality should probably point to the person occupying this position. The exact translation of the general term as well as of the particular cases should be the question of labels in various languages and of the use of the property in particular Wikipedia (or wherever...)-- ( ) Well, it does not have to be beautifull, it just have to work. But I hope the of a municipality will not be merged with this property, otherwise Wikidata will be useless for this purpose. There is also problems with describing a ""landshövding"" as the ""head of goverment"" of a county. He/she is more of a ""head of state"" for the county, than a head of goverment. -- ( ) It seems to me there is certainly a difference between head of government of a territory and head of an organization, so I retract my suggestion to merge . I suppose ideally we would create a separate item for each government, since a government is a different thing than it's territory, but that doesn't seem feasible. I don't understand the difference between a head of state and head of government. -- ( ) You will find an explanation of the difference in the introduction in the Wikipedia article . ( ) Interesting. I suppose there should be separate properties for head of state and head of government, and apparently the would get both. Anyway, the property should not be based on the level of government, as it is now. -- ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) According to there is something in the Swedish municipalities called kommunalråd or kommunstyrelsens ordförande . The (merged) property when applied to a Swedish municipality should probably point to the person occupying this position. The exact translation of the general term as well as of the particular cases should be the question of labels in various languages and of the use of the property in particular Wikipedia (or wherever...)-- ( ) Well, it does not have to be beautifull, it just have to work. But I hope the of a municipality will not be merged with this property, otherwise Wikidata will be useless for this purpose. There is also problems with describing a ""landshövding"" as the ""head of goverment"" of a county. He/she is more of a ""head of state"" for the county, than a head of goverment. -- ( ) It seems to me there is certainly a difference between head of government of a territory and head of an organization, so I retract my suggestion to merge . I suppose ideally we would create a separate item for each government, since a government is a different thing than it's territory, but that doesn't seem feasible. I don't understand the difference between a head of state and head of government. -- ( ) You will find an explanation of the difference in the introduction in the Wikipedia article . ( ) Interesting. I suppose there should be separate properties for head of state and head of government, and apparently the would get both. Anyway, the property should not be based on the level of government, as it is now. -- ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) Well, it does not have to be beautifull, it just have to work. But I hope the of a municipality will not be merged with this property, otherwise Wikidata will be useless for this purpose. There is also problems with describing a ""landshövding"" as the ""head of goverment"" of a county. He/she is more of a ""head of state"" for the county, than a head of goverment. -- ( ) It seems to me there is certainly a difference between head of government of a territory and head of an organization, so I retract my suggestion to merge . I suppose ideally we would create a separate item for each government, since a government is a different thing than it's territory, but that doesn't seem feasible. I don't understand the difference between a head of state and head of government. -- ( ) You will find an explanation of the difference in the introduction in the Wikipedia article . ( ) Interesting. I suppose there should be separate properties for head of state and head of government, and apparently the would get both. Anyway, the property should not be based on the level of government, as it is now. -- ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) It seems to me there is certainly a difference between head of government of a territory and head of an organization, so I retract my suggestion to merge . I suppose ideally we would create a separate item for each government, since a government is a different thing than it's territory, but that doesn't seem feasible. I don't understand the difference between a head of state and head of government. -- ( ) You will find an explanation of the difference in the introduction in the Wikipedia article . ( ) Interesting. I suppose there should be separate properties for head of state and head of government, and apparently the would get both. Anyway, the property should not be based on the level of government, as it is now. -- ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) You will find an explanation of the difference in the introduction in the Wikipedia article . ( ) Interesting. I suppose there should be separate properties for head of state and head of government, and apparently the would get both. Anyway, the property should not be based on the level of government, as it is now. -- ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) Interesting. I suppose there should be separate properties for head of state and head of government, and apparently the would get both. Anyway, the property should not be based on the level of government, as it is now. -- ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) There already is different properties for head of state ( ) and head of goverment ( ). This discussion is about merging the latter with head of local government [[P:P6]. ( ) Support merge I see no point in having different properties for this dependent on the level of government. That is to mix different concepts: the head of government, and the administrative level of the government. These concepts should have independent properties. ( ) Support merge and deletion per above. Defining the level of government should not fall in the scope of this property. I'm planning a Python script to migrate all values. -- Support Things have changed a lot since early February, when James created this property and I proposed the regional government one. This was all before the community decided to merge all of the administrative subdivision properties, and before any of us really understood what Phase II was gonna look like. So yeah, this is a vestige of an earlier understanding of the property scheme, and should be removed. — Support merging P6 into this more general term as I argued right from the start.  :-) ( ) Support merge, no need for different properties for heads of different levels of government. -- ( ) Support merge with resulting property titled ""head of government"". Support merge. Having two of nearly the same property isn't necessary. Comment , a general ""headed by"" property sounds reasonable, but we should have guidelines to differentiate between several roles. For instance, many states have a ""Head of State"" and a ""head of government"", French départements have a ""président du conseil général"" and a ""préfet"", companies often have a CEO and a chairman. -- ( ) Comment How about a head property to indicate a head for this unit, with a qualifier of office ? So, for London it would be head = Boris Johnson, qualifier office = Mayor of London. Could also work for organizations, and allow for other offices/positions to be indicated without having to set-up new properties. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P41: There is a consensus if not to [MASK] this, at least that right now it's the best of several sub-optimal solutions, which is itself essentially an argument to [MASK] (albeit not a great one). So KEPT . There is a consensus if not to [MASK] this, at least that right now it's the best of several sub-optimal solutions, which is itself essentially an argument to [MASK] (albeit not a great one). So KEPT . Question How is that? So one could use with the value ""empty"" and add as qualifier? Have you attempted to do that lately? -- at Why would it ever need to be set to ""empty""? Why not just create an item for it if it doesn't have one? -- ( ) So would be creating these empty items? Or a new interface feature? How would it practically work for our contributors? -- at is an example item links to. Articles about flags are relevant according to Wikipedia's guidelines and most of them already got one anyway. — Hmm . . interesting when we see you write ""most"". What do you mean with that? What do you base your explanation on? What Wikipedia guideline do you mean? I think you are actually driving-by another website than you have in mind. -- at I point you to , flags are notable. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — Why would it ever need to be set to ""empty""? Why not just create an item for it if it doesn't have one? -- ( ) So would be creating these empty items? Or a new interface feature? How would it practically work for our contributors? -- at is an example item links to. Articles about flags are relevant according to Wikipedia's guidelines and most of them already got one anyway. — Hmm . . interesting when we see you write ""most"". What do you mean with that? What do you base your explanation on? What Wikipedia guideline do you mean? I think you are actually driving-by another website than you have in mind. -- at I point you to , flags are notable. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — So would be creating these empty items? Or a new interface feature? How would it practically work for our contributors? -- at is an example item links to. Articles about flags are relevant according to Wikipedia's guidelines and most of them already got one anyway. — Hmm . . interesting when we see you write ""most"". What do you mean with that? What do you base your explanation on? What Wikipedia guideline do you mean? I think you are actually driving-by another website than you have in mind. -- at I point you to , flags are notable. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — is an example item links to. Articles about flags are relevant according to Wikipedia's guidelines and most of them already got one anyway. — Hmm . . interesting when we see you write ""most"". What do you mean with that? What do you base your explanation on? What Wikipedia guideline do you mean? I think you are actually driving-by another website than you have in mind. -- at I point you to , flags are notable. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — Hmm . . interesting when we see you write ""most"". What do you mean with that? What do you base your explanation on? What Wikipedia guideline do you mean? I think you are actually driving-by another website than you have in mind. -- at I point you to , flags are notable. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — I point you to , flags are notable. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — Hmm, this isn't an irrelevant Wikipedia guideline you mentioned. It doesn't explain your claim ""most of them already got one anyway"" either. Is this drive-by thing the result of closure of the discussion? -- at What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — What are you talking about? The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, therefore is redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims, notably ""most of them already got one anyway"". -- at E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — E.g. . — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — So meant to say ""most of the 500"" on your website? -- at Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — Could you please come back to a rational discussion? I have no idea what you actually mean. For a complete list of flags with description pages see . — Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) Changes like these should have been proposed elsewhere, prior to any delete process. This property is already live on wikipedia, so it should not be [MASK] until another method is discussed and in place. ( ) We are stilling trying to figure out how you, 23PowerZ, came to write ""Articles about flags are [..] and most of them already got one anyway. "". Now you pointed to a list of about 500 articles on en_wiki to illustrate that most flags already have an article. Is this all you have to support your POV? -- at You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — You are still trying to do that. All the rest of us are discussing why P41 is or isn't redundant and whether we should delete it. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — So you are withdrawing your comment? Fine with me. You should probably withdraw your drive-by nomination as well. -- at No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — No, but that was an irrelevant side note to your , showing you didn't understand why P41 is redundant. Even if there were not a single flag article on any language Wiki, P41 would still be redundant. — Hm, can really narrow enough that this would work well? I imagine that ""flag image"" is specifically used for images that are the flag design, and not, say, a photograph of a flag waving. -- ( ) The best flag image available should be used (a crap photo is fine, if that's all there is). As it happens, Commons has flags well covered, so we have lots of nice vector images. ( ) The best flag image available should be used (a crap photo is fine, if that's all there is). As it happens, Commons has flags well covered, so we have lots of nice vector images. ( ) Good point. Delete . -- ( ) Good point. Delete . -- ( ) Good point. Delete . -- ( ) Good point. Delete . -- ( ) Comment I think flags should be paired up with qualifiers, and a description item created if needed. So, that there is no mistake as to which flag belongs with which description. Some items have more than one flag. For example: . Same would apply to coat of arms. ( ) Same applies to logo, seal, and any other symbol image property. ( ) I think the deletion proposer thinks you should be creating thousands of items and use the image property there. -- at Surprisingly, me thinks that too. But in contrast to you I know we already have these items. — Maybe you have for some projects, but not all of them. As far as I know, on svwp there is more or less the same article for all flags in Africa. There is no possibility to create a link to that article until the system allows redirects as sitelinks. -- ( ) It's kind of odd that we still haven't seen any evidence of this. Seems to be just empty talk. -- at How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — Same applies to logo, seal, and any other symbol image property. ( ) I think the deletion proposer thinks you should be creating thousands of items and use the image property there. -- at Surprisingly, me thinks that too. But in contrast to you I know we already have these items. — Maybe you have for some projects, but not all of them. As far as I know, on svwp there is more or less the same article for all flags in Africa. There is no possibility to create a link to that article until the system allows redirects as sitelinks. -- ( ) It's kind of odd that we still haven't seen any evidence of this. Seems to be just empty talk. -- at How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — I think the deletion proposer thinks you should be creating thousands of items and use the image property there. -- at Surprisingly, me thinks that too. But in contrast to you I know we already have these items. — Maybe you have for some projects, but not all of them. As far as I know, on svwp there is more or less the same article for all flags in Africa. There is no possibility to create a link to that article until the system allows redirects as sitelinks. -- ( ) It's kind of odd that we still haven't seen any evidence of this. Seems to be just empty talk. -- at How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — Surprisingly, me thinks that too. But in contrast to you I know we already have these items. — Maybe you have for some projects, but not all of them. As far as I know, on svwp there is more or less the same article for all flags in Africa. There is no possibility to create a link to that article until the system allows redirects as sitelinks. -- ( ) It's kind of odd that we still haven't seen any evidence of this. Seems to be just empty talk. -- at How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — Maybe you have for some projects, but not all of them. As far as I know, on svwp there is more or less the same article for all flags in Africa. There is no possibility to create a link to that article until the system allows redirects as sitelinks. -- ( ) It's kind of odd that we still haven't seen any evidence of this. Seems to be just empty talk. -- at How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — It's kind of odd that we still haven't seen any evidence of this. Seems to be just empty talk. -- at How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — How would you create a link to correct article when there is no sitelink? -- ( ) If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — If there is ""item A with flag description property"" => ""item B for flag article with property for flag filename"" => ""flag filename"", it should be possible to display on an article for ""item A"" in any language ""flag filename"". ""item B"" needs to exist and Z still hasn't provided us with any evidence for that. Otherwise, all need to be created. One could use an empty ""flag description property"" and add as qualifier the ""image"" property there with ""flag filename"", but this isn't as convenient as P41. -- at I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — I gave you an example of a flag item, I gave you a complete list of existing flag articles on enwp, I pointed you to , showing you flag items are notable, and therefore will be created eventually anyway, if they don't exist already. The image of a flag is a property of the flag itself, we can show that with P18, and that's what we should be doing. Now you make a case why P41 isn't redundant and shouldn't be [MASK], other than ""I like it."" and ""Status quo is always preferable."" — Comment I'd suggest finding out how infoboxes on wikipedia can be populated using wikidata before deleting any of these properties. The template which handles that may need to be changed. ( ) Maybe you should find out first and request deletion afterwards. -- at I haven't started any deletion requests, and I'm suggesting that those who do should be thinking more before doing so because deletion may break something on wikipedia. ( ) Sorry, I misunderstood. Would you change your ""support"" above to ""[MASK]""? -- at Maybe you should find out first and request deletion afterwards. -- at I haven't started any deletion requests, and I'm suggesting that those who do should be thinking more before doing so because deletion may break something on wikipedia. ( ) Sorry, I misunderstood. Would you change your ""support"" above to ""[MASK]""? -- at I haven't started any deletion requests, and I'm suggesting that those who do should be thinking more before doing so because deletion may break something on wikipedia. ( ) Sorry, I misunderstood. Would you change your ""support"" above to ""[MASK]""? -- at Sorry, I misunderstood. Would you change your ""support"" above to ""[MASK]""? -- at Comment I have discovered that some of the files used in some items are not real flags, they are a . I am not sure that P163 is relevant for all of them. In many cases is more relevant. -- ( ) Comment I have removed usage of this property from . I do not think that there are many direct uses of properties in the main namespace, but sometimes they are used as showcase on high-traffic pages. We would really need a bot. - ( ) [MASK] for now, until all flag images have been moved to another property. ( ) [MASK] Most flags don't have articles in Wikipedia and this would require our users to create a new item each time they would want to add a flag. Creating numerous new items we may not even know how to name isn't user friendly at all. -- at [MASK] - most of flag files used in infoboxes are flags of municipalities which have no related articlee about. now in infobox can be used simple {{#property:P41}}. If this item is [MASK], we must use more complicated form. Not every user is good in programming. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P131: There is a consensus for keeping this. It should be noted that, in my view at least, in the absence of any additional factors/details, that a property is heavily used is not in and of itself a valid reason for keeping a property. If viable alternatives are presented, bots can do the changeover. However Scott5114's argument was a valid reason to [MASK] the property, and -Rschen7754 and AutomaticStrikeout echo the same point. There is a consensus for keeping this. It should be noted that, in my view at least, in the absence of any additional factors/details, that a property is heavily used is not in and of itself a valid reason for keeping a property. If viable alternatives are presented, bots can do the changeover. However Scott5114's argument was a valid reason to [MASK] the property, and -Rschen7754 and AutomaticStrikeout echo the same point. I've been using this to mean 'is physically located in'. It is different from 'is part of'. For example is part of but is in the administrative unit . ( ) According to the description of the properties you're probably right, as for now. But I strongly agree that we need a serious discussion on this field about which properties we need and how should we use them. I can see three cardinal question which should be cleared in the beginning, but feel free to add more: Do we need different properties for geographical and ""other"" items? And if so, then on the next level: Do we need different properties for administrative and ""other"" types of geographical structuring (fiscal, juridicial, statistical a.s.o.)? And also: Do we need different properties for general terms and instances? In other words, do we need different properties to say that Scandinavia is part of Europe, that a particular municipality is a part of a particular district, that Charles Baudelaire is one of the poetes maudits , that Operation Barbarossa is part of WWII and that a drive shuft is a part of clutch, or can we use one general property ""part of"" with appropriate qualifiers when necessary? Do we need different properties for connecting the units of similar character (making thus some kind of structure) and for connecting some item with it's context (geographical, social a.s.o.)? In other words, do we need extra properties to say that Manhattan is in New York City and to say that Empire State Building is in New York City? Do we need separate properties for reciprocal relations? In other words, do we need to say both that Bavaria is in Germany and that Germany includes Bavaria, or is one statement (and consequently one property) enough? This is actually more technical question where the judgment of the programmers should be taken seriously. And also, this is a more general issue that maybe should be put in a separate ...-- ( ) According to the description of the properties you're probably right, as for now. But I strongly agree that we need a serious discussion on this field about which properties we need and how should we use them. I can see three cardinal question which should be cleared in the beginning, but feel free to add more: Do we need different properties for geographical and ""other"" items? And if so, then on the next level: Do we need different properties for administrative and ""other"" types of geographical structuring (fiscal, juridicial, statistical a.s.o.)? And also: Do we need different properties for general terms and instances? In other words, do we need different properties to say that Scandinavia is part of Europe, that a particular municipality is a part of a particular district, that Charles Baudelaire is one of the poetes maudits , that Operation Barbarossa is part of WWII and that a drive shuft is a part of clutch, or can we use one general property ""part of"" with appropriate qualifiers when necessary? Do we need different properties for connecting the units of similar character (making thus some kind of structure) and for connecting some item with it's context (geographical, social a.s.o.)? In other words, do we need extra properties to say that Manhattan is in New York City and to say that Empire State Building is in New York City? Do we need separate properties for reciprocal relations? In other words, do we need to say both that Bavaria is in Germany and that Germany includes Bavaria, or is one statement (and consequently one property) enough? This is actually more technical question where the judgment of the programmers should be taken seriously. And also, this is a more general issue that maybe should be put in a separate ...-- ( ) Do we need different properties for geographical and ""other"" items? And if so, then on the next level: Do we need different properties for administrative and ""other"" types of geographical structuring (fiscal, juridicial, statistical a.s.o.)? And also: Do we need different properties for general terms and instances? In other words, do we need different properties to say that Scandinavia is part of Europe, that a particular municipality is a part of a particular district, that Charles Baudelaire is one of the poetes maudits , that Operation Barbarossa is part of WWII and that a drive shuft is a part of clutch, or can we use one general property ""part of"" with appropriate qualifiers when necessary? Do we need different properties for connecting the units of similar character (making thus some kind of structure) and for connecting some item with it's context (geographical, social a.s.o.)? In other words, do we need extra properties to say that Manhattan is in New York City and to say that Empire State Building is in New York City? Do we need separate properties for reciprocal relations? In other words, do we need to say both that Bavaria is in Germany and that Germany includes Bavaria, or is one statement (and consequently one property) enough? This is actually more technical question where the judgment of the programmers should be taken seriously. And also, this is a more general issue that maybe should be put in a separate ...-- ( ) [MASK] -- If this was [MASK], it would affect so many items, it isn't even funny. I agree with Secretlondon, there is a distinction between the two properties. So why delete this one? Because: All the information given by the statement A : B can also be described (and more accurately so) by the statements A B ; B administrative unit (or a subdivision of that, which is more accurate). P131 is a mixing of a relation between two items and a characteristic of the latter item itself, which should never be done at all in my opinion. Therefore: Delete — Because: All the information given by the statement A : B can also be described (and more accurately so) by the statements A B ; B administrative unit (or a subdivision of that, which is more accurate). P131 is a mixing of a relation between two items and a characteristic of the latter item itself, which should never be done at all in my opinion. Therefore: Delete — This is a difficult one. This property is also used for cases like Tne Empire State Building is located in New York. Can we use for that ? That seems to comply with the guidelines in (link provided in the property documentation). Yet I am not positive that it would be an optimal solution. I tend to think we need a way to say ""located in"" that would use the most precise item available. either trough a new property or through rescoping or ). Another solution would be a fully automated system based on coordinates, but I doubt we will get there anytime soon. -- ( ) It should be located in: Manhattan; located in New York is redundant to that. I can't think of any case when isn't enough to define the type of being part of when you check what the linked items actually are. The Empire State Building is a building, Manhattan is an administrative unit, therefore it is clear that part of means located in in this case, I'd say. Or can someone point me to an example this is not the case? — The only problem I can think of, is if the administrative unit isn't geographic. I have some of those problems when I try to edit about Sweden County Counsils. They only exist inside healthcenters and hospitals. It's not completly true, but that is the best way I can describe them. -- ( ) It should be located in: Manhattan; located in New York is redundant to that. I can't think of any case when isn't enough to define the type of being part of when you check what the linked items actually are. The Empire State Building is a building, Manhattan is an administrative unit, therefore it is clear that part of means located in in this case, I'd say. Or can someone point me to an example this is not the case? — The only problem I can think of, is if the administrative unit isn't geographic. I have some of those problems when I try to edit about Sweden County Counsils. They only exist inside healthcenters and hospitals. It's not completly true, but that is the best way I can describe them. -- ( ) The only problem I can think of, is if the administrative unit isn't geographic. I have some of those problems when I try to edit about Sweden County Counsils. They only exist inside healthcenters and hospitals. It's not completly true, but that is the best way I can describe them. -- ( ) Can you give an example item? ( ) Can you give an example item? ( ) Can you give an example item? ( ) give me some serious problems. I cannot say that has any relation to the County counsil. Still, any hospital or healthcenter geographicly located in is a part of, or have a relation to , but almost nothing else. (Also private hospitals normally have a relation to the county counsil.) And, I have to, in some way, explain how is related to , and the only possible way to do that is to explain that the citizens in and two other municipalities are concerned while the other have no relation to that organisation. The citizens in are at the same time citizens in , but only the people. The geography in the area is not related to the County counsil. The geography is related to , not to the County counsil. The County counsil and the County are two different organisations. There can be more than one County counsil in every County, but at the moment, there isn't. The County counsil can be consolidated into a Municipality, it has happend frequently in history, and at the moment it is in . -- ( ) give me some serious problems. I cannot say that has any relation to the County counsil. Still, any hospital or healthcenter geographicly located in is a part of, or have a relation to , but almost nothing else. (Also private hospitals normally have a relation to the county counsil.) And, I have to, in some way, explain how is related to , and the only possible way to do that is to explain that the citizens in and two other municipalities are concerned while the other have no relation to that organisation. The citizens in are at the same time citizens in , but only the people. The geography in the area is not related to the County counsil. The geography is related to , not to the County counsil. The County counsil and the County are two different organisations. There can be more than one County counsil in every County, but at the moment, there isn't. The County counsil can be consolidated into a Municipality, it has happend frequently in history, and at the moment it is in . -- ( ) give me some serious problems. I cannot say that has any relation to the County counsil. Still, any hospital or healthcenter geographicly located in is a part of, or have a relation to , but almost nothing else. (Also private hospitals normally have a relation to the county counsil.) And, I have to, in some way, explain how is related to , and the only possible way to do that is to explain that the citizens in and two other municipalities are concerned while the other have no relation to that organisation. The citizens in are at the same time citizens in , but only the people. The geography in the area is not related to the County counsil. The geography is related to , not to the County counsil. The County counsil and the County are two different organisations. There can be more than one County counsil in every County, but at the moment, there isn't. The County counsil can be consolidated into a Municipality, it has happend frequently in history, and at the moment it is in . -- ( ) give me some serious problems. I cannot say that has any relation to the County counsil. Still, any hospital or healthcenter geographicly located in is a part of, or have a relation to , but almost nothing else. (Also private hospitals normally have a relation to the county counsil.) And, I have to, in some way, explain how is related to , and the only possible way to do that is to explain that the citizens in and two other municipalities are concerned while the other have no relation to that organisation. The citizens in are at the same time citizens in , but only the people. The geography in the area is not related to the County counsil. The geography is related to , not to the County counsil. The County counsil and the County are two different organisations. There can be more than one County counsil in every County, but at the moment, there isn't. The County counsil can be consolidated into a Municipality, it has happend frequently in history, and at the moment it is in . -- ( ) part of and is in have different meanings, and the meaning of each can change according to context. For example, a slice of pizza is a part of the pizza, but is not in the pizza. On the other hand, you can say that the City of Westminster is in London and a part of London. ( ) Maybe in English, but I am not so sure that it always looks the same after a translation. Prepositions like in/on/at/for/of etc are always translated as a part of a sentence, not word by word. I guess that is a part of the confusion here. ""Located in an administrative unit"", sounds when I tranlate it word by word into Swedish as if something is located in the office of the Mayor. -- ( ) These difficulties of translation seem to me to be a very good reason for keeping more specific properties like P131, and avoiding general ones like ""is a"" or ""part of"". The latter are much more likely to cause linguistic confusion, or at least require awkward/lengthy translations. Literal transciptions are often not good translations. Having said that, I'm a little curious about whether the property's full description (in English) ""the item is located on the territory of the following administrative unit"" also transcribes just as awkwardly into Swedish. I'm guessing it should be a bit clearer. -- ( ) Replace ""administrative"" with ""geographic"" and things would be much more easy! -- ( ) Maybe in English, but I am not so sure that it always looks the same after a translation. Prepositions like in/on/at/for/of etc are always translated as a part of a sentence, not word by word. I guess that is a part of the confusion here. ""Located in an administrative unit"", sounds when I tranlate it word by word into Swedish as if something is located in the office of the Mayor. -- ( ) These difficulties of translation seem to me to be a very good reason for keeping more specific properties like P131, and avoiding general ones like ""is a"" or ""part of"". The latter are much more likely to cause linguistic confusion, or at least require awkward/lengthy translations. Literal transciptions are often not good translations. Having said that, I'm a little curious about whether the property's full description (in English) ""the item is located on the territory of the following administrative unit"" also transcribes just as awkwardly into Swedish. I'm guessing it should be a bit clearer. -- ( ) Replace ""administrative"" with ""geographic"" and things would be much more easy! -- ( ) These difficulties of translation seem to me to be a very good reason for keeping more specific properties like P131, and avoiding general ones like ""is a"" or ""part of"". The latter are much more likely to cause linguistic confusion, or at least require awkward/lengthy translations. Literal transciptions are often not good translations. Having said that, I'm a little curious about whether the property's full description (in English) ""the item is located on the territory of the following administrative unit"" also transcribes just as awkwardly into Swedish. I'm guessing it should be a bit clearer. -- ( ) Replace ""administrative"" with ""geographic"" and things would be much more easy! -- ( ) Replace ""administrative"" with ""geographic"" and things would be much more easy! -- ( ) I know this is a bit of a crazy, useless comment, and I'm sorry, but if this one is [MASK], there better be a way to quickly replace all of them with the correct property. A script can easily be written to fix everything if required. ( ) Yes, the problems will not occur here, it's in Wikipedia this will be a problem. -- ( ) A script can easily be written to fix everything if required. ( ) Yes, the problems will not occur here, it's in Wikipedia this will be a problem. -- ( ) Yes, the problems will not occur here, it's in Wikipedia this will be a problem. -- ( ) One potential problem I see with using ""part of"" is that the meaning may not be entirely clear. For instance and are both arguably ""part of"" Paris. The former because is is located in Paris, and the second because it managed by the city of Paris. Maybe ""part of"" is not the best property for the second case, but that may be a bit error-prone. -- ( ) is (and therefore also administrated by ) the City of , but it of . — Yes, but that is assuming properties will be used correctly, and sometimes things can get complicated. Actually, even here, it should probably be both and , as an organization is not always managed by its owner. -- ( ) is (and therefore also administrated by ) the City of , but it of . — Yes, but that is assuming properties will be used correctly, and sometimes things can get complicated. Actually, even here, it should probably be both and , as an organization is not always managed by its owner. -- ( ) Yes, but that is assuming properties will be used correctly, and sometimes things can get complicated. Actually, even here, it should probably be both and , as an organization is not always managed by its owner. -- ( ) [MASK] without any other viable solution. ""Is part of"" doesn't work in a lot of cases. -- [MASK] Not redundant. is in the administrative unit , but the turnpike is not ""part of"" the county. — [MASK] per above. ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P571: Consensus is pretty strongly in favor of keeping this, at least for now. Consensus is pretty strongly in favor of keeping this, at least for now. [MASK] It just doesn't sound right to say ""date of birth/death"" for an organization. [MASK] ( ) Comment See: — [MASK] -- ( ) Strong delete : in the future it will be possible to ajust the label according to the entity type. We should not [MASK] two separate properties for a mere distinction of entity type. -- [MASK] Discovery not birth. -- ( ) [MASK] Discovery not birth.-- ( ) [MASK] these two things are related, but not the same. Maybe in the future things will be possible and we might even reconsider, but we live in the now. ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P435_and_Property:P436: Consensus is for keeping these. Consensus is for keeping these. : : It seems that the URL are different, aren't they ? -- ( ) Yes, they are. See . ( ) But this doesn't mean we need separate properties, does it? -- We have actually for 4 different ID types... -- The difference that the two first letters of an IMDb identifier identifies the type of the identifier, where there is no way to determine the type of an MusicBrainz identifier from the identifer without context as the identifier is nothing but a random number in hex encoding. ( ) We could easily get the ID type by distinguishing people, songs and release-groups, or even with an apposite qualifier. -- That is true that the type of the item will give the necessary context to distinguish the identifiers, provided that mistakes like adding the Work ID of a work to an item for a recording of the work never happens. ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) Given that they are for different things and hard to tell apart, I'd rather seem them in separate properties. Makes it easier to do consistency checks on it too. -- at Yes, they are. See . ( ) But this doesn't mean we need separate properties, does it? -- We have actually for 4 different ID types... -- The difference that the two first letters of an IMDb identifier identifies the type of the identifier, where there is no way to determine the type of an MusicBrainz identifier from the identifer without context as the identifier is nothing but a random number in hex encoding. ( ) We could easily get the ID type by distinguishing people, songs and release-groups, or even with an apposite qualifier. -- That is true that the type of the item will give the necessary context to distinguish the identifiers, provided that mistakes like adding the Work ID of a work to an item for a recording of the work never happens. ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) Given that they are for different things and hard to tell apart, I'd rather seem them in separate properties. Makes it easier to do consistency checks on it too. -- at But this doesn't mean we need separate properties, does it? -- We have actually for 4 different ID types... -- The difference that the two first letters of an IMDb identifier identifies the type of the identifier, where there is no way to determine the type of an MusicBrainz identifier from the identifer without context as the identifier is nothing but a random number in hex encoding. ( ) We could easily get the ID type by distinguishing people, songs and release-groups, or even with an apposite qualifier. -- That is true that the type of the item will give the necessary context to distinguish the identifiers, provided that mistakes like adding the Work ID of a work to an item for a recording of the work never happens. ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) Given that they are for different things and hard to tell apart, I'd rather seem them in separate properties. Makes it easier to do consistency checks on it too. -- at The difference that the two first letters of an IMDb identifier identifies the type of the identifier, where there is no way to determine the type of an MusicBrainz identifier from the identifer without context as the identifier is nothing but a random number in hex encoding. ( ) We could easily get the ID type by distinguishing people, songs and release-groups, or even with an apposite qualifier. -- That is true that the type of the item will give the necessary context to distinguish the identifiers, provided that mistakes like adding the Work ID of a work to an item for a recording of the work never happens. ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) We could easily get the ID type by distinguishing people, songs and release-groups, or even with an apposite qualifier. -- That is true that the type of the item will give the necessary context to distinguish the identifiers, provided that mistakes like adding the Work ID of a work to an item for a recording of the work never happens. ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) That is true that the type of the item will give the necessary context to distinguish the identifiers, provided that mistakes like adding the Work ID of a work to an item for a recording of the work never happens. ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) It would be reasonable to use only one property for all of them (we call them all MusicBrainz IDs after all ourselves). I can see that being a problem if you're auto-constructing the URL though since it depends on it. And you can't really use the data for that directly, since a lot of pages for singles in enwiki are for a song and a music single at the same time and thus have both a work ID and a release group ID. Of course, those should be two different items on WD anyway since they're two different things... but they often won't be, at least for now -- ( ) Qualifiers might be a decent choice for that, now that I read that bit :) -- ( ) Given that they are for different things and hard to tell apart, I'd rather seem them in separate properties. Makes it easier to do consistency checks on it too. -- at [MASK] , as long as the urls are not unified, we need to state which one the link belongs to (otherwise it would be buggy and hard to use for external clients). Sure we could use qualifiers, but that is more complicated and I cannot think of any substantial benefit for that. -- ( ) [MASK] per Zolo. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P596: Depreciating and deleting, per consensus here. Depreciating and deleting, per consensus here. Delete redundant. -- Delete redundant. ( ) Delete agreed. See for an example of how is used in a way that shows is completely redundant. ( ) Delete - Yup, redundant. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P94: Closed - property kept. Discussion below over almost a month failed to gain consensus to delete it, and a previous request along the same lines ( ) establishes a precedent to [MASK] these properties since they are separately required from the suggested replacements below. ( ) Closed - property kept. Discussion below over almost a month failed to gain consensus to delete it, and a previous request along the same lines ( ) establishes a precedent to [MASK] these properties since they are separately required from the suggested replacements below. ( ) Delete . -- ( ) (Note that this property is being used by certain infoboxes on the Swedish Wikipedia. -- ( ) ) Comment Note that image is (wrongly imo) up for deletion. ( ) On hold There is a mess of merged articles in this subject in the domain I have been working with (Poland and Sweden). P237 cannot be used in this way until the possibility to use redirects as sitelinks starts to work. This because, in many cases counties, provinces, municipalities and cities are using the same coa. And in almost every case I have seen, the article about the coa not only describe one coa, but a group of coa's in a region. But I like the idea of using P237 and P18 in this way. -- ( ) On hold A second objection is that this property is use in some projects already, without the possibility to use any information from any other item, than that who is directly related to the article. The developers have to expand the tools available in Lua in the client first so the wikipedia-projects can change their templates. -- ( ) I have reverted the use of this property in two templates on Svwp. I am not aware of any other use of this property on that project. Maybe by the use of #property directly in the articles, but that cannot easily be tracked. -- ( ) I have reverted the use of this property in two templates on Svwp. I am not aware of any other use of this property on that project. Maybe by the use of #property directly in the articles, but that cannot easily be tracked. -- ( ) [MASK] per . -- at [MASK] per Lavallen Delete per nomination. ( ) [MASK] This property is not redundant to : It provides an actual coat of arms image, not just the link to an article about the coat of arms. This is more specific than ; more specific properties (such as this one) should always be used instead. ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P29_+_Property:P139: Consensus is for deletion . I have [MASK] aunt, but there are several hundred instances of uncle in use, so a bot will need to deal with them. Consensus is for deletion . I have [MASK] aunt, but there are several hundred instances of uncle in use, so a bot will need to deal with them. Bot got uncles, so everything's [MASK]. Bot ""got"" uncles, so we've lost many data... I've filed . -- Bot ""got"" uncles, so we've lost many data... I've filed . -- Delete . These properties are clearly redundant, they add complexity without providing any real benefit. ( ) Delete . Completely redundant. -- ( ) Delete . Redundant. -- ( ) Delete . But you have to define a solution if there is a missing in the relation: if you know the uncle or the aunt but not the father/mother how to do you want to define the relationship ? ( ) Comment . A possible solution for those rare cases was . ( ) Comment – I made a list where you can see in how many cases it is possible to deduct the current uses of P29/P139 based on the data in the latest database dump. See . ( ) Thanks for compiling these data. As the RfC has pointed out, the fact that deleting these properties will create lots of missing links is irrelevant, because the same will be the case for any indirect family relationships, whether they currently have a property or not. My main argument for deletion revolves around the fact that ""uncle"" and ""aunt"" are culture-specific definitions; that the property is redundant is a relatively minor point. ( ) Comment The missing links on should be fixed first. -- at Thanks for compiling these data. As the RfC has pointed out, the fact that deleting these properties will create lots of missing links is irrelevant, because the same will be the case for any indirect family relationships, whether they currently have a property or not. My main argument for deletion revolves around the fact that ""uncle"" and ""aunt"" are culture-specific definitions; that the property is redundant is a relatively minor point. ( ) Comment The missing links on should be fixed first. -- at Delete . You can find my reasons at . — ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: main_regulatory_text_(P92): Consensus to [MASK]. ( ) Consensus to [MASK]. ( ) Support (see below). Side note: we may need a property for . -- ( ) Delete so long as it is now redundant. ( ) [MASK] seems to be the more general concept. -- at Sorry: is more general than ? ( ) I think he meant more general than ""foundational text"", in the sense that the property can be viewed as meaning ""regulated by"" like perhaps ""US is regulated by the US constitution"". I think that is something that we actually need, but it may be a bit tricky, and I am not sure how it should be done. -- ( ) Yes, I did mean . seems primarily to be for sourcing, not to provide information. -- at Sorry: is more general than ? ( ) I think he meant more general than ""foundational text"", in the sense that the property can be viewed as meaning ""regulated by"" like perhaps ""US is regulated by the US constitution"". I think that is something that we actually need, but it may be a bit tricky, and I am not sure how it should be done. -- ( ) Yes, I did mean . seems primarily to be for sourcing, not to provide information. -- at I think he meant more general than ""foundational text"", in the sense that the property can be viewed as meaning ""regulated by"" like perhaps ""US is regulated by the US constitution"". I think that is something that we actually need, but it may be a bit tricky, and I am not sure how it should be done. -- ( ) Yes, I did mean . seems primarily to be for sourcing, not to provide information. -- at Yes, I did mean . seems primarily to be for sourcing, not to provide information. -- at Again use the source format instead of a property: the original idea of was to source statement especially with fundamental text of a country/organization. This can be done now with the sourcing properties and the fundamental text of a country/organization can be described by another specific property. And the above example is not convincing because it is so obvious than nobody will claim that information (this is like most Americans live in US): the only way to use is to source with legal text and this can be done using the existing sourcing properties in a better way with indications of the volume, the page or the author. ( ) In this case it is indeed obvious, but there are cases, where it may not be that simple to find the relevant item (not for machines, and not even always for humans). -- ( ) In this case it is indeed obvious, but there are cases, where it may not be that simple to find the relevant item (not for machines, and not even always for humans). -- ( ) [MASK] - Rename the property so it can be used as linking to the constitution of a country (as it is used here ). Replace its usage in sources with stated in. -- ( ) rename to ""main regulatory text"" or something like that. We should not simply say ""regulated by"" because there is is another ""regulated by"" property for biology. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Lake_infobox_properties: The following discussion is closed. Doing… - Consensus to delete. ( ) [MASK] ( ) Doing… - Consensus to delete. ( ) [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) required for , part of the series of properties proposed for that. -- at (edited) Question : Please tell why you don't think that can used be instead of this? ( ) Well, please explain how it can be used instead. We need to fill an infobox field that lists the group of lakes a specific lake is part of. P265 lists just that. -- at Question : Please tell why you don't think that can used be instead of this? ( ) Well, please explain how it can be used instead. We need to fill an infobox field that lists the group of lakes a specific lake is part of. P265 lists just that. -- at Well, please explain how it can be used instead. We need to fill an infobox field that lists the group of lakes a specific lake is part of. P265 lists just that. -- at Islands: group Mountains: group , (would obsolete ) Persons: group Roads: group (would obsolete ) I feel that fits already quite well for all these cases. So is redundant. ( ) [MASK] The problem with is that it is so general that our editors can add almost any item after it. Using properties which clearly indicate what type of item they expect makes it easier for editors - the most common answers can even be hinted at in the labels and aliases. If a property is limited to only use certain types of item then we can can get bots to do sanity checks to flag any references to the 'wrong' type of item. If an editor adds three different properties to an item then which one will the infobox use? Much better to use more specific properties with names that match those in infoboxes. Later we can get the devs to add a special subproperty (W3C approved) so we can identify as a subproperty of . ( ) I like Byrial's idea of a ""group"" property, as it would be convenient for infoboxes and with a bit of clever programming, it should allow the same types of sanity checks as ""group of lake"". I will probably support it, if we can make its meaning sufficiently clear so that casual users do not misuse it. -- ( ) 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC Delete if group is created – The group property . Another group property ( - archipelago) is already [MASK]. I think it and this and others should be replaced by group . ( ) Delete if group is created – The group property . Another group property ( - archipelago) is already [MASK]. I think it and this and others should be replaced by group . ( ) Delete We have and the discussion is the same as for instance of/subclass of versus hundreds of specific properties. We have to clear that problem for once: a set of 3 properties for everything or hundreds of specific properties. But no dual systems. ( ) I think the consensus is for hundreds of specific properties. ( ) Funny, my impression is that most contributors oppose having a multitude of such properties. The lack of a vote in seems to leave that RFC somewhat in the air, but IIRC most contributors to 'type of' property deletion discussions favor doing away with domain-specific 'type of' properties. ( ) I think the consensus is for hundreds of specific properties. ( ) Funny, my impression is that most contributors oppose having a multitude of such properties. The lack of a vote in seems to leave that RFC somewhat in the air, but IIRC most contributors to 'type of' property deletion discussions favor doing away with domain-specific 'type of' properties. ( ) Funny, my impression is that most contributors oppose having a multitude of such properties. The lack of a vote in seems to leave that RFC somewhat in the air, but IIRC most contributors to 'type of' property deletion discussions favor doing away with domain-specific 'type of' properties. ( ) Delete . Replace with proposed property ( ) Comment – I do not understand this vote: That a lake is one of a group of lakes, doesn't make it located on some terrain feature. ( ) Comment – I do not understand this vote: That a lake is one of a group of lakes, doesn't make it located on some terrain feature. ( ) Delete I don't understand how this property is supposed to be used if it is not redundant to . If a lake is connected to other lakes via watercourses it is part of a lake system, mostly with a common outflow. Example: is a part of . is also a part of that lake system, even though it is not a lake, it is a watercourse connecting two lakes of that lake system. / ( ) The following discussion is closed. There is no consensus for deletion or modification of what exists currently. Discharges into as a general property also doesn't work, through examination of the link below and counterarguments posted. ( ) There is no consensus for deletion or modification of what exists currently. Discharges into as a general property also doesn't work, through examination of the link below and counterarguments posted. ( ) It is not really nice to go around an accuse of such things. I can understand that you bear a grudge against me and do so, but has really nothing to do with it. He probably ignores that you need to agree with him before he creates a new property. Otherwise, might be creating another property you wont be using . . oh, no, he is creating properties he is using . . -- at required for , part of the series of properties proposed for that. -- at (edited) Stop being sarcastic. You should really read for once. — Stop being sarcastic. You should really read for once. — Couple of points. Rivers generally don't discharge , so it would be flows in to. Discharging implies that something empties, like an electric battery. Mouths of rivers can inflow and outflow according to whether the tide is incoming or outgoing, which means flows in to is not so good either. ( ) is the hydrological terminus. — Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article. -- Rivers generally don't discharge , so it would be flows in to. Discharging implies that something empties, like an electric battery. Mouths of rivers can inflow and outflow according to whether the tide is incoming or outgoing, which means flows in to is not so good either. ( ) is the hydrological terminus. — Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article.-- is the hydrological terminus. — Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article. -- Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article.-- Delete/merge with P403 – There is no reason to have more than one property to specify an outflow for a water body. ( ) The reason is that you can do consistency checks easily. -- at I see no problem with consistency checks. You can check if the merged property is used for an instance of a subclass of body of water. Here is another example where the merged property can be used: discharges into ( ) The reason is that you can do consistency checks easily. -- at I see no problem with consistency checks. You can check if the merged property is used for an instance of a subclass of body of water. Here is another example where the merged property can be used: discharges into ( ) I see no problem with consistency checks. You can check if the merged property is used for an instance of a subclass of body of water. Here is another example where the merged property can be used: discharges into ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) The following discussion is closed. Same as above, no consensus for change, though I do recognize that the current system isn't sufficient and that these properties are misused. But, I can't go around deleting them when a viable alternative hasn't been agreed upon. ( ) Same as above, no consensus for change, though I do recognize that the current system isn't sufficient and that these properties are misused. But, I can't go around deleting them when a viable alternative hasn't been agreed upon. ( ) required for , part of the series of properties proposed for that. -- at (edited) [MASK] but redefine to main inflow for any water body : Firstly, there is no reason not to use this property also to specify tributaries to rivers. Secondly, I don't think it would be convenient to specify at items for rivers flowing into lakes or other rivers, if the river is a main inflow for the receiving water body as that is really a property of the receiving water body. And it would anyway be difficult to edit and overview if that information was scattered over many items. I therefore propose to use this property for the main inflows only, i.e. those inflows which should be mentioned in an infobox. If you want a full list of all inflows, query on the merged P201/P403 instead. ( ) See previous property discussion above (P201). -- at Question : Do I understand correctly that the proposal is to merge , and to one? Would you please give some illustrative examples of how the merged property is intended to be used for both rivers and lakes? Thank you, ( ) Of course: Most bodies of water have multiple inflows and either only one outflow or none at all (= endorheic). Inflows can be deduced from the outflow property so this would be enough. It also allows us to check for false data as every statement can only have one item and things like A → B → C → A are impossible. As an example: → → → → → → → → → → : . All of these items have hundreds of additional inflows, but if you want a list of, let's say, all the inflows of Lake Superior, you can just query for it. Distinguishing between lakes and rivers just over complicates things and I don't see any need to as this is already stated by . — Thank you. I see some possible problems with this: 1) You can have many discharges into a lake. How can you know which of these are the main inflows? 2) You can also have many discharges into a river. How can you know which of these are the real starting point of the river, and not a tributary or a lake which the river runs through? I would like to hear how the proposed model can answer this. ( ) The current system doesn't solve these problems either. In any case you need qualifiers, like this that can show which are the main inflows. For a lake a river flows through (e.g. through ) we have . — I think the general idea of 23PowerZ's concept is sound. It would probably be ideal for our downstream users once WikiData is complete. Now we just need to find a solution for users who are interested in entering data, reviewing and cross-checking it. -- at Of course: Most bodies of water have multiple inflows and either only one outflow or none at all (= endorheic). Inflows can be deduced from the outflow property so this would be enough. It also allows us to check for false data as every statement can only have one item and things like A → B → C → A are impossible. As an example: → → → → → → → → → → : . All of these items have hundreds of additional inflows, but if you want a list of, let's say, all the inflows of Lake Superior, you can just query for it. Distinguishing between lakes and rivers just over complicates things and I don't see any need to as this is already stated by . — Thank you. I see some possible problems with this: 1) You can have many discharges into a lake. How can you know which of these are the main inflows? 2) You can also have many discharges into a river. How can you know which of these are the real starting point of the river, and not a tributary or a lake which the river runs through? I would like to hear how the proposed model can answer this. ( ) The current system doesn't solve these problems either. In any case you need qualifiers, like this that can show which are the main inflows. For a lake a river flows through (e.g. through ) we have . — I think the general idea of 23PowerZ's concept is sound. It would probably be ideal for our downstream users once WikiData is complete. Now we just need to find a solution for users who are interested in entering data, reviewing and cross-checking it. -- at Thank you. I see some possible problems with this: 1) You can have many discharges into a lake. How can you know which of these are the main inflows? 2) You can also have many discharges into a river. How can you know which of these are the real starting point of the river, and not a tributary or a lake which the river runs through? I would like to hear how the proposed model can answer this. ( ) The current system doesn't solve these problems either. In any case you need qualifiers, like this that can show which are the main inflows. For a lake a river flows through (e.g. through ) we have . — The current system doesn't solve these problems either. In any case you need qualifiers, like this that can show which are the main inflows. For a lake a river flows through (e.g. through ) we have . — I think the general idea of 23PowerZ's concept is sound. It would probably be ideal for our downstream users once WikiData is complete. Now we just need to find a solution for users who are interested in entering data, reviewing and cross-checking it. -- at ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Lake_infobox_properties: Doing… - Consensus to delete. ( ) [MASK] ( ) Doing… - Consensus to delete. ( ) [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) required for , part of the series of properties proposed for that. -- at (edited) Question : Please tell why you don't think that can used be instead of this? ( ) Well, please explain how it can be used instead. We need to fill an infobox field that lists the group of lakes a specific lake is part of. P265 lists just that. -- at Question : Please tell why you don't think that can used be instead of this? ( ) Well, please explain how it can be used instead. We need to fill an infobox field that lists the group of lakes a specific lake is part of. P265 lists just that. -- at Well, please explain how it can be used instead. We need to fill an infobox field that lists the group of lakes a specific lake is part of. P265 lists just that. -- at Islands: group Mountains: group , (would obsolete ) Persons: group Roads: group (would obsolete ) I feel that fits already quite well for all these cases. So is redundant. ( ) [MASK] The problem with is that it is so general that our editors can add almost any item after it. Using properties which clearly indicate what type of item they expect makes it easier for editors - the most common answers can even be hinted at in the labels and aliases. If a property is limited to only use certain types of item then we can can get bots to do sanity checks to flag any references to the 'wrong' type of item. If an editor adds three different properties to an item then which one will the infobox use? Much better to use more specific properties with names that match those in infoboxes. Later we can get the devs to add a special subproperty (W3C approved) so we can identify as a subproperty of . ( ) I like Byrial's idea of a ""group"" property, as it would be convenient for infoboxes and with a bit of clever programming, it should allow the same types of sanity checks as ""group of lake"". I will probably support it, if we can make its meaning sufficiently clear so that casual users do not misuse it. -- ( ) 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC Delete if group is created – The group property . Another group property ( - archipelago) is already [MASK]. I think it and this and others should be replaced by group . ( ) Delete if group is created – The group property . Another group property ( - archipelago) is already [MASK]. I think it and this and others should be replaced by group . ( ) Delete We have and the discussion is the same as for instance of/subclass of versus hundreds of specific properties. We have to clear that problem for once: a set of 3 properties for everything or hundreds of specific properties. But no dual systems. ( ) I think the consensus is for hundreds of specific properties. ( ) Funny, my impression is that most contributors oppose having a multitude of such properties. The lack of a vote in seems to leave that RFC somewhat in the air, but IIRC most contributors to 'type of' property deletion discussions favor doing away with domain-specific 'type of' properties. ( ) I think the consensus is for hundreds of specific properties. ( ) Funny, my impression is that most contributors oppose having a multitude of such properties. The lack of a vote in seems to leave that RFC somewhat in the air, but IIRC most contributors to 'type of' property deletion discussions favor doing away with domain-specific 'type of' properties. ( ) Funny, my impression is that most contributors oppose having a multitude of such properties. The lack of a vote in seems to leave that RFC somewhat in the air, but IIRC most contributors to 'type of' property deletion discussions favor doing away with domain-specific 'type of' properties. ( ) Delete . Replace with proposed property ( ) Comment – I do not understand this vote: That a lake is one of a group of lakes, doesn't make it located on some terrain feature. ( ) Comment – I do not understand this vote: That a lake is one of a group of lakes, doesn't make it located on some terrain feature. ( ) Delete I don't understand how this property is supposed to be used if it is not redundant to . If a lake is connected to other lakes via watercourses it is part of a lake system, mostly with a common outflow. Example: is a part of . is also a part of that lake system, even though it is not a lake, it is a watercourse connecting two lakes of that lake system. / ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Lake_infobox_properties: There is no consensus for deletion or modification of what exists currently. Discharges into as a general property also doesn't work, through examination of the link below and counterarguments posted. ( ) There is no consensus for deletion or modification of what exists currently. Discharges into as a general property also doesn't work, through examination of the link below and counterarguments posted. ( ) It is not really nice to go around an accuse of such things. I can understand that you bear a grudge against me and do so, but has really nothing to do with it. He probably ignores that you need to agree with him before he creates a new property. Otherwise, might be creating another property you wont be using . . oh, no, he is creating properties he is using . . -- at required for , part of the series of properties proposed for that. -- at (edited) Stop being sarcastic. You should really read for once. — Stop being sarcastic. You should really read for once. — Couple of points. Rivers generally don't discharge , so it would be flows in to. Discharging implies that something empties, like an electric battery. Mouths of rivers can inflow and outflow according to whether the tide is incoming or outgoing, which means flows in to is not so good either. ( ) is the hydrological terminus. — Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article. -- Rivers generally don't discharge , so it would be flows in to. Discharging implies that something empties, like an electric battery. Mouths of rivers can inflow and outflow according to whether the tide is incoming or outgoing, which means flows in to is not so good either. ( ) is the hydrological terminus. — Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article.-- is the hydrological terminus. — Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article. -- Actually, it isn't. Read the first sentence of the article.-- Delete/merge with P403 – There is no reason to have more than one property to specify an outflow for a water body. ( ) The reason is that you can do consistency checks easily. -- at I see no problem with consistency checks. You can check if the merged property is used for an instance of a subclass of body of water. Here is another example where the merged property can be used: discharges into ( ) The reason is that you can do consistency checks easily. -- at I see no problem with consistency checks. You can check if the merged property is used for an instance of a subclass of body of water. Here is another example where the merged property can be used: discharges into ( ) I see no problem with consistency checks. You can check if the merged property is used for an instance of a subclass of body of water. Here is another example where the merged property can be used: discharges into ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) I recommend not to use it for seas, because as you can see: Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) Well, maybe the example wasn't good. I took it from the infobox at without further investigation. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Lake_infobox_properties: Same as above, no consensus for change, though I do recognize that the current system isn't sufficient and that these properties are misused. But, I can't go around deleting them when a viable alternative hasn't been agreed upon. ( ) Same as above, no consensus for change, though I do recognize that the current system isn't sufficient and that these properties are misused. But, I can't go around deleting them when a viable alternative hasn't been agreed upon. ( ) required for , part of the series of properties proposed for that. -- at (edited) [MASK] but redefine to main inflow for any water body : Firstly, there is no reason not to use this property also to specify tributaries to rivers. Secondly, I don't think it would be convenient to specify at items for rivers flowing into lakes or other rivers, if the river is a main inflow for the receiving water body as that is really a property of the receiving water body. And it would anyway be difficult to edit and overview if that information was scattered over many items. I therefore propose to use this property for the main inflows only, i.e. those inflows which should be mentioned in an infobox. If you want a full list of all inflows, query on the merged P201/P403 instead. ( ) See previous property discussion above (P201). -- at ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P558_(P558): There is no real consensus to delete or [MASK]. Arguments of redundancy do carry some weight however properties serve as statements. The different between quantity of unit is the main problem with the property however since this serves as a statement and an ambiguous property does not exist to serve this need, keeping it may be of use. ( ) There is no real consensus to delete or [MASK]. Arguments of redundancy do carry some weight however properties serve as statements. The different between quantity of unit is the main problem with the property however since this serves as a statement and an ambiguous property does not exist to serve this need, keeping it may be of use. ( ) What to merge it alsog with ? It the two ones you mentioned are subclasses of P487. -- ( ) Support merging with . Unicode symbol is something else. ( ) If you want to merge all symbol properties with string valuetype, we also have . ( ) Oppose because we will plenty of redundancy. We will have enough problems with unit symbol when including symbols of specific sicences like crystallography, quatum mechanic,... so the best solution is to start with unit symbol, Unicode symbol and element symbol. ( ) Question Can you give an example of a possible problem? — Comment : I don't see any possible problem, for example: → ""km"" → ""$"" → [""Q"",""q""] → ""Au"" -- V: symbol for vanadium, unit symbol for voltage but voltage is designed by U like uranium in scientific writing. Don't mix everything: unit and symbol are not the same and you can have one symbol and one unit for the same item. If we speak about symbol for voltage (U) and for uranium (U), ok this is a potential for merging, but unit and symbol are different. Another example: temperature symbol is T but unit can be °C or K. ( ) symbol: ""T""; unit: , ; symbol: ""°C""; symbol: ""K"". Yes unit and symbol are different: Unit is datatype item, so there is no problem. — So unit is item datatype and symbol is string datatype: you need 2 properties not only one common for everything. ( ) Nobody said that, the proposal is to have one for the symbol. — But in that case we have to create a property for unit because I am the feeling that when the property unit symbol was created, it was to introduce only unit symbol directly into the quantity item without the need to link the quantity item to the unit item in order to get the unit symbol. We can merge unit and quantity symbol but in that case we need to create a new item datatype property to indicate which unit is used for a quantity. , for silver scientific symbol is Ag and unicode symbol is ☽ , for mercury scientific symbol is Hg and iniscode symbol is ☿ ( ) is string datatype used to show which symbol a unit uses: , and that's also what the speaks of. I agree, we lack a unit property, but that doesn't have anything to do with this merge proposal. — Wrong atitude: by deleting without proposing a structure doing the same work of the [MASK] property you are ""destroying"" the current system. Now we have a system which not perfect but which is working. ( ) Again, doesn't do this task. — Oppose because we will plenty of redundancy. We will have enough problems with unit symbol when including symbols of specific sicences like crystallography, quatum mechanic,... so the best solution is to start with unit symbol, Unicode symbol and element symbol. ( ) Question Can you give an example of a possible problem? — Question Can you give an example of a possible problem? , for silver scientific symbol is Ag and unicode symbol is ☽ , for mercury scientific symbol is Hg and iniscode symbol is ☿ ( ) is string datatype used to show which symbol a unit uses: , and that's also what the speaks of. I agree, we lack a unit property, but that doesn't have anything to do with this merge proposal. — Wrong atitude: by deleting without proposing a structure doing the same work of the [MASK] property you are ""destroying"" the current system. Now we have a system which not perfect but which is working. ( ) Again, doesn't do this task. — is string datatype used to show which symbol a unit uses: , and that's also what the speaks of. I agree, we lack a unit property, but that doesn't have anything to do with this merge proposal. — Wrong atitude: by deleting without proposing a structure doing the same work of the [MASK] property you are ""destroying"" the current system. Now we have a system which not perfect but which is working. ( ) Again, doesn't do this task. — Wrong atitude: by deleting without proposing a structure doing the same work of the [MASK] property you are ""destroying"" the current system. Now we have a system which not perfect but which is working. ( ) Again, doesn't do this task. — Again, doesn't do this task. — Difficult to say which is the correct use of as only 2 items is using that property. Now we can put in item temperature the symbol of the temperature T using and the list of units for temperature (°C, K) using . Nobody did it until now but this is possible and not wrong. With the merging it won't be possible. So if we can get the consensus for the need of an item datatype property unit allowing the link between quantities item and theit unit items, the merging can be applied without any regression in the description of quantity items. ( ) I think the property name explains somehow. Maybe John F. Lewis could complete the documentation for the property. Obviously after it was listed for deletion, people are discourage to use and document properties. -- at I do not see how it would make any sense to give the symbol for celsius degree in the item about temperature. If we want a property to state that temperature is measured in celsius degree, we can make a proposal for this, but it does not have anything to do with symbols (and actually, I would probably not support the proposal, as we have already its symmetric, , that seems a better fit). -- ( ) I think the property name explains somehow. Maybe John F. Lewis could complete the documentation for the property. Obviously after it was listed for deletion, people are discourage to use and document properties. -- at I do not see how it would make any sense to give the symbol for celsius degree in the item about temperature. If we want a property to state that temperature is measured in celsius degree, we can make a proposal for this, but it does not have anything to do with symbols (and actually, I would probably not support the proposal, as we have already its symmetric, , that seems a better fit). -- ( ) I do not see how it would make any sense to give the symbol for celsius degree in the item about temperature. If we want a property to state that temperature is measured in celsius degree, we can make a proposal for this, but it does not have anything to do with symbols (and actually, I would probably not support the proposal, as we have already its symmetric, , that seems a better fit). -- ( ) Delete . There might be a need to differentiate between different notation systems but that is not what this property does, and as it stands I do not see any use in having two properties. -- ( ) Comment . is used to refer to the quantity measured (e.g. ) from the measurement unit (e.g. ) but we are missing a ""measurement unit"" property with an item datatype which or (string datatypes) give the abbreviation for (km/hr). ( ) [MASK] or Merge but create new property with item datatype for the full name of the measurement unit. ( ) Comment . is used to refer to the quantity measured (e.g. ) from the measurement unit (e.g. ) but we are missing a ""measurement unit"" property with an item datatype which or (string datatypes) give the abbreviation for (km/hr). ( ) [MASK] or Merge but create new property with item datatype for the full name of the measurement unit. ( ) Summary symbol (string): ""T"" unit (item): unit (item): (item): symbol (string): ""°C"" (item): symbol (string): ""K"" symbol (string): ""Cp"" unit (item): ?? ? (combinaison of units: kJ/(kg °C)) symbol (string): ""T"" unit (item): unit (item): symbol (string): ""T"" unit (item): unit (item): (item): symbol (string): ""°C"" (item): symbol (string): ""°C"" (item): symbol (string): ""K"" (item): symbol (string): ""K"" symbol (string): ""Cp"" unit (item): ?? ? (combinaison of units: kJ/(kg °C)) symbol (string): ""Cp"" unit (item): ?? ? (combinaison of units: kJ/(kg °C)) An item property for unit doesn't allow the description of unit based on combinaison of primary units. The unit property can be avoided if we specifiy in each unit the measured quantity. But there is still a problem to specify combinaison of unit, unless we create an item for each possible unit combinaison. ( ) What? — What what ?  :). I just want to find a global solution for unit and symbol before any deletion. ( ) And I don't understand your problem, apparently. — Try to enter the unit and the symbol of with an unique symbol property as item datatype property and you will see a problem. ( ) Snipre: We have two options, as you outlined in your comment. We can create an item for every combination of units. This is not that unreasonable a number of units, especially since any combination of units which has been named already has a page. Until we get round to creating those we can simply leave out that property, as here: symbol (string): ""Cp"" symbol (string): kJ/(kg °C) ( ) And how do I retrieve the symbol ""Cp"" in a query ? Without a qualifier or a different property the query symbol for will give 2 answers without any possibility to distinguish between the symbol and the unit. The only good solution is to create an item unit property but the consequence is to create hundreds of items for the existing units: SI unit, British units, US units,... or multiscale units like Pa, kPa MPa,... ( ) @Filceolaire: kJ/kg°C is not the symbol of heat capacity, that's just a false statement. @Snipre: There are items for most of these. Though there is still a need for units like J/K, that are not actual SI-Units but combinations of these. That's a big problem and I think it's better to discuss this in an RfC, it's also a problem for the number datatype, so we might want to ask the developers about their thoughts on this so far. — Oppose PowerZ has convinced me we should not merge these properties. ( ) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — What? — What what ?  :). I just want to find a global solution for unit and symbol before any deletion. ( ) And I don't understand your problem, apparently. — Try to enter the unit and the symbol of with an unique symbol property as item datatype property and you will see a problem. ( ) Snipre: We have two options, as you outlined in your comment. We can create an item for every combination of units. This is not that unreasonable a number of units, especially since any combination of units which has been named already has a page. Until we get round to creating those we can simply leave out that property, as here: symbol (string): ""Cp"" symbol (string): kJ/(kg °C) ( ) And how do I retrieve the symbol ""Cp"" in a query ? Without a qualifier or a different property the query symbol for will give 2 answers without any possibility to distinguish between the symbol and the unit. The only good solution is to create an item unit property but the consequence is to create hundreds of items for the existing units: SI unit, British units, US units,... or multiscale units like Pa, kPa MPa,... ( ) @Filceolaire: kJ/kg°C is not the symbol of heat capacity, that's just a false statement. @Snipre: There are items for most of these. Though there is still a need for units like J/K, that are not actual SI-Units but combinations of these. That's a big problem and I think it's better to discuss this in an RfC, it's also a problem for the number datatype, so we might want to ask the developers about their thoughts on this so far. — Oppose PowerZ has convinced me we should not merge these properties. ( ) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — What what ?  :). I just want to find a global solution for unit and symbol before any deletion. ( ) And I don't understand your problem, apparently. — Try to enter the unit and the symbol of with an unique symbol property as item datatype property and you will see a problem. ( ) Snipre: We have two options, as you outlined in your comment. We can create an item for every combination of units. This is not that unreasonable a number of units, especially since any combination of units which has been named already has a page. Until we get round to creating those we can simply leave out that property, as here: symbol (string): ""Cp"" symbol (string): kJ/(kg °C) ( ) And how do I retrieve the symbol ""Cp"" in a query ? Without a qualifier or a different property the query symbol for will give 2 answers without any possibility to distinguish between the symbol and the unit. The only good solution is to create an item unit property but the consequence is to create hundreds of items for the existing units: SI unit, British units, US units,... or multiscale units like Pa, kPa MPa,... ( ) @Filceolaire: kJ/kg°C is not the symbol of heat capacity, that's just a false statement. @Snipre: There are items for most of these. Though there is still a need for units like J/K, that are not actual SI-Units but combinations of these. That's a big problem and I think it's better to discuss this in an RfC, it's also a problem for the number datatype, so we might want to ask the developers about their thoughts on this so far. — Oppose PowerZ has convinced me we should not merge these properties. ( ) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — And I don't understand your problem, apparently. — Try to enter the unit and the symbol of with an unique symbol property as item datatype property and you will see a problem. ( ) Try to enter the unit and the symbol of with an unique symbol property as item datatype property and you will see a problem. ( ) Snipre: We have two options, as you outlined in your comment. We can create an item for every combination of units. This is not that unreasonable a number of units, especially since any combination of units which has been named already has a page. Until we get round to creating those we can simply leave out that property, as here: symbol (string): ""Cp"" symbol (string): kJ/(kg °C) symbol (string): ""Cp"" symbol (string): kJ/(kg °C) ( ) And how do I retrieve the symbol ""Cp"" in a query ? Without a qualifier or a different property the query symbol for will give 2 answers without any possibility to distinguish between the symbol and the unit. The only good solution is to create an item unit property but the consequence is to create hundreds of items for the existing units: SI unit, British units, US units,... or multiscale units like Pa, kPa MPa,... ( ) @Filceolaire: kJ/kg°C is not the symbol of heat capacity, that's just a false statement. @Snipre: There are items for most of these. Though there is still a need for units like J/K, that are not actual SI-Units but combinations of these. That's a big problem and I think it's better to discuss this in an RfC, it's also a problem for the number datatype, so we might want to ask the developers about their thoughts on this so far. — Oppose PowerZ has convinced me we should not merge these properties. ( ) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — And how do I retrieve the symbol ""Cp"" in a query ? Without a qualifier or a different property the query symbol for will give 2 answers without any possibility to distinguish between the symbol and the unit. The only good solution is to create an item unit property but the consequence is to create hundreds of items for the existing units: SI unit, British units, US units,... or multiscale units like Pa, kPa MPa,... ( ) @Filceolaire: kJ/kg°C is not the symbol of heat capacity, that's just a false statement. @Snipre: There are items for most of these. Though there is still a need for units like J/K, that are not actual SI-Units but combinations of these. That's a big problem and I think it's better to discuss this in an RfC, it's also a problem for the number datatype, so we might want to ask the developers about their thoughts on this so far. — Oppose PowerZ has convinced me we should not merge these properties. ( ) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — Oppose PowerZ has convinced me we should not merge these properties. ( ) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) unit symbol: kJ/(kg °C) is equally false. — ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P107_(P107): It is clear that a large number of people don't like this, but that there is no consensus for deleting it. This mirrors the last discussion. While I could let this drag out for a while longer, I have little doubt that it would matter. For discussions this complex, PfD is not an effective venue for finding a solution. I will be starting a two part RfC myself shortly. It is clear that a large number of people don't like this, but that there is no consensus for deleting it. This mirrors the last discussion. While I could let this drag out for a while longer, I have little doubt that it would matter. For discussions this complex, PfD is not an effective venue for finding a solution. I will be starting a two part RfC myself shortly. Info . This property has already been proposed for deletion once 6 deletes and 11 keeps: . -- ( ) Speedy [MASK] as a repeated nomination. -- Here's a new reason it should be [MASK]: It's use cannot be verified. Based on the discussion currently ongoing at , if we can't verify a claim, then we probably shouldn't make it. In that event then, P107 is tying us to an ontology which has not claimed to represent the million or so items which P107 is now on. I.e., it is not verifiable. On top of this, P107 can only be verified where there is already a GND ID. That fact makes it even useless for the cases where it can be verified, as the type can be gotten from querying the database if the type is even desirable for someone in those cases; its nonuse on en.wiki would indicate that that is not the case for our primary external users. This is besides its other salient points for deletion, which are numerous and continuing to cause us problems in other ways. We should cease pretending like this is a good property. I was planning to start yet another RFC on it, but this seems opportune. /shrug -- ( ) Well, we shouldn't delete this until we have a good replacement for it... -- That's kind of irrelevant to me. Each property should be able to stand with or without another to replace it. We can discuss the replace property after-the-fact IMO. That said, Zolo's outline on the below referenced talk page seems sensible and easy-to-use. -- ( ) After the info is gone and it's harder to restore... not a very good idea. -- See my proposal below for what should replace this. ( ) You seem to have a mistaken assumption Rschen. There's no reason to believe that this property would be [MASK] before it could be replaced by another property. The data is unlikely to go anywhere. As I said earlier, Zolo's proposal on the referenced page is a suitable candidate to replace most uses of this property. -- ( ) Well, we shouldn't delete this until we have a good replacement for it... -- That's kind of irrelevant to me. Each property should be able to stand with or without another to replace it. We can discuss the replace property after-the-fact IMO. That said, Zolo's outline on the below referenced talk page seems sensible and easy-to-use. -- ( ) After the info is gone and it's harder to restore... not a very good idea. -- See my proposal below for what should replace this. ( ) You seem to have a mistaken assumption Rschen. There's no reason to believe that this property would be [MASK] before it could be replaced by another property. The data is unlikely to go anywhere. As I said earlier, Zolo's proposal on the referenced page is a suitable candidate to replace most uses of this property. -- ( ) That's kind of irrelevant to me. Each property should be able to stand with or without another to replace it. We can discuss the replace property after-the-fact IMO. That said, Zolo's outline on the below referenced talk page seems sensible and easy-to-use. -- ( ) After the info is gone and it's harder to restore... not a very good idea. -- See my proposal below for what should replace this. ( ) You seem to have a mistaken assumption Rschen. There's no reason to believe that this property would be [MASK] before it could be replaced by another property. The data is unlikely to go anywhere. As I said earlier, Zolo's proposal on the referenced page is a suitable candidate to replace most uses of this property. -- ( ) After the info is gone and it's harder to restore... not a very good idea. -- See my proposal below for what should replace this. ( ) You seem to have a mistaken assumption Rschen. There's no reason to believe that this property would be [MASK] before it could be replaced by another property. The data is unlikely to go anywhere. As I said earlier, Zolo's proposal on the referenced page is a suitable candidate to replace most uses of this property. -- ( ) See my proposal below for what should replace this. ( ) You seem to have a mistaken assumption Rschen. There's no reason to believe that this property would be [MASK] before it could be replaced by another property. The data is unlikely to go anywhere. As I said earlier, Zolo's proposal on the referenced page is a suitable candidate to replace most uses of this property. -- ( ) Delete – I looked at the archived discussion and saw many strong arguments for deletion, which in my opinion was not adequately answered by those who voted [MASK]. P107 is by some supposed to give a high level classification system, but it doesn't work. I have worked a lot with the database dumps for Wikidata, and it is hard to use P107 for anything useful. Pr. 2013-06-10 there was 1221158 items with GND type person, but I cannot tell how many reel persons there is. If we dropped that useless GND type property and instead used the resources to and and other properties giving reel information, I could tell much more about the items. ( ) [MASK] - I think that before we can even begin to discuss the deletion of this property we need a really good alternative in place. As long as there is no consensus how to separate fictional people from real ones for example. -- ( ) Question – I do not quite understand. P107 can not be used to separate fictional people from real ones, so what is the connection between this property and the missing consensus about fictional people? ( ) General classification is necessary especially in query to be able to restrict the search in a medium extend. I agree with you about GND classification and its small number of possibilities but we need this kind of classification. The only good way to delete GND property is to propose first another classification: don't delete an bad system with nothing but with a proposition of a better system. ( ) Question – I do not quite understand. P107 can not be used to separate fictional people from real ones, so what is the connection between this property and the missing consensus about fictional people? ( ) General classification is necessary especially in query to be able to restrict the search in a medium extend. I agree with you about GND classification and its small number of possibilities but we need this kind of classification. The only good way to delete GND property is to propose first another classification: don't delete an bad system with nothing but with a proposition of a better system. ( ) General classification is necessary especially in query to be able to restrict the search in a medium extend. I agree with you about GND classification and its small number of possibilities but we need this kind of classification. The only good way to delete GND property is to propose first another classification: don't delete an bad system with nothing but with a proposition of a better system. ( ) This is not the best place to start the discussion, better move the discussion of a new system or an improvement in . ( ) I have which can used for groups of people when replacing P107. ( ) [MASK] It's the most used property and as well as the skeleton of wikidata properties. –– ( ) The first is irrelevant. The second makes no sense; why should there be a skeleton? If you look into the previous discussion, there are strong reasons not to use anything resembling a main type. (And discussed elsewhere!) -- ( ) The first is irrelevant. The second makes no sense; why should there be a skeleton? If you look into the previous discussion, there are strong reasons not to use anything resembling a main type. (And discussed elsewhere!) -- ( ) Delete Replace with 'instance of GND Main type' ONLY for the 7 pages which describe the GND main types. For all the other pages use instance of (and all it's 'type of' synonyms) to assign basic items to hundreds of classes then use 'subclass of' to link the classes together in a hierarchy which may (or may not) eventually end in these seven classes. -- ( ) [MASK] , useful property. But we must not extend it by additional values. — ( ) [MASK] The classification can certainly be improved, but I do not see any advantage in deleting it. It remains an effective way to quickly define an item. ( ) ""an effective way to quickly define an item"" is not what we are here to do. Beyond that, there are the many issues with the property that continue to go unanswered. See also Zolo's proposal above. -- ( ) ""an effective way to quickly define an item"" is not what we are here to do. Beyond that, there are the many issues with the property that continue to go unanswered. See also Zolo's proposal above. -- ( ) Delete None of the several major problems with P107 that I laid out in have been resolved. and are much better alternatives to P107: they're W3C recommendations for the Semantic Web that do what P107 does, but more robustly and without the major problems described in the linked discussion. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: vessel_class_(P289): No consensus to delete this, so kept. No consensus to delete this, so kept. Comment No really. If there is a more specific property, such properties should be used, instead of the generic ""P31/is a"". Property 289 makes it easier to enter/cross-check and retrieve the information. -- at Completely disagree. If there is a more general property, get rid of the redundancy. — Completely disagree. If there is a more general property, get rid of the redundancy. — ""Class"" appears to be a commonly used concept a relatively well-defined concept, so I do am not as sure about getting rid of them as I am for "" "" properties, but still, I see that mixes class with other info about the type of ship, which seems to suggest that this is not so convenient to use a separate ""class"" property. -- ( ) In the infoboxes the ship-class is often followed by . There may be exceptions. Perhaps should also be [MASK] in preference to ? ( ) Danrok, the values you refer to are the values for the item's value. For example: <- 'ship class' <- 'watercraft type' So I think should be [MASK], but replaced with instead of in cases like the above. ( ) Agree. ( ) In the infoboxes the ship-class is often followed by . There may be exceptions. Perhaps should also be [MASK] in preference to ? ( ) Danrok, the values you refer to are the values for the item's value. For example: <- 'ship class' <- 'watercraft type' So I think should be [MASK], but replaced with instead of in cases like the above. ( ) Agree. ( ) Danrok, the values you refer to are the values for the item's value. For example: <- 'ship class' <- 'watercraft type' <- 'ship class' <- 'watercraft type' So I think should be [MASK], but replaced with instead of in cases like the above. ( ) Agree. ( ) Agree. ( ) It is correct to say that is an instance of . But, if we delete , how can the ship's class be easily extracted and used in infoboxes on wikipedia? If that can be done, I've no objection to the deletion. ( ) Take L as the list of items the ship's an instance of. Show each member of L if the member is an instance of - Is there an actual sample of infoboxes that work? I suppose it reads to write that in theory, one property is sufficient for WikiData. In reality, infboxes are gradually built and complied and need cross-checking. I understand that this may be new to some of the participants of this project. -- at Is there an example of the being used in an infobox to pull in data from Wikidata? should be a drop-in replacement for this property in those cases. ( ) It's only a drop-in replacement if there's no other possible thing it can be an instance of. In some cases, that is not true. For example, is an individual ship (not a member of a ship class). It has => and => . Most likely, the first should be dropped (too general), and the second changed to instance of. However, that means you can't simply convert all P31 to 'ship class' in a template. You need to be more careful, as in my algorithm above that checks against . - That's a fair question, Docu. Unfortunately, I can't actually write the code until is fixed, though I know how it needs to work (see above). - Take L as the list of items the ship's an instance of. Show each member of L if the member is an instance of - Is there an actual sample of infoboxes that work? I suppose it reads to write that in theory, one property is sufficient for WikiData. In reality, infboxes are gradually built and complied and need cross-checking. I understand that this may be new to some of the participants of this project. -- at Is there an example of the being used in an infobox to pull in data from Wikidata? should be a drop-in replacement for this property in those cases. ( ) It's only a drop-in replacement if there's no other possible thing it can be an instance of. In some cases, that is not true. For example, is an individual ship (not a member of a ship class). It has => and => . Most likely, the first should be dropped (too general), and the second changed to instance of. However, that means you can't simply convert all P31 to 'ship class' in a template. You need to be more careful, as in my algorithm above that checks against . - That's a fair question, Docu. Unfortunately, I can't actually write the code until is fixed, though I know how it needs to work (see above). - Is there an actual sample of infoboxes that work? I suppose it reads to write that in theory, one property is sufficient for WikiData. In reality, infboxes are gradually built and complied and need cross-checking. I understand that this may be new to some of the participants of this project. -- at Is there an example of the being used in an infobox to pull in data from Wikidata? should be a drop-in replacement for this property in those cases. ( ) It's only a drop-in replacement if there's no other possible thing it can be an instance of. In some cases, that is not true. For example, is an individual ship (not a member of a ship class). It has => and => . Most likely, the first should be dropped (too general), and the second changed to instance of. However, that means you can't simply convert all P31 to 'ship class' in a template. You need to be more careful, as in my algorithm above that checks against . - That's a fair question, Docu. Unfortunately, I can't actually write the code until is fixed, though I know how it needs to work (see above). - Is there an example of the being used in an infobox to pull in data from Wikidata? should be a drop-in replacement for this property in those cases. ( ) It's only a drop-in replacement if there's no other possible thing it can be an instance of. In some cases, that is not true. For example, is an individual ship (not a member of a ship class). It has => and => . Most likely, the first should be dropped (too general), and the second changed to instance of. However, that means you can't simply convert all P31 to 'ship class' in a template. You need to be more careful, as in my algorithm above that checks against . - It's only a drop-in replacement if there's no other possible thing it can be an instance of. In some cases, that is not true. For example, is an individual ship (not a member of a ship class). It has => and => . Most likely, the first should be dropped (too general), and the second changed to instance of. However, that means you can't simply convert all P31 to 'ship class' in a template. You need to be more careful, as in my algorithm above that checks against . - That's a fair question, Docu. Unfortunately, I can't actually write the code until is fixed, though I know how it needs to work (see above). - Delete Having a multitude of domain-specific 'type of' properties is redundant: the -based (P31) and (P279) properties are sufficient to specify canonical type information for all items. The notion that we should use more specific 'type of' properties when such properties are available is exactly opposite of how we should approach classification. It sets the precedent for an explosion of such superfluous 'type of' properties, and fractures Wikidata into a less coherent structure for all knowledge. ( ) This isn't actually a valid reason for deletion. w3 schemes are not part of Wikidata. We currently don't have any pratical use cases for (P31) and (P279), while we do have working infoboxes with this field. If one needs to view this property combined with others as one, this can be done further downstream. -- at (edited) W3C recommendations for the are an important part of Wikidata. For example, Wikidata will be exportable in RDF (see ). The wider connection between Wikidata's design of statements -- where item-property-value ('George Washington'-'date of birth'-'February 22, 1732') corresponds to a subject-predicate-object RDF triplet -- is also evidence of a fundamental link between Wikidata and W3C recommendations like RDF. And if you look in the 'Source' field of the property documentation for and , you'll see that they are derived from the and properties from the W3C recommendation for RDF Schema. One cannot operate in Wikidata without bumping into W3C recommendations for the Semantic Web nearly everywhere. Regarding your assertion that we don't have any practical use cases those W3C-based 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties, I would say that replacing infobox parameters that define a subject's type -- like this 'ship class' property does -- is a clear example of a practical use case. 'instance of' could be incorporated into the infobox for just like 'ship class'. In other words, it is merely a matter of using instance of (P31) instead of ship class (P289) in e.g. , which Ships infoboxes use for class information. The difference is that 'instance of' is easy to reuse in other domains of knowledge, which makes it possible to link 'type of' information across domains. That has many useful applications. By favoring home-grown type properties like ""ship class"" instead of standards-based type properties like , we would encourage the needless creation of redundant properties, make Wikidata less interoperable with the rest of the Semantic Web, and make applications that link knowledge across domains more difficult. We should avoid doing that, and delete properties like this redundant 'ship class' property that encourage those bad practices. ( ) I don't see an actual use of these things. -- at What do you mean? Would a prototype of such a use sway your opinion? ( ) This isn't actually a valid reason for deletion. w3 schemes are not part of Wikidata. We currently don't have any pratical use cases for (P31) and (P279), while we do have working infoboxes with this field. If one needs to view this property combined with others as one, this can be done further downstream. -- at (edited) W3C recommendations for the are an important part of Wikidata. For example, Wikidata will be exportable in RDF (see ). The wider connection between Wikidata's design of statements -- where item-property-value ('George Washington'-'date of birth'-'February 22, 1732') corresponds to a subject-predicate-object RDF triplet -- is also evidence of a fundamental link between Wikidata and W3C recommendations like RDF. And if you look in the 'Source' field of the property documentation for and , you'll see that they are derived from the and properties from the W3C recommendation for RDF Schema. One cannot operate in Wikidata without bumping into W3C recommendations for the Semantic Web nearly everywhere. Regarding your assertion that we don't have any practical use cases those W3C-based 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties, I would say that replacing infobox parameters that define a subject's type -- like this 'ship class' property does -- is a clear example of a practical use case. 'instance of' could be incorporated into the infobox for just like 'ship class'. In other words, it is merely a matter of using instance of (P31) instead of ship class (P289) in e.g. , which Ships infoboxes use for class information. The difference is that 'instance of' is easy to reuse in other domains of knowledge, which makes it possible to link 'type of' information across domains. That has many useful applications. By favoring home-grown type properties like ""ship class"" instead of standards-based type properties like , we would encourage the needless creation of redundant properties, make Wikidata less interoperable with the rest of the Semantic Web, and make applications that link knowledge across domains more difficult. We should avoid doing that, and delete properties like this redundant 'ship class' property that encourage those bad practices. ( ) I don't see an actual use of these things. -- at What do you mean? Would a prototype of such a use sway your opinion? ( ) W3C recommendations for the are an important part of Wikidata. For example, Wikidata will be exportable in RDF (see ). The wider connection between Wikidata's design of statements -- where item-property-value ('George Washington'-'date of birth'-'February 22, 1732') corresponds to a subject-predicate-object RDF triplet -- is also evidence of a fundamental link between Wikidata and W3C recommendations like RDF. And if you look in the 'Source' field of the property documentation for and , you'll see that they are derived from the and properties from the W3C recommendation for RDF Schema. One cannot operate in Wikidata without bumping into W3C recommendations for the Semantic Web nearly everywhere. Regarding your assertion that we don't have any practical use cases those W3C-based 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties, I would say that replacing infobox parameters that define a subject's type -- like this 'ship class' property does -- is a clear example of a practical use case. 'instance of' could be incorporated into the infobox for just like 'ship class'. In other words, it is merely a matter of using instance of (P31) instead of ship class (P289) in e.g. , which Ships infoboxes use for class information. The difference is that 'instance of' is easy to reuse in other domains of knowledge, which makes it possible to link 'type of' information across domains. That has many useful applications. By favoring home-grown type properties like ""ship class"" instead of standards-based type properties like , we would encourage the needless creation of redundant properties, make Wikidata less interoperable with the rest of the Semantic Web, and make applications that link knowledge across domains more difficult. We should avoid doing that, and delete properties like this redundant 'ship class' property that encourage those bad practices. ( ) I don't see an actual use of these things. -- at What do you mean? Would a prototype of such a use sway your opinion? ( ) I don't see an actual use of these things. -- at What do you mean? Would a prototype of such a use sway your opinion? ( ) What do you mean? Would a prototype of such a use sway your opinion? ( ) Comment imho it is hard to decide if delete or not this property, because 1) this deletion will involve other specific type properties; 2) before to delete this property, we need to establish how to apply generic type properties to the ""ship items"". For me this discussion is very important for the future of organization of Wikidata items, so I open concerning this topic. I ask all of you to add your comment. -- ( ) [MASK] per the discussion on . There are thousands of ships. expecting editors to pick the right ship class using property won't work. Having a special 'type of' property such as lets us include hints in the aliases for this property to help editors. Bots can also check that this property is only used to link to items with the ship class and flag any discrepancies. Editors know the property name because it matches the name used in their infoboxes. Later we can get the devs to add a special subproperty to identify as a subproperty of but in the mean time we can get on with populating the data pages. ( ) [MASK] per above. Clear domain. ( ) My inclination, as with most such properties in the form of 'type of', is to delete , largely per Emw's. The database simply becomes unmanageable with the more special-use terminology we use. -- ( ) [MASK] as well as are needed as complements to for ships. The diversity of items pointed to by would be unmaintainable without them. / ( ) If (i.e., ) makes Semantic Web implementations unmaintainable, then this is very big news. The claim that ""the diversity of items pointed to by would be unmaintainable"" without domain-specific P31 properties requires supporting evidence. ( ) If (i.e., ) makes Semantic Web implementations unmaintainable, then this is very big news. The claim that ""the diversity of items pointed to by would be unmaintainable"" without domain-specific P31 properties requires supporting evidence. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P623_(P623): Consensus for deletion is reached, so [MASK]. -- ( ) Consensus for deletion is reached, so [MASK]. -- ( ) [MASK] Свойство нужно для , где требуется именно фотография экипажа и ничто иное. может содержать любые изображения, механизм квалификаторов здесь слабо помогает, т. к. текст квалификатора недетерменирован и слабо подходит для автоматизированной обработки. К тому же непонятно зачем усложнять код карточки алгоритмом распознавания типа изображения по значению квалификатора, когда можно это сделать на уровне свойств. — ( ) So, shouldn't we have ""image of vehicle's wheels"" or ""birth image"" then? Instead, I don't see why we are using special properties when we have qualifiers. -- Если шаблон будет содержать свойство ""birth image"", то да, мы будем создавать такое свойство. Про квалификаторы уже пояснил, квалификаторы - это всего лишь строки с недетерменированным содержимым. Они не предназначены для обработки их в скрипте. — ( ) So, shouldn't we have ""image of vehicle's wheels"" or ""birth image"" then? Instead, I don't see why we are using special properties when we have qualifiers. -- Если шаблон будет содержать свойство ""birth image"", то да, мы будем создавать такое свойство. Про квалификаторы уже пояснил, квалификаторы - это всего лишь строки с недетерменированным содержимым. Они не предназначены для обработки их в скрипте. — ( ) Если шаблон будет содержать свойство ""birth image"", то да, мы будем создавать такое свойство. Про квалификаторы уже пояснил, квалификаторы - это всего лишь строки с недетерменированным содержимым. Они не предназначены для обработки их в скрипте. — ( ) Delete I've made an example here showing how we could do this using qualifiers. ( ) Вы бы лучше показали простой способ использования объединения двух свойств в карточке. — ( ) Я что-то главное упустил. содержит изображение объекта статьи. В данном случае объект статьи - это космический аппарат. Ракета-носитель, экипаж - это даже не части этого аппарата. Потому использовать свойство для размещения фотографии экипажа некорректно. А то если продолжить эту логику, то в айтем можно добавить практически любое изображение снабдив его квалификатором ""находится на Земле"". Некорректные значения я удалил. — ( ) Вы бы лучше показали простой способ использования объединения двух свойств в карточке. — ( ) Я что-то главное упустил. содержит изображение объекта статьи. В данном случае объект статьи - это космический аппарат. Ракета-носитель, экипаж - это даже не части этого аппарата. Потому использовать свойство для размещения фотографии экипажа некорректно. А то если продолжить эту логику, то в айтем можно добавить практически любое изображение снабдив его квалификатором ""находится на Земле"". Некорректные значения я удалил. — ( ) Speedy close: this was created just now. -- at How is this a valid argument? — How is this a valid argument? — Our states: Before a new property is created, it has to be discussed here. When after some time there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created. This property had no supporters and no opponents, it wasn't discussed by anyone. So why did you create it? ( ) Our states: Before a new property is created, it has to be discussed here. When after some time there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created. Before a new property is created, it has to be discussed here. When after some time there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created. This property had no supporters and no opponents, it wasn't discussed by anyone. So why did you create it? ( ) Delete . Redundant and I don't understand why this is even made. There was only proposer, not other opinions. -- ( ) Пояснил выше. — ( ) Пояснил выше. — ( ) Delete per above. ( ) Выше показано, что свойство в данном случае не подходит. О чём тогда ваш комментарий? — ( ) I think this property should be [MASK] for two reasons: first, because it was created without any discussion; second, because if we go down this road we'll end up having countless image properties, e.g. ""team photo"" for a sports event, ""band photo"" for a music concert, maybe even ""killer photo"" for a violent crime. If you think using with qualifiers is incorrect, you could create an item for every mission crew and add to it, then retrieve the photo from there. ( ) Это свойство обсуждалось в течении 2 месяцев, сколько по вашему оно должно было ещё обсуждаться? Идея с созданием отдельного айтема довольно интересная. Однако возможно ли использовать в карточке свойство какого-либо иного айтема, нежели связанного через механизм sitelinks? — ( ) The property has to have some supporters before being created, but in this case there were none apart from you. As for the second question, I'm sorry but I don't understand it because I can't speak Russian and Google Translate only goes so far. I'm not a native speaker of English either, but I think it's better for everyone if we all use a common language for these discussions. Otherwise I'm afraid I can't understand you properly. ( ) International project degrade to English project :-) Your position on the first question is very slighting to property proposer because he must wait for some unknown people for unknown period of time. If the theme is not very popular he can wait for years. I think we must be more friendly and open project then you propose. The second question was about usage ""crew item"" in infobox: is it possible to use item that is not linked using sitelinks? And what property to use to link crew and spacecraft items? — ( ) I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. I find answer to my question: . So idea with separate item for crew is not usable. — ( ) Not yet. That's why phase 2 started way too early . I strongly discourage the usage of Wikidata information in the Wikipedias until there is a solution. — Выше показано, что свойство в данном случае не подходит. О чём тогда ваш комментарий? — ( ) I think this property should be [MASK] for two reasons: first, because it was created without any discussion; second, because if we go down this road we'll end up having countless image properties, e.g. ""team photo"" for a sports event, ""band photo"" for a music concert, maybe even ""killer photo"" for a violent crime. If you think using with qualifiers is incorrect, you could create an item for every mission crew and add to it, then retrieve the photo from there. ( ) Это свойство обсуждалось в течении 2 месяцев, сколько по вашему оно должно было ещё обсуждаться? Идея с созданием отдельного айтема довольно интересная. Однако возможно ли использовать в карточке свойство какого-либо иного айтема, нежели связанного через механизм sitelinks? — ( ) The property has to have some supporters before being created, but in this case there were none apart from you. As for the second question, I'm sorry but I don't understand it because I can't speak Russian and Google Translate only goes so far. I'm not a native speaker of English either, but I think it's better for everyone if we all use a common language for these discussions. Otherwise I'm afraid I can't understand you properly. ( ) International project degrade to English project :-) Your position on the first question is very slighting to property proposer because he must wait for some unknown people for unknown period of time. If the theme is not very popular he can wait for years. I think we must be more friendly and open project then you propose. The second question was about usage ""crew item"" in infobox: is it possible to use item that is not linked using sitelinks? And what property to use to link crew and spacecraft items? — ( ) I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. I find answer to my question: . So idea with separate item for crew is not usable. — ( ) Not yet. That's why phase 2 started way too early . I strongly discourage the usage of Wikidata information in the Wikipedias until there is a solution. — I think this property should be [MASK] for two reasons: first, because it was created without any discussion; second, because if we go down this road we'll end up having countless image properties, e.g. ""team photo"" for a sports event, ""band photo"" for a music concert, maybe even ""killer photo"" for a violent crime. If you think using with qualifiers is incorrect, you could create an item for every mission crew and add to it, then retrieve the photo from there. ( ) Это свойство обсуждалось в течении 2 месяцев, сколько по вашему оно должно было ещё обсуждаться? Идея с созданием отдельного айтема довольно интересная. Однако возможно ли использовать в карточке свойство какого-либо иного айтема, нежели связанного через механизм sitelinks? — ( ) The property has to have some supporters before being created, but in this case there were none apart from you. As for the second question, I'm sorry but I don't understand it because I can't speak Russian and Google Translate only goes so far. I'm not a native speaker of English either, but I think it's better for everyone if we all use a common language for these discussions. Otherwise I'm afraid I can't understand you properly. ( ) International project degrade to English project :-) Your position on the first question is very slighting to property proposer because he must wait for some unknown people for unknown period of time. If the theme is not very popular he can wait for years. I think we must be more friendly and open project then you propose. The second question was about usage ""crew item"" in infobox: is it possible to use item that is not linked using sitelinks? And what property to use to link crew and spacecraft items? — ( ) I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. I find answer to my question: . So idea with separate item for crew is not usable. — ( ) Not yet. That's why phase 2 started way too early . I strongly discourage the usage of Wikidata information in the Wikipedias until there is a solution. — Это свойство обсуждалось в течении 2 месяцев, сколько по вашему оно должно было ещё обсуждаться? Идея с созданием отдельного айтема довольно интересная. Однако возможно ли использовать в карточке свойство какого-либо иного айтема, нежели связанного через механизм sitelinks? — ( ) The property has to have some supporters before being created, but in this case there were none apart from you. As for the second question, I'm sorry but I don't understand it because I can't speak Russian and Google Translate only goes so far. I'm not a native speaker of English either, but I think it's better for everyone if we all use a common language for these discussions. Otherwise I'm afraid I can't understand you properly. ( ) International project degrade to English project :-) Your position on the first question is very slighting to property proposer because he must wait for some unknown people for unknown period of time. If the theme is not very popular he can wait for years. I think we must be more friendly and open project then you propose. The second question was about usage ""crew item"" in infobox: is it possible to use item that is not linked using sitelinks? And what property to use to link crew and spacecraft items? — ( ) I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. The property has to have some supporters before being created, but in this case there were none apart from you. As for the second question, I'm sorry but I don't understand it because I can't speak Russian and Google Translate only goes so far. I'm not a native speaker of English either, but I think it's better for everyone if we all use a common language for these discussions. Otherwise I'm afraid I can't understand you properly. ( ) International project degrade to English project :-) Your position on the first question is very slighting to property proposer because he must wait for some unknown people for unknown period of time. If the theme is not very popular he can wait for years. I think we must be more friendly and open project then you propose. The second question was about usage ""crew item"" in infobox: is it possible to use item that is not linked using sitelinks? And what property to use to link crew and spacecraft items? — ( ) I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. International project degrade to English project :-) Your position on the first question is very slighting to property proposer because he must wait for some unknown people for unknown period of time. If the theme is not very popular he can wait for years. I think we must be more friendly and open project then you propose. The second question was about usage ""crew item"" in infobox: is it possible to use item that is not linked using sitelinks? And what property to use to link crew and spacecraft items? — ( ) I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. I am the one that's more than likely going to wind up closing the discussion and thus far I've been able to Google Translate my way through everything you've said, so if you want to speak in Russian, I at least don't have a problem with it. I find answer to my question: . So idea with separate item for crew is not usable. — ( ) Not yet. That's why phase 2 started way too early . I strongly discourage the usage of Wikidata information in the Wikipedias until there is a solution. — Not yet. That's why phase 2 started way too early . I strongly discourage the usage of Wikidata information in the Wikipedias until there is a solution. — [MASK] - I looked at the only current example ( ) and the different articles that go with it. A space mission can have a number of different pictures: the crew, the space ship, the mission insignia, the launch site, a shot of the crafts interior or exterior in space. A lot of these images can be handled as qualifiers using the . The crew is more difficult because if there are 3 people then we would have each person with an image qualifier. So this property might be a good way of handling this. Trying to squeeze everything in the qualifiers has its downsides. Should the place of birth be the qualifier of the birthday or the other way around? If you can't establish the causation then your not looking at a qualifier in my opinion. -- ( ) Delete ~ What is stopping us from using in the qualifier? (Tobias: Revision of interest is in case you didn't check.) -- ( ) I already wrote in Russian: can not be used because item is about spacecraft. must contain images of item object. Crew photo is not image of spacecraft. — ( ) I don't think "" must contain images of item object."" is true. The description in en is simply ""a relevant image"" and not ""an image of the item"". So your claim is false.  :) -- ( ) In Russian it has more strong name... I think so wide and non-deterministic usage of P18 property make it useless. This makes this property equals to Commons category. So, can I run bot that imports all filenames from every corresponding Commons category as P18?  :-) Another think: why we have multiple properties with ""image"" type? Lets delete all of them and stay only P18 and specify everything in qualifiers. Where is boundary between P18+qualifier and separate property? — ( ) Hi Ivan! Sorry, I don't speak Russian either. I think you're raising a good question. We should have a clear guideline for properties that link to images. I think as we go along we learn a lot and sometimes a good decision from a while back seems bad by today's standards. -- ( ) You raise a good question, and it's not the only property that could use answers for it. I would definitely suggest you start an . :) -- ( ) @Izno: Thanks. Haven't looked at that revision. I guess that is also a good way of handling it. This way we could also accommodate more stages of the mission with a picture. -- ( ) I already wrote in Russian: can not be used because item is about spacecraft. must contain images of item object. Crew photo is not image of spacecraft. — ( ) I don't think "" must contain images of item object."" is true. The description in en is simply ""a relevant image"" and not ""an image of the item"". So your claim is false. :) -- ( ) In Russian it has more strong name... I think so wide and non-deterministic usage of P18 property make it useless. This makes this property equals to Commons category. So, can I run bot that imports all filenames from every corresponding Commons category as P18?  :-) Another think: why we have multiple properties with ""image"" type? Lets delete all of them and stay only P18 and specify everything in qualifiers. Where is boundary between P18+qualifier and separate property? — ( ) Hi Ivan! Sorry, I don't speak Russian either. I think you're raising a good question. We should have a clear guideline for properties that link to images. I think as we go along we learn a lot and sometimes a good decision from a while back seems bad by today's standards. -- ( ) You raise a good question, and it's not the only property that could use answers for it. I would definitely suggest you start an . :) -- ( ) I don't think "" must contain images of item object."" is true. The description in en is simply ""a relevant image"" and not ""an image of the item"". So your claim is false.  :) -- ( ) In Russian it has more strong name... I think so wide and non-deterministic usage of P18 property make it useless. This makes this property equals to Commons category. So, can I run bot that imports all filenames from every corresponding Commons category as P18?  :-) Another think: why we have multiple properties with ""image"" type? Lets delete all of them and stay only P18 and specify everything in qualifiers. Where is boundary between P18+qualifier and separate property? — ( ) Hi Ivan! Sorry, I don't speak Russian either. I think you're raising a good question. We should have a clear guideline for properties that link to images. I think as we go along we learn a lot and sometimes a good decision from a while back seems bad by today's standards. -- ( ) You raise a good question, and it's not the only property that could use answers for it. I would definitely suggest you start an . :) -- ( ) In Russian it has more strong name... I think so wide and non-deterministic usage of P18 property make it useless. This makes this property equals to Commons category. So, can I run bot that imports all filenames from every corresponding Commons category as P18?  :-) Another think: why we have multiple properties with ""image"" type? Lets delete all of them and stay only P18 and specify everything in qualifiers. Where is boundary between P18+qualifier and separate property? — ( ) Hi Ivan! Sorry, I don't speak Russian either. I think you're raising a good question. We should have a clear guideline for properties that link to images. I think as we go along we learn a lot and sometimes a good decision from a while back seems bad by today's standards. -- ( ) You raise a good question, and it's not the only property that could use answers for it. I would definitely suggest you start an . :) -- ( ) Hi Ivan! Sorry, I don't speak Russian either. I think you're raising a good question. We should have a clear guideline for properties that link to images. I think as we go along we learn a lot and sometimes a good decision from a while back seems bad by today's standards. -- ( ) You raise a good question, and it's not the only property that could use answers for it. I would definitely suggest you start an . :) -- ( ) @Izno: Thanks. Haven't looked at that revision. I guess that is also a good way of handling it. This way we could also accommodate more stages of the mission with a picture. -- ( ) The question of the deletion of this property is depending of the RfC . ( ) Delete There are simple to many objects (in facts: everything) a photo can show. It isn't possible to create for all and everythin a own property. -- ( ) What limits are on property count? — ( ) What limits are on property count? — ( ) I think the consensus is that we should delete crew photo. Although more opinions would be helpful. We have to find a better way of handling the image properties. Please also chime in at this RfC . -- ( ) Delete Delete I could be wrong, but there doesn't seem to be too much difference between using a property and a qualifier. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: part_of_the_series_(P179): Not [MASK] - consensus is clearly in favor of keeping. -- ( ) Not [MASK] - consensus is clearly in favor of keeping. -- ( ) This may work, but the purpose is not exactly the same. Arguably all of are a part of Star Wars. There is potentially for going so generic that the data becomes unusable due to vagueness. ( ) Wikimania is a series of events, of which Wikimania Hong Kong 2013 is a member, but that is not the only set in which it is included. Attack of the Clones is a member of the Star Wars series of films. Fade to Black is (the last) member of The Sopranos television series. The first member of the series of whole numbers is ""0"". Not all series are finite, but all are countable, composed of discrete elements in an ordered set. While they may need better documentation, it is not at all clear whether these properties can all serve the same purpose. ( ) Wikimania is a series of events, of which Wikimania Hong Kong 2013 is a member, but that is not the only set in which it is included. Attack of the Clones is a member of the Star Wars series of films. Fade to Black is (the last) member of The Sopranos television series. The first member of the series of whole numbers is ""0"". Not all series are finite, but all are countable, composed of discrete elements in an ordered set. While they may need better documentation, it is not at all clear whether these properties can all serve the same purpose. ( ) [MASK] This property does not work like or . Some elements can be part of more than one thing, and such things cannot necessarily be a series. This property is intended to roganize all elements closely related between them beyond a simple conection, which is ""part of"" means. — [MASK] Frankly, I'm becoming infuriated by this desire to pare down the number of properties to as small a number as possible, at the cost of clarity, functionality, and ease of use. There is a ""series"" field in the much used template, and I'm sure it's used in other infoboxes as well. If the point of Wikidata was strictly to record information, without paying attention to how that information is/was intended for use, your proposal might have merit. The fact of the matter though is that part of Wikidata's intended use is to support Wikipedia infoboxes by centralizing the information, field by field, on Wikidata. Every time we yank an existing field in the name of blind efficiency, we make it that much harder for Wikidata to be used constructively. [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] They seem to have discrete purposes. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: given_name_(P735): Not [MASK] as consensus was not reached, at least not until the correct datatype becomes available. -- ( ) Not [MASK] as consensus was not reached, at least not until the correct datatype becomes available.-- ( ) Delete It was [MASK] once before as and (see and search in ). ( ) [MASK] Same as . — ( ) Delete Same as . -- ( ) [MASK] Item is the correct datatype. Use this as a qualifier for or for a 'name' property with string/monolingual datatype. ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] recreating or changing to MultilingualText datatype doesn't seem like a good reason to delete this now. If it is to be MultilingualText, surely it should be kept until that happens? ( ) [MASK] until the same with ""multilingual text"" is created, then Delete . ( ) {[[MASK]}} Shlomo, you may be amused but in Russian given name of is really ""Джордж"" :) -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Commons_category_(P373): Kept for now, premature nomination. Discussion can be reopened when Phase 1 for Commons has started and we see how it works. -- ( ) Kept for now, premature nomination. Discussion can be reopened when Phase 1 for Commons has started and we see how it works. -- ( ) hold your horses, we still know very little of how it will work or how it will be used! A 1:1-match between Wikipedia and and Commons looks very very far away. -- ( ) See ExtrernalUse on . We need migrate all Wikipedias first. — ( ) Uh, no we don't. That's a courtesy but not a necessity. -- ( ) Uh, no we don't. That's a courtesy but not a necessity. -- ( ) I agree with Lavallen. This is a premature nomination. -- ( ) [MASK] , are you deleting all main properties?! – ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P387_(P387): No consensus or strong discussions presented in either argument which cancel out the opposing side. ( ) No consensus or strong discussions presented in either argument which cancel out the opposing side. ( ) These values may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. no fair use is allowed. Wrong datatype, needs to be Monolingual texts, which is not available. . I'm not even sure how this is intended to be used, where is the proposal discussion? — I think this was created without long discussion because of the corresponding parameter in a wikipedia infobox. ( ) I think this was created without long discussion because of the corresponding parameter in a wikipedia infobox. ( ) Delete per nom. -- datatype: I did not know about ""monolingual text"" when I created this property, and I still do not know exactly how it will be different from string, does anyone know about that ? I suppose we have the same isse with . discussion: I think I had proposed it, but there were no comments before I created it. use: it has at least two: make sure that the claim is really made in the purported source. I have seen countless examples in Wikipedia where it is not the case. qualify the claim, when there are important things that cannot be adequately be said in pure database language. For instance, it is hard to say who is depicted in , and I think the quote provided in helps with that. Copyright: that is the main problem imo. I think that short quotes are legally acceptable in just about every circumstance, but I suppose that does not technically remove the copyright. Note that the situation seems to be the same in Wikipedias, as the quoted texts are not CC-BY-SA either. -- ( ) datatype: I did not know about ""monolingual text"" when I created this property, and I still do not know exactly how it will be different from string, does anyone know about that ? I suppose we have the same isse with . discussion: I think I had proposed it, but there were no comments before I created it. use: it has at least two: make sure that the claim is really made in the purported source. I have seen countless examples in Wikipedia where it is not the case. qualify the claim, when there are important things that cannot be adequately be said in pure database language. For instance, it is hard to say who is depicted in , and I think the quote provided in helps with that. make sure that the claim is really made in the purported source. I have seen countless examples in Wikipedia where it is not the case. qualify the claim, when there are important things that cannot be adequately be said in pure database language. For instance, it is hard to say who is depicted in , and I think the quote provided in helps with that. Copyright: that is the main problem imo. I think that short quotes are legally acceptable in just about every circumstance, but I suppose that does not technically remove the copyright. Note that the situation seems to be the same in Wikipedias, as the quoted texts are not CC-BY-SA either. -- ( ) Strongly oppose to deletion : there is and , both of them allow quotations, as long as it is . Instead of this proposal for deletion, what about starting a debate about how to use it and where are its limits? -- ( ) I agree, but it would have been better to discuss this prior to the property's creation. — I agree, but it would have been better to discuss this prior to the property's creation. — Citing fair use in defense of this property seems invalid on its face. As the site's footer notes, Wikidata's ""structured data from the main and property namespace is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License"". In other words, by putting quotes into a Wikidata claim (a subject-predicate-object, a unit of structured data), we would implicitly be asserting that those quotes are in the . Subjects to which fair use applies are copyrightable; they are not in the public domain. A proper defense of this property would argue that quotes are not copyrightable. The article from the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use website seems like it could provide some guidance on this. ( ) Any comment on this? Copyright issues are this property's main problem, and it seems like that's not being addressed. ( ) I have quoted many many times on Wikipedia, I have even uploaded it to Commons, since it is from early 1900. Do you have any problems with that I will copy small parts from this document here on Wikidata into this property? -- ( ) Citing fair use in defense of this property seems invalid on its face. As the site's footer notes, Wikidata's ""structured data from the main and property namespace is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License"". In other words, by putting quotes into a Wikidata claim (a subject-predicate-object, a unit of structured data), we would implicitly be asserting that those quotes are in the . Subjects to which fair use applies are copyrightable; they are not in the public domain. A proper defense of this property would argue that quotes are not copyrightable. The article from the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use website seems like it could provide some guidance on this. ( ) Any comment on this? Copyright issues are this property's main problem, and it seems like that's not being addressed. ( ) I have quoted many many times on Wikipedia, I have even uploaded it to Commons, since it is from early 1900. Do you have any problems with that I will copy small parts from this document here on Wikidata into this property? -- ( ) Any comment on this? Copyright issues are this property's main problem, and it seems like that's not being addressed. ( ) I have quoted many many times on Wikipedia, I have even uploaded it to Commons, since it is from early 1900. Do you have any problems with that I will copy small parts from this document here on Wikidata into this property? -- ( ) I have quoted many many times on Wikipedia, I have even uploaded it to Commons, since it is from early 1900. Do you have any problems with that I will copy small parts from this document here on Wikidata into this property? -- ( ) How about datatype? Should it be Monolingual texts?-- ( ) I think so, and so for I would say, and really I do not know what we should do about that. I would guess go for an approximate datatype until a better one is available. We can do without P387 for a while, but deleting P387 would be really problematic, so I suppose we will need to clean things up once monolingual texts are available in any case. -- ( ) I think so, and so for I would say, and really I do not know what we should do about that. I would guess go for an approximate datatype until a better one is available. We can do without P387 for a while, but deleting P387 would be really problematic, so I suppose we will need to clean things up once monolingual texts are available in any case. -- ( ) [MASK] only for use in sources. ( ) Delete but weak. if we provide the data of the source we don't need the quote, each person can find the information in the source. Quote is useful only when the statement in the source is not clear or when you want to discuss the qoute itself in a text. ( ) Also can contain non-free material. And sources can be old enough or free in some cases. [MASK] until better datatype is available. -- ( ) No, can't contain non-free material, because it only allows images on Commons, and Commons doesn't allow non-free material. If it's free or not depends on where you live. Copyright-laws do not look the same everywhere. There are thousands of pictures on Commons I wouldn't use if I would publish a book, or even use on Wikipedia. -- ( ) No, can't contain non-free material, because it only allows images on Commons, and Commons doesn't allow non-free material. If it's free or not depends on where you live. Copyright-laws do not look the same everywhere. There are thousands of pictures on Commons I wouldn't use if I would publish a book, or even use on Wikipedia. -- ( ) If it's free or not depends on where you live. Copyright-laws do not look the same everywhere. There are thousands of pictures on Commons I wouldn't use if I would publish a book, or even use on Wikipedia. -- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P719_(P719): Consensus is for deleting P719 (notable incident). I've changed the English language label for P793 to better reflect the property's intended purpose, with the old name as an alias and P719 as an alias. Consensus is for deleting P719 (notable incident). I've changed the English language label for P793 to better reflect the property's intended purpose, with the old name as an alias and P719 as an alias. I don't think we have to delete all incident/event related properties now that we have but I think can go. ( ) Delete . No clear difference between the two. -- ( ) Delete per nom. -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P302_(P302): I'm not sure of the wisdom of this path of stuffing more and more information into 'instance of' rather than using more specific properties, but consensus is clear for deletion here. I'm not sure of the wisdom of this path of stuffing more and more information into 'instance of' rather than using more specific properties, but consensus is clear for deletion here. Delete -- ( ) Delete -- Delete -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: image_(P18): ( ) Kept. ( ) [MASK] I agree that the prefered image is the article-editors choise, but in some cases is a good property, for example in art-related items. I have myself used this property in items related to , where the alternatives in the categories often are few. -- ( ) Even if you could define ""the one"" coat of arms image for the whole WP (CoA, Flags etc. can change over time, files can have different colours, sizes, resolutions, and so on), a better solution would be a specific property for all WP standard files. You can't ignore all the other problems for almost all of the other items just because you think it works in some singular cases. -- ( ) It's wrong to add in too, but I do not propose it to be [MASK]! If the CoA change over time, we can add qualifiers for it or create new items, since change of CoA often is a consquence of some other changes, like changes from Town to City or to Municipality or anything else... Such things happend a lot in the 1970's where I live. I fully agree that the use of P18 in many items have to be reviewed, and I will not recomend the use of this property in random templates on Wikipedia. -- ( ) You don't seem to understand the problem. It's not the silly ""it can be used wrong so delete it"" argument. You can decide whether male / female is right or applicable. You can not decide, what image is the right one. As long as there is a general property Image for all items you can choose any image you like that makes any sense and nobody can tell why it shouldn't be this image or why there should be no image at all. You link your CoA image, somebody else replaces it with a file twice the size, the next one found an image from an old book with darker colours. Wikidata properties have a limited range of values, images have unlimited variations, even if you would think there is only ""the one"" coat of arms. You can define images of a certain resolution, size and file format as standard images e. g. for national flags. Then you can create a property for flag or state articles to include these images. But it is obvious that there can be no standard for almost the whole rest of the world. That is why this ""general"" property does make no sense. -- ( ) We can decide that this and that ""range of items"" is not in ""the range"" for any property, just like we can decide if mythical items and/or fictional items and/or items about groups of humans are supposed to use P21 or not. In the end is it the template-designers in the client who choose to use a property or not. From my point of view, P18 is maybe the only media-file-property we need. -- ( ) No, you can't decide anything about a ""range"". No more than about ""the one"" image. The different examples should have made this clear. In a way you got the point. If anybody uses this property it's their own fault. -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) Even if you could define ""the one"" coat of arms image for the whole WP (CoA, Flags etc. can change over time, files can have different colours, sizes, resolutions, and so on), a better solution would be a specific property for all WP standard files. You can't ignore all the other problems for almost all of the other items just because you think it works in some singular cases. -- ( ) It's wrong to add in too, but I do not propose it to be [MASK]! If the CoA change over time, we can add qualifiers for it or create new items, since change of CoA often is a consquence of some other changes, like changes from Town to City or to Municipality or anything else... Such things happend a lot in the 1970's where I live. I fully agree that the use of P18 in many items have to be reviewed, and I will not recomend the use of this property in random templates on Wikipedia. -- ( ) You don't seem to understand the problem. It's not the silly ""it can be used wrong so delete it"" argument. You can decide whether male / female is right or applicable. You can not decide, what image is the right one. As long as there is a general property Image for all items you can choose any image you like that makes any sense and nobody can tell why it shouldn't be this image or why there should be no image at all. You link your CoA image, somebody else replaces it with a file twice the size, the next one found an image from an old book with darker colours. Wikidata properties have a limited range of values, images have unlimited variations, even if you would think there is only ""the one"" coat of arms. You can define images of a certain resolution, size and file format as standard images e. g. for national flags. Then you can create a property for flag or state articles to include these images. But it is obvious that there can be no standard for almost the whole rest of the world. That is why this ""general"" property does make no sense. -- ( ) We can decide that this and that ""range of items"" is not in ""the range"" for any property, just like we can decide if mythical items and/or fictional items and/or items about groups of humans are supposed to use P21 or not. In the end is it the template-designers in the client who choose to use a property or not. From my point of view, P18 is maybe the only media-file-property we need. -- ( ) No, you can't decide anything about a ""range"". No more than about ""the one"" image. The different examples should have made this clear. In a way you got the point. If anybody uses this property it's their own fault. -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) It's wrong to add in too, but I do not propose it to be [MASK]! If the CoA change over time, we can add qualifiers for it or create new items, since change of CoA often is a consquence of some other changes, like changes from Town to City or to Municipality or anything else... Such things happend a lot in the 1970's where I live. I fully agree that the use of P18 in many items have to be reviewed, and I will not recomend the use of this property in random templates on Wikipedia. -- ( ) You don't seem to understand the problem. It's not the silly ""it can be used wrong so delete it"" argument. You can decide whether male / female is right or applicable. You can not decide, what image is the right one. As long as there is a general property Image for all items you can choose any image you like that makes any sense and nobody can tell why it shouldn't be this image or why there should be no image at all. You link your CoA image, somebody else replaces it with a file twice the size, the next one found an image from an old book with darker colours. Wikidata properties have a limited range of values, images have unlimited variations, even if you would think there is only ""the one"" coat of arms. You can define images of a certain resolution, size and file format as standard images e. g. for national flags. Then you can create a property for flag or state articles to include these images. But it is obvious that there can be no standard for almost the whole rest of the world. That is why this ""general"" property does make no sense. -- ( ) We can decide that this and that ""range of items"" is not in ""the range"" for any property, just like we can decide if mythical items and/or fictional items and/or items about groups of humans are supposed to use P21 or not. In the end is it the template-designers in the client who choose to use a property or not. From my point of view, P18 is maybe the only media-file-property we need. -- ( ) No, you can't decide anything about a ""range"". No more than about ""the one"" image. The different examples should have made this clear. In a way you got the point. If anybody uses this property it's their own fault. -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) You don't seem to understand the problem. It's not the silly ""it can be used wrong so delete it"" argument. You can decide whether male / female is right or applicable. You can not decide, what image is the right one. As long as there is a general property Image for all items you can choose any image you like that makes any sense and nobody can tell why it shouldn't be this image or why there should be no image at all. You link your CoA image, somebody else replaces it with a file twice the size, the next one found an image from an old book with darker colours. Wikidata properties have a limited range of values, images have unlimited variations, even if you would think there is only ""the one"" coat of arms. You can define images of a certain resolution, size and file format as standard images e. g. for national flags. Then you can create a property for flag or state articles to include these images. But it is obvious that there can be no standard for almost the whole rest of the world. That is why this ""general"" property does make no sense. -- ( ) We can decide that this and that ""range of items"" is not in ""the range"" for any property, just like we can decide if mythical items and/or fictional items and/or items about groups of humans are supposed to use P21 or not. In the end is it the template-designers in the client who choose to use a property or not. From my point of view, P18 is maybe the only media-file-property we need. -- ( ) No, you can't decide anything about a ""range"". No more than about ""the one"" image. The different examples should have made this clear. In a way you got the point. If anybody uses this property it's their own fault. -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) We can decide that this and that ""range of items"" is not in ""the range"" for any property, just like we can decide if mythical items and/or fictional items and/or items about groups of humans are supposed to use P21 or not. In the end is it the template-designers in the client who choose to use a property or not. From my point of view, P18 is maybe the only media-file-property we need. -- ( ) No, you can't decide anything about a ""range"". No more than about ""the one"" image. The different examples should have made this clear. In a way you got the point. If anybody uses this property it's their own fault. -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) No, you can't decide anything about a ""range"". No more than about ""the one"" image. The different examples should have made this clear. In a way you got the point. If anybody uses this property it's their own fault. -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) ""If anybody uses this property it's their own fault."" - Well yes, that is true about all properties here, and about every parameter in every template... -- ( ) [MASK] Part of the reason we have this property is so that infoboxes can be populated with an image via template. In smaller projects where there aren't enough people for it to be feasible for someone to go through each Commons category to find the 'best' image for each subject, they can use the one in the image field. That's a powerful function, and one that people increasingly seem to forget about on this page. A sledge hammer is a powerful tool, but not of much use if you want to pin a postcard on the wall. You can do so many things with this unspecific property and people do them all at once. And that does not make it powerful but useless for the specific uses you want to put it to. If you want infobox images, create a property ""infobox-image"" and define exactly what you want there. If you want flags for flag or country articles, create a property ""flag-image"". But ""image"" is everything and nothing at the same time. -- ( ) A sledge hammer is a powerful tool, but not of much use if you want to pin a postcard on the wall. You can do so many things with this unspecific property and people do them all at once. And that does not make it powerful but useless for the specific uses you want to put it to. If you want infobox images, create a property ""infobox-image"" and define exactly what you want there. If you want flags for flag or country articles, create a property ""flag-image"". But ""image"" is everything and nothing at the same time. -- ( ) Comment Currently we have 1732 items with multiple P18 values: . Do somebody know how to choose one of the images in infobox code? For example for , . — ( ) You can look into how enbarten is used in . If the module has the parameter enbarten=0, then the first file is collected. enbarten=1, gives the second etc... Many other things in the code in this page has not been updated and I give no guarantees that it works today. -- ( ) Question is not about code. It is about algorithm logic: what image the infobox must use? The first? The last? Random? The best (but how to identify the best image)? — ( ) Agree, we have to solve that. I am currently (and maybe for several years from now) working with Swedish Municipalities. The most frequent illustration on svwp is the office-building of the municipal administration. I guess it would be nice if we could create relations to an item about the building and in that item use P18, instead of putting them directly into the municipality-item, which tells very little today about it's relation to the item. -- ( ) You can look into how enbarten is used in . If the module has the parameter enbarten=0, then the first file is collected. enbarten=1, gives the second etc... Many other things in the code in this page has not been updated and I give no guarantees that it works today. -- ( ) Question is not about code. It is about algorithm logic: what image the infobox must use? The first? The last? Random? The best (but how to identify the best image)? — ( ) Agree, we have to solve that. I am currently (and maybe for several years from now) working with Swedish Municipalities. The most frequent illustration on svwp is the office-building of the municipal administration. I guess it would be nice if we could create relations to an item about the building and in that item use P18, instead of putting them directly into the municipality-item, which tells very little today about it's relation to the item. -- ( ) Question is not about code. It is about algorithm logic: what image the infobox must use? The first? The last? Random? The best (but how to identify the best image)? — ( ) Agree, we have to solve that. I am currently (and maybe for several years from now) working with Swedish Municipalities. The most frequent illustration on svwp is the office-building of the municipal administration. I guess it would be nice if we could create relations to an item about the building and in that item use P18, instead of putting them directly into the municipality-item, which tells very little today about it's relation to the item. -- ( ) Agree, we have to solve that. I am currently (and maybe for several years from now) working with Swedish Municipalities. The most frequent illustration on svwp is the office-building of the municipal administration. I guess it would be nice if we could create relations to an item about the building and in that item use P18, instead of putting them directly into the municipality-item, which tells very little today about it's relation to the item. -- ( ) [MASK] . While there may be disagreement as to which is the best image that doesn't mean we can't have any. Where multiple images are listed we will be able to specify one of these as the preferred image, once the developers have the ranking facility available. ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: highest_point_(P610): ( ) Kept. ( ) Then you have to add to identify in and then add the coordinates of Q513 in two items! Would it not be better to use ""somevalue"" in P610 and as qualifer when the place lack wp-notability? -- ( ) Thanks for the tip. I didn't think if that. I withdraw this nomination. -- ( ) Thanks for the tip. I didn't think if that. I withdraw this nomination. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P955: ( ) [MASK]. ( ) Done -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P983: ( ) [MASK]. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P185: Kept. Oppose Everyone can call himself ""student of"" if he has visited a seminar. A doctoral student is a much higher level and it's a fact. ""Student of"" you can debate on. It's the same distinction as in : ""doctoral_students"" and ""notable_students"". -- ( ) Oppose ""студент"" and ""аспирант"" are different roles in Russian learning system. Relations ""студент-преподаватель"" and ""аспирант-научный руководитель"" are very different too. — ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P177: Kept. [MASK] , meaning is not really the same (crossing the Thames is not really the same as being located in the Thames). At the very least, this property is much more precise and would be useful in several infoboxes. (and probably various sorts of queries as well). -- ( ) Oppose: There is probably a roads-related property this could be merged with. ""Located on terrain feature"" is not one of those. -- ( ) The name of a merged property might be something like ""intersection"". -- ( ) The name of a merged property might be something like ""intersection"". -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P164: The result was delete . This action will be performed shortly. No one has objected to this PFD for over two weeks. -- ( ) The result was delete . This action will be performed shortly. No one has objected to this PFD for over two weeks. -- ( ) Delete In contrast to airline alliance, railway alliance is in wikipedia nowhere used. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P734_(surname): 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 [MASK] until relevant datatypes are available. -- ( ) [MASK] This has datatype 'item' and links to a page for the surname. This is a very different property and cannot be replaced by 'name'. ( ) [MASK] , link between person and article about his surname is not good idea. — ( ) [MASK] The property name is comprehensive. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P742_(_pseudonym): 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 [MASK] until relevant datatypes are available. -- ( ) Delete . See discussion above. ( ) [MASK] until multilingual datatype is unavailable. — ( ) [MASK] The property name is comprehensive. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P831: Consensus is for keeping this, at least for the time being. Consensus is for keeping this, at least for the time being. [MASK] , as ""parent company"" is usually defined by the law, whereas ""parent organisation"" is ambiguous and can mean anything from owners to a larger group that the item belongs to. -- ( ) [MASK] per -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P423: Consensus to delete was not reached. -- ( ) Consensus to delete was not reached.-- ( ) Delete if exceptions exist which are active in different sports and have different handedness depending on the sport, use qualifiers.   — ( ) If we delete this property, please also delete and . -- ( ) If we delete this property, please also delete and .-- ( ) [MASK]: Handedness does not imply armedness, to put it succinctly. There may be other alternatives to deletion which should be pursued. -- ( ) [MASK] per above. One can be left-handed, but uses the right for sports. These two things are different concepts and therefore required different properties. -- ( ) Delete per Felix R. ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P16_(highway_system): The result was [MASK] . -- ( ) The result was [MASK] . -- ( ) [MASK] It is not always a ""list of"" page; see . As far as your second point, ""part of"" is typically used for roads being part of larger roads. This would make it hard for an infobox module to tell the difference between a road being part of another road, or part of a larger system. -- [MASK] I'd be responsible for sorting this out in the infobox module, and I don't want to have to do the extra work needed to implement this. I have better things to do with my time than configuring modules to use the same property for completely different concepts. - Can you explain what a highway system is? -- ( ) It is a system of highways, commissioned by a government. has a field set up specifically for this. -- For me it is still unclear what you mean with 'system', it is not a clear definition, or only applicable for some countries. I guess this property only refers to the English Infobox road and the US state highways per state. If this is true, maybe it is possible to rename this property to indicate it is usefull for US roads only, and should not be used for other roads in other countries. Can we call it ""US highway system"" or something? ( ) Not true; see (which should be using the field, but is not). -- I can see that and both are instance of . -- ( ) Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- Can you explain what a highway system is? -- ( ) It is a system of highways, commissioned by a government. has a field set up specifically for this. -- For me it is still unclear what you mean with 'system', it is not a clear definition, or only applicable for some countries. I guess this property only refers to the English Infobox road and the US state highways per state. If this is true, maybe it is possible to rename this property to indicate it is usefull for US roads only, and should not be used for other roads in other countries. Can we call it ""US highway system"" or something? ( ) Not true; see (which should be using the field, but is not). -- I can see that and both are instance of . -- ( ) Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- It is a system of highways, commissioned by a government. has a field set up specifically for this. -- For me it is still unclear what you mean with 'system', it is not a clear definition, or only applicable for some countries. I guess this property only refers to the English Infobox road and the US state highways per state. If this is true, maybe it is possible to rename this property to indicate it is usefull for US roads only, and should not be used for other roads in other countries. Can we call it ""US highway system"" or something? ( ) Not true; see (which should be using the field, but is not). -- I can see that and both are instance of . -- ( ) Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- For me it is still unclear what you mean with 'system', it is not a clear definition, or only applicable for some countries. I guess this property only refers to the English Infobox road and the US state highways per state. If this is true, maybe it is possible to rename this property to indicate it is usefull for US roads only, and should not be used for other roads in other countries. Can we call it ""US highway system"" or something? ( ) Not true; see (which should be using the field, but is not). -- I can see that and both are instance of . -- ( ) Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- Not true; see (which should be using the field, but is not). -- I can see that and both are instance of . -- ( ) Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- I can see that and both are instance of . -- ( ) Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- Yes, though I don't really think that's the best place, for the same reason as why using part of is not a good answer either. -- [MASK] Necessary property. ""Highway system"" is a fairly clear term. — [MASK] - Neither point is correct. First, what a highway system is is self-explanatory; Rschen noted the definition above. Second, there is a benefit in using this over P361 because that is used for something completely different within the roads task force. For example, would be ""part of"" because it highlights one state's section of the whole national route. Even if the article on English wikipedia is called ""List of "" the item on Wikidata can have the label "" "" with ""list of "" as an alias. On the other hand, if is ""part of"" then can still be 'part of' . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P41_(flag_image),_P94_(coat_of_arms_image),_P154_(logo_image),_P207_(bathymetry_image),_P158_(seal_image),_P109_(signature),_P367_(astronomic_symbol_image): Please discuss below. -- ( ) Please discuss below.-- ( ) And also: P15 (road map), P117 (chemical structure), P181 (range map), P242(locator map image), P491 (orbit diagram), P692 (Gene Atlas Image) -- ( ) One problem I have seen with P41 is that a ""banner of arms"" have been added instead of a flag. -- ( ) One problem I have seen with P41 is that a ""banner of arms"" have been added instead of a flag. -- ( ) [MASK] 1) is not good to vote all of them in one pack - some of them could be keeped, some [MASK]. 2) Using property without qualifier is much easier than select one with qualifier. So [MASK] ninimally P41 and P94 which are (both) used by (the same) infoboxes. Can any of supporters rewrite all templates in all wikis which are using these properties (I am afraid there is not many people understanding lua in smaller wikis)? 1) is not good to vote all of them in one pack - some of them could be keeped, some [MASK]. 2) Using property without qualifier is much easier than select one with qualifier. So [MASK] ninimally P41 and P94 which are (both) used by (the same) infoboxes. Can any of supporters rewrite all templates in all wikis which are using these properties (I am afraid there is not many people understanding lua in smaller wikis)? ( ) Wait Please put {{ }} on all property talk pages and inform all people which are using these properties in wikipedia. -- ( ) [MASK] , prop+qualifier scheme has many problems. One of them: . — ( ) [MASK] What the heck? I didn't even know that P15 was up for deletion. This should be speedy closed, and proper nomination procedures should be followed. -- Perfectly said: What the heck? People who proposed the property and the projects that widely use them need to be informed if they're being put up for deletion. Perfectly said: What the heck? People who proposed the property and the projects that widely use them need to be informed if they're being put up for deletion. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P206_located_on_body_of_water: No consensus reached. -- ( ) Kept. No consensus reached.-- ( ) [MASK] Different meaning, different labels (at least in Russian). is applicable only for sunken places. — ( ) Comment The English ""on"" is very ambiguous if you start translating it, but I think that's a translation issue. Current usage for ""islands bodies of water"" is about existing islands, and I don't think ""sunken"" was ever intended. (On a side note, existing labels and descriptions frequently have this ambiguity, because a preposition can have multiple connotations that other languages do not share. The intention should always be clarified explicitly. Different languages can have extremely different structures, so when something is defined only with a short phrase, it's always a problem.) -- ( ) This is a problem with the translation. The property as originally proposed was for terrain in general. -- ( ) Comment The English ""on"" is very ambiguous if you start translating it, but I think that's a translation issue. Current usage for ""islands bodies of water"" is about existing islands, and I don't think ""sunken"" was ever intended. (On a side note, existing labels and descriptions frequently have this ambiguity, because a preposition can have multiple connotations that other languages do not share. The intention should always be clarified explicitly. Different languages can have extremely different structures, so when something is defined only with a short phrase, it's always a problem.) -- ( ) This is a problem with the translation. The property as originally proposed was for terrain in general. -- ( ) Delete ~ Is indeed superceded by P706. -- ( ) Delete can easily be covered by using P706 ( ) [MASK] In German they have different meanings too. P706 can be used if an item is located on a terrain feature which covers the item's area. However, P206 is used for items which are located on a shore or bank of a lake or river. An example: doesn't cover the area of . So from a German language point of view a statement like = is totally wrong. -- ( ) Comment That should also be true for other languages. The property was introduced for the infoboxes for lakes, namely the parameter cities and there it is written ""notable cities or settlements on or near the shore of the body of water"" . The property here is the other way around and made more general, e.g. . I don't see how one could say that with the property . I am not sure if the islands should be used with this property (at least with German labels and description this sounds strange). -- ( ) Comment That should also be true for other languages. The property was introduced for the infoboxes for lakes, namely the parameter cities and there it is written ""notable cities or settlements on or near the shore of the body of water"" . The property here is the other way around and made more general, e.g. . I don't see how one could say that with the property . I am not sure if the islands should be used with this property (at least with German labels and description this sounds strange). -- ( ) That sound like the German label and description needs to be rewritten. I think we should be able to use P706 to create a hierarchy from hill to island to lake to subcontinent to ocean to Earth. ( ) That sound like the German label and description needs to be rewritten. I think we should be able to use P706 to create a hierarchy from hill to island to lake to subcontinent to ocean to Earth. ( ) That sound like the German label and description needs to be rewritten. I think we should be able to use P706 to create a hierarchy from hill to island to lake to subcontinent to ocean to Earth. ( ) That sound like the German label and description needs to be rewritten. I think we should be able to use P706 to create a hierarchy from hill to island to lake to subcontinent to ocean to Earth. ( ) There are two different ways to describe the position of an item relative to a lake, river or hill. See my sketch. In case 1, item A is located on the coast of lake B (or close to hill B). In case 2, the island A is located in lake B (or the village A is located on hill B). These are two fundamental different ways in describing a position and therefore two different properties are needed. -- ( ) So P206 needs to be renamed ""Located next to terrain feature""? ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) There are two different ways to describe the position of an item relative to a lake, river or hill. See my sketch. In case 1, item A is located on the coast of lake B (or close to hill B). In case 2, the island A is located in lake B (or the village A is located on hill B). These are two fundamental different ways in describing a position and therefore two different properties are needed. -- ( ) So P206 needs to be renamed ""Located next to terrain feature""? ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) There are two different ways to describe the position of an item relative to a lake, river or hill. See my sketch. In case 1, item A is located on the coast of lake B (or close to hill B). In case 2, the island A is located in lake B (or the village A is located on hill B). These are two fundamental different ways in describing a position and therefore two different properties are needed. -- ( ) So P206 needs to be renamed ""Located next to terrain feature""? ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) There are two different ways to describe the position of an item relative to a lake, river or hill. See my sketch. In case 1, item A is located on the coast of lake B (or close to hill B). In case 2, the island A is located in lake B (or the village A is located on hill B). These are two fundamental different ways in describing a position and therefore two different properties are needed. -- ( ) So P206 needs to be renamed ""Located next to terrain feature""? ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) There are two different ways to describe the position of an item relative to a lake, river or hill. See my sketch. In case 1, item A is located on the coast of lake B (or close to hill B). In case 2, the island A is located in lake B (or the village A is located on hill B). These are two fundamental different ways in describing a position and therefore two different properties are needed. -- ( ) So P206 needs to be renamed ""Located next to terrain feature""? ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) So P206 needs to be renamed ""Located next to terrain feature""? ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) Agree with , it would make it easier to explain the differences between these properties in other languages. -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) The English label looks fine now. Should we also copy the image with the explanation and a link to this discussion to ? -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P741: Consensus to delete ( ) Consensus to delete ( ) Delete if exceptions exist which are active in different sports and have different handedness depending on the sport, use qualifiers.   — ( ) [MASK], per comment above. -- ( ) Delete per Felix R ( ) Delete per Felix R -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: visitors_per_year_(P1174): Per the comment by Lydia and no real disagreement with her comment in 24hrs (I know a short time frame but hey) there is no reason to [MASK] this discussion going on. Therefore speedy close as [MASK] or however you want to call it. ( ) Per the comment by Lydia and no real disagreement with her comment in 24hrs (I know a short time frame but hey) there is no reason to [MASK] this discussion going on. Therefore speedy close as [MASK] or however you want to call it. ( ) I heard that the datatype for dimensionful quantities will come with an unit converter, i.e. one can then convert a value with unit year -1 to day -1 etc. If this is correct, we should not change the datatype of because ""visitor"" is not a quantity which can converted from one unit to another. -- ( ) Why isn't it? -- ( ) Assume a fairground which is only open during summer. One can add a statement like P1174=365,000 but one can not conclude that the fairground had 1,000 visitors per day, 36,500,000 visitors per century or 0.012 visitors per second. -- ( ) Why isn't it? -- ( ) Assume a fairground which is only open during summer. One can add a statement like P1174=365,000 but one can not conclude that the fairground had 1,000 visitors per day, 36,500,000 visitors per century or 0.012 visitors per second. -- ( ) Assume a fairground which is only open during summer. One can add a statement like P1174=365,000 but one can not conclude that the fairground had 1,000 visitors per day, 36,500,000 visitors per century or 0.012 visitors per second. -- ( ) I don't think the numbers are comparable. Visitors per year is good for places that are open all year (like airports). Visitors per day is good for places that have seasons (skiing lift, public pool, ...). A simple conversion will always put seasonal places behind always-open places. -- ( ) Well, if the heartbeat is 60 bpm, does not mean that it beat every second, so that is not a problem only related to ""visitors"". I hope the developers will make this datatype in a way that it is visible what unit the user added. -- ( ) Well, if the heartbeat is 60 bpm, does not mean that it beat every second, so that is not a problem only related to ""visitors"". I hope the developers will make this datatype in a way that it is visible what unit the user added. -- ( ) This property can be used for the number of visitors in a specific year (e.g. for museums, archaeological areas, theatres...) with the qualifier . -- ( ) Hey :) John asked me to comment here. The current plan is to have the quantities datatype be for both quantities with and without a unit. -- ( ) @ : Is my understanding correct that the implication of your statement is that ""there is no need to change the data type, you just need to wait"". Is that a correct understanding? -- ( ) I can't say for certain yet. We have not talked through the exact details for units yet. I'll try to get to that next week. -- ( ) @ : Is my understanding correct that the implication of your statement is that ""there is no need to change the data type, you just need to wait"". Is that a correct understanding? -- ( ) I can't say for certain yet. We have not talked through the exact details for units yet. I'll try to get to that next week. -- ( ) I can't say for certain yet. We have not talked through the exact details for units yet. I'll try to get to that next week. -- ( ) Given that we have bots, it is not smart to delete properties whose values can be converted to an other value at this time. Also given a definition it can be understood what a property is there for and how to understand it. Thanks, ( ) Given that we have bots, it is not smart to delete properties whose values can be converted to an other value at this time. Also given a definition it can be understood what a property is there for and how to understand it. Thanks, ( ) Given that we have bots, it is not smart to delete properties whose values can be converted to an other value at this time. Also given a definition it can be understood what a property is there for and how to understand it. Thanks, ( ) Given that we have bots, it is not smart to delete properties whose values can be converted to an other value at this time. Also given a definition it can be understood what a property is there for and how to understand it. Thanks, ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Commons_gallery_(P935): Consensus is to [MASK] this property. ( ) Consensus is to [MASK] this property. ( ) This is relevant for this property only. Commons category still needs to exist but this is about the gallery property. Unless people have a reason to [MASK] this, I'm going to simply comment and not ! vote since I closed the RfC around this. ( ) [MASK] - sitelinks must be unique, this property allows to use the same link in more articles or more links in one article. And additionally - this property is used by several wikis, so you should inform them and rewrite all templates which ude it. ( ) @ : We have zero obligation to any wikis using this property. And especially, we have zero obligation to fix their templates. If their templates break, that is their issue, not ours. -- ( ) @ : It's simple to replace this property with interwiki by the help of Wikidata. I have already started with that between Wikipedia and Wikisource. But that is of course the case only when there is a 1:1-relation between the WP-arcticles and the Galleries. I thought that was the case. Can you give us any examples where it isn't? -- ( ) Probably there is a 1:1-relation between WP-articles and Galleries. But with we can also make the link between a WP-category and a gallery. -- ( ) You cannot today follow the track: -> commonslink, today, but you will (I hope) in the future. -- ( ) @ : We have zero obligation to any wikis using this property. And especially, we have zero obligation to fix their templates. If their templates break, that is their issue, not ours. -- ( ) @ : It's simple to replace this property with interwiki by the help of Wikidata. I have already started with that between Wikipedia and Wikisource. But that is of course the case only when there is a 1:1-relation between the WP-arcticles and the Galleries. I thought that was the case. Can you give us any examples where it isn't? -- ( ) Probably there is a 1:1-relation between WP-articles and Galleries. But with we can also make the link between a WP-category and a gallery. -- ( ) You cannot today follow the track: -> commonslink, today, but you will (I hope) in the future. -- ( ) @ : It's simple to replace this property with interwiki by the help of Wikidata. I have already started with that between Wikipedia and Wikisource. But that is of course the case only when there is a 1:1-relation between the WP-arcticles and the Galleries. I thought that was the case. Can you give us any examples where it isn't? -- ( ) Probably there is a 1:1-relation between WP-articles and Galleries. But with we can also make the link between a WP-category and a gallery. -- ( ) You cannot today follow the track: -> commonslink, today, but you will (I hope) in the future. -- ( ) Probably there is a 1:1-relation between WP-articles and Galleries. But with we can also make the link between a WP-category and a gallery. -- ( ) You cannot today follow the track: -> commonslink, today, but you will (I hope) in the future. -- ( ) You cannot today follow the track: -> commonslink, today, but you will (I hope) in the future. -- ( ) [MASK] One item can have more than one gallery associated with it. For example a building can have one gallery for exterior, one for interior and one for the construction. En vettig motivering! -- ( ) En vettig motivering! -- ( ) [MASK] if it is true that the main gallery of an item can (and must) be linked with sitelinks, other involved galleries cannot, as ℇsquilo example, above. I don't know if in future we can add more than one Commons sitelink to one item, but at now this property can be useful. To avoid duplicated information, I propose to rename it ""other galleries on Commons"" or similar. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Commons_category_(P373): Consensus is to [MASK] this property. ( ) Consensus is to [MASK] this property. ( ) [MASK] This is different from the above, because it is apparently against the rules to have sitelinks to articles and commons categories in the same item. -- ( ) [MASK] I disagree with , my concern is more about the 1:1-relation between Commons and all other projects. -- ( ) [MASK] It's also the Commons-category belonging to articles, not just the category in commons (the Commons-category for the category). - - ( / ) [MASK] Links from articles to categories can/shall not use sitelink. This property is to be used insetad. [MASK] @ : why didn't you notify me? Isn't the clear enough about what you have do to when you nominate something? ( ) [MASK] This property is the only manner (at now) to link Commons categories to the respective article in Wikipedia. -- ( ) [MASK] A page and a category aren't the same thing : the link in ""interlinks section"" is for the page of the entity in commons who talk about this entity, a categoy aims to share all medias (= different entities) about this entity -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1169_(P1169): The result was delete . -- ( ) The result was delete . -- ( ) Delete , as noted above. -- ( ) Delete . I agree with John. -- ( ) Oppose I put my arguments in . Thanks, ( ) Comment I've read your blog post (may I say that I prefer to have such discussion on wiki?) and I think that you miss a point. Thomson Reuters does not object to the use of the IF per se . Journals can display their IF on their web sites, for example. What Thomson Reuters traditionally does object to is reproduction of their journal rankings. So mentioning an IF in the article on a journal is OK. Constituting a database that basically reproduces their Journal Citation Reports is not. -- ( ) Comment I've read your blog post (may I say that I prefer to have such discussion on wiki?) and I think that you miss a point. Thomson Reuters does not object to the use of the IF per se . Journals can display their IF on their web sites, for example. What Thomson Reuters traditionally does object to is reproduction of their journal rankings. So mentioning an IF in the article on a journal is OK. Constituting a database that basically reproduces their Journal Citation Reports is not. -- ( ) Delete Since Wikidata is a CC0 provider, we would complicate reuse if there are strings attached. Instead we could offer another property like ""impact factor available at"", if that makes sense. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P60_(P60): Consensus is delete and use and instead. Before to delete it, we need to warn to modify the template and to move all the statements of P60 to P31 ( ). See also discussion for the roadmap. -- ( ) Consensus is delete and use and instead. Before to delete it, we need to warn to modify the template and to move all the statements of P60 to P31 ( ). See also discussion for the roadmap. -- ( ) (deletion) (recovery). Update my vote Neutral -- ( ) 11:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC) [MASK] This property is essential in the definition of several constraint violation of other properties, see . Formal reason aggainst this Rfd: the template {{Property for deletion}} is not added on the talk page of the property. -- ( ) I just saw that this kind of constraints are sometimes (already) doubled, {{Constraint:Type|class=Q6999|relation=instance}} + {{Constraint:Item|property=P60}}... -- ( ) , it seems you've found ways that show this property is not essential to constraint validation in other properties. If so, do you still think this property should be kept? ( ) @ : Well, I am still thinking about it. See also my comments below for P132. Moreover, it would be good to hear an opinion from Paperoastro. -- ( ) I just saw that this kind of constraints are sometimes (already) doubled, {{Constraint:Type|class=Q6999|relation=instance}} + {{Constraint:Item|property=P60}}... -- ( ) , it seems you've found ways that show this property is not essential to constraint validation in other properties. If so, do you still think this property should be kept? ( ) @ : Well, I am still thinking about it. See also my comments below for P132. Moreover, it would be good to hear an opinion from Paperoastro. -- ( ) , it seems you've found ways that show this property is not essential to constraint validation in other properties. If so, do you still think this property should be kept? ( ) @ : Well, I am still thinking about it. See also my comments below for P132. Moreover, it would be good to hear an opinion from Paperoastro. -- ( ) @ : Well, I am still thinking about it. See also my comments below for P132. Moreover, it would be good to hear an opinion from Paperoastro. -- ( ) [MASK] even if it is a synonym for 'instance of' it is still useful for millions of astronomical objects and distinguishing them from other objects. ( ) @ : Could you explain why this couldn't work just as well with ""instance of""? -- ( ) @ :. For it to work as well with 'instance of' there would need to be a tool by which you could easily check up the 'subclass of' tree to see if you can find 'astronomical object' there. Nothing posted here has even hinted that that function exists now. When I see 'instance of' working for other domains then I'll consider deleting this but not until. ( ) @ : . -- ( ) @ : and right there is my problem - it seems that Edmund Halley is an astronomical object! ( ) The subclass tree may contain errors, but using p60 only hides the problem and dilutes maintenance work. Errors in the global ""astronomical object"" tree do not seem extremely consequential, as we rarely need a list containing anything from comets to galaxies, but of course, we need to fix them. We can get the list of superclasses using {{ }} and the list of subclasses using wikidataquery so we seem to have all what we need. Right now, there does not appear to be a terrible mismatch between the list through instance of ( ( )) and the list through P60 ( ), and the difference might be simply be due to items having only one of the two properties, which is tiresome to check. -- ( ) @ : That's a bug with the software that seems to make the permalinked version of the API trim off words. The actual item being checked is indeed , as you can see in the URL. It's probably worth a report to , who develops the tool. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : ? -- ( ) That's awesome. ( ) @ : Could you explain why this couldn't work just as well with ""instance of""? -- ( ) @ :. For it to work as well with 'instance of' there would need to be a tool by which you could easily check up the 'subclass of' tree to see if you can find 'astronomical object' there. Nothing posted here has even hinted that that function exists now. When I see 'instance of' working for other domains then I'll consider deleting this but not until. ( ) @ : . -- ( ) @ : and right there is my problem - it seems that Edmund Halley is an astronomical object! ( ) The subclass tree may contain errors, but using p60 only hides the problem and dilutes maintenance work. Errors in the global ""astronomical object"" tree do not seem extremely consequential, as we rarely need a list containing anything from comets to galaxies, but of course, we need to fix them. We can get the list of superclasses using {{ }} and the list of subclasses using wikidataquery so we seem to have all what we need. Right now, there does not appear to be a terrible mismatch between the list through instance of ( ( )) and the list through P60 ( ), and the difference might be simply be due to items having only one of the two properties, which is tiresome to check. -- ( ) @ : That's a bug with the software that seems to make the permalinked version of the API trim off words. The actual item being checked is indeed , as you can see in the URL. It's probably worth a report to , who develops the tool. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : ? -- ( ) That's awesome. ( ) @ :. For it to work as well with 'instance of' there would need to be a tool by which you could easily check up the 'subclass of' tree to see if you can find 'astronomical object' there. Nothing posted here has even hinted that that function exists now. When I see 'instance of' working for other domains then I'll consider deleting this but not until. ( ) @ : . -- ( ) @ : and right there is my problem - it seems that Edmund Halley is an astronomical object! ( ) The subclass tree may contain errors, but using p60 only hides the problem and dilutes maintenance work. Errors in the global ""astronomical object"" tree do not seem extremely consequential, as we rarely need a list containing anything from comets to galaxies, but of course, we need to fix them. We can get the list of superclasses using {{ }} and the list of subclasses using wikidataquery so we seem to have all what we need. Right now, there does not appear to be a terrible mismatch between the list through instance of ( ( )) and the list through P60 ( ), and the difference might be simply be due to items having only one of the two properties, which is tiresome to check. -- ( ) @ : That's a bug with the software that seems to make the permalinked version of the API trim off words. The actual item being checked is indeed , as you can see in the URL. It's probably worth a report to , who develops the tool. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : ? -- ( ) That's awesome. ( ) @ : . -- ( ) @ : and right there is my problem - it seems that Edmund Halley is an astronomical object! ( ) The subclass tree may contain errors, but using p60 only hides the problem and dilutes maintenance work. Errors in the global ""astronomical object"" tree do not seem extremely consequential, as we rarely need a list containing anything from comets to galaxies, but of course, we need to fix them. We can get the list of superclasses using {{ }} and the list of subclasses using wikidataquery so we seem to have all what we need. Right now, there does not appear to be a terrible mismatch between the list through instance of ( ( )) and the list through P60 ( ), and the difference might be simply be due to items having only one of the two properties, which is tiresome to check. -- ( ) @ : That's a bug with the software that seems to make the permalinked version of the API trim off words. The actual item being checked is indeed , as you can see in the URL. It's probably worth a report to , who develops the tool. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : and right there is my problem - it seems that Edmund Halley is an astronomical object! ( ) The subclass tree may contain errors, but using p60 only hides the problem and dilutes maintenance work. Errors in the global ""astronomical object"" tree do not seem extremely consequential, as we rarely need a list containing anything from comets to galaxies, but of course, we need to fix them. We can get the list of superclasses using {{ }} and the list of subclasses using wikidataquery so we seem to have all what we need. Right now, there does not appear to be a terrible mismatch between the list through instance of ( ( )) and the list through P60 ( ), and the difference might be simply be due to items having only one of the two properties, which is tiresome to check. -- ( ) @ : That's a bug with the software that seems to make the permalinked version of the API trim off words. The actual item being checked is indeed , as you can see in the URL. It's probably worth a report to , who develops the tool. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) The subclass tree may contain errors, but using p60 only hides the problem and dilutes maintenance work. Errors in the global ""astronomical object"" tree do not seem extremely consequential, as we rarely need a list containing anything from comets to galaxies, but of course, we need to fix them. We can get the list of superclasses using {{ }} and the list of subclasses using wikidataquery so we seem to have all what we need. Right now, there does not appear to be a terrible mismatch between the list through instance of ( ( )) and the list through P60 ( ), and the difference might be simply be due to items having only one of the two properties, which is tiresome to check. -- ( ) @ : That's a bug with the software that seems to make the permalinked version of the API trim off words. The actual item being checked is indeed , as you can see in the URL. It's probably worth a report to , who develops the tool. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) Hmm, I'm not sure I see the problem. What does it do, and what should it do? Items, properties, URLs... -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : The ""root item"" field in the tree of my link from 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) is filled with ""Halley"" instead of the expected ""Halley's Comet"". The query is correctly returning the results expected for Halley's Comet. Now that I'm looking at it, is the apostrophe causing the word to be trimmed? -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : Ah, I see. Thanks, fixed now. -- ( ) @ : ? -- ( ) That's awesome. ( ) That's awesome. ( ) Delete , in favor of labelling the classes of astronomical objects instance of . This is enough to be able to discriminate those classes in constraints violations and answers as well. ( ) I don't see any reason to introduce that when one can just query the subclass chain (which our constraint system supports!). So long as everything is or , the constraint system will catch those issues (see {{ }} ). Which, I expect that most such things are. -- ( ) There is plenty of reasons, one is that there may be more than one way to class, astronomical object or other things, as there is more than one upper ontology, as one may not be interestde in the whole subclass chain and could be able to select a few of the classes. We will have tons of classes, we shoud have ways to class them. ( ) And those should be dealt with with qualifiers or sources as necessary at the time that those classes are introduced and when sufficient need is shown. What you're suggesting would annihilate the subclass tree as it is for no other reason than that you can or that you think it would be beneficial. I do not see how.  :^) -- ( ) We know the actual subclass graph is not clean as is from one the first discussion time we used the subclass visualisation tool on project chat. We showed an actual subclass tree that mixed different kind of classes, one which regrouped object by nature, the other by location. Wikidata is a complex projects, and we already need to discriminate classes by nature to show different kind of trees. This is not speculation. ( ) I don't see any reason to introduce that when one can just query the subclass chain (which our constraint system supports!). So long as everything is or , the constraint system will catch those issues (see {{ }} ). Which, I expect that most such things are. -- ( ) There is plenty of reasons, one is that there may be more than one way to class, astronomical object or other things, as there is more than one upper ontology, as one may not be interestde in the whole subclass chain and could be able to select a few of the classes. We will have tons of classes, we shoud have ways to class them. ( ) And those should be dealt with with qualifiers or sources as necessary at the time that those classes are introduced and when sufficient need is shown. What you're suggesting would annihilate the subclass tree as it is for no other reason than that you can or that you think it would be beneficial. I do not see how.  :^) -- ( ) We know the actual subclass graph is not clean as is from one the first discussion time we used the subclass visualisation tool on project chat. We showed an actual subclass tree that mixed different kind of classes, one which regrouped object by nature, the other by location. Wikidata is a complex projects, and we already need to discriminate classes by nature to show different kind of trees. This is not speculation. ( ) There is plenty of reasons, one is that there may be more than one way to class, astronomical object or other things, as there is more than one upper ontology, as one may not be interestde in the whole subclass chain and could be able to select a few of the classes. We will have tons of classes, we shoud have ways to class them. ( ) And those should be dealt with with qualifiers or sources as necessary at the time that those classes are introduced and when sufficient need is shown. What you're suggesting would annihilate the subclass tree as it is for no other reason than that you can or that you think it would be beneficial. I do not see how. :^) -- ( ) We know the actual subclass graph is not clean as is from one the first discussion time we used the subclass visualisation tool on project chat. We showed an actual subclass tree that mixed different kind of classes, one which regrouped object by nature, the other by location. Wikidata is a complex projects, and we already need to discriminate classes by nature to show different kind of trees. This is not speculation. ( ) And those should be dealt with with qualifiers or sources as necessary at the time that those classes are introduced and when sufficient need is shown. What you're suggesting would annihilate the subclass tree as it is for no other reason than that you can or that you think it would be beneficial. I do not see how.  :^) -- ( ) We know the actual subclass graph is not clean as is from one the first discussion time we used the subclass visualisation tool on project chat. We showed an actual subclass tree that mixed different kind of classes, one which regrouped object by nature, the other by location. Wikidata is a complex projects, and we already need to discriminate classes by nature to show different kind of trees. This is not speculation. ( ) We know the actual subclass graph is not clean as is from one the first discussion time we used the subclass visualisation tool on project chat. We showed an actual subclass tree that mixed different kind of classes, one which regrouped object by nature, the other by location. Wikidata is a complex projects, and we already need to discriminate classes by nature to show different kind of trees. This is not speculation. ( ) Delete . I think having both p60 and p96 makes things confuse as we do not really know what we should have in each. For instance, in we have: P31 value should be a subclass and p60 value should be a subclass of , and there does not seem to be any undisputable logical reasons for that. Things would work as well with just ""p31 should be a subclass of Q3863"". We do not need any special property to find all instances of celestial objects: ( ). – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). Delete , once, for the same reasons that , and twice, because this duplicates . -- ( ) Delete , redundant with and . Show me an ontology that uses RDFS or OWL that has for or . I asked for this , and the response was that none could be found. I see no reason why Wikidata needs to be a unique case in the Semantic Web in this regard. Major, broad ontologies do very well with 'instance of' and 'subclass of' and without domain-specific synonyms of them like 'type of astronomical object'. We have a gazillion domains, each of which would be a viable candidate for some synonym for or , if we accept that we need such properties. The fact remains that we do not. We have tools to do constraint validation using just P31 and P279, and to build subclass trees. Having 1000's of domain-specific synonyms for and as this property sets precedent for would be a trainwreck of fragmentation. ( ) @ : that's a bit of a straw man. We have less than 20 properties that can be considered to be synonyms of 'instance of' and no one is suggesting we create many more. There are a number of those synonyms which do seem redundant (maybe or ) but this one seems to be performing a useful function and it will be so widely used that it will help queries. ( ) There are so few domain-specific synonyms of 'instance of' because they have been progressively [MASK] and routinely opposed at property proposal, not because they're remarkably useful. Even independent of that, I see no reason to consider it a strawman to assert that this property sets a precedent for a proliferation of domain-specific 'type of' properties. How doesn't it? I also see no reason to believe such domain-specific subproperties would help queries. If they improved performance in (which is a main purpose of 'instance of', i.e. rdf:type) then surely such properties would be commonplace in RDF/RDFS/OWL ontologies. But they're not commonplace at all. On the contrary, I have never encountered a Semantic Web ontology that supports domain-specific subproperties for rdf:type. Users shouldn't need to look up different domain-specific type properties every time they want to work with type information in different domains. There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to specify the type of an instance, regardless of which branch in the tree of knowledge that instance exists in. is it. ( ) @ : that's a bit of a straw man. We have less than 20 properties that can be considered to be synonyms of 'instance of' and no one is suggesting we create many more. There are a number of those synonyms which do seem redundant (maybe or ) but this one seems to be performing a useful function and it will be so widely used that it will help queries. ( ) There are so few domain-specific synonyms of 'instance of' because they have been progressively [MASK] and routinely opposed at property proposal, not because they're remarkably useful. Even independent of that, I see no reason to consider it a strawman to assert that this property sets a precedent for a proliferation of domain-specific 'type of' properties. How doesn't it? I also see no reason to believe such domain-specific subproperties would help queries. If they improved performance in (which is a main purpose of 'instance of', i.e. rdf:type) then surely such properties would be commonplace in RDF/RDFS/OWL ontologies. But they're not commonplace at all. On the contrary, I have never encountered a Semantic Web ontology that supports domain-specific subproperties for rdf:type. Users shouldn't need to look up different domain-specific type properties every time they want to work with type information in different domains. There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to specify the type of an instance, regardless of which branch in the tree of knowledge that instance exists in. is it. ( ) There are so few domain-specific synonyms of 'instance of' because they have been progressively [MASK] and routinely opposed at property proposal, not because they're remarkably useful. Even independent of that, I see no reason to consider it a strawman to assert that this property sets a precedent for a proliferation of domain-specific 'type of' properties. How doesn't it? I also see no reason to believe such domain-specific subproperties would help queries. If they improved performance in (which is a main purpose of 'instance of', i.e. rdf:type) then surely such properties would be commonplace in RDF/RDFS/OWL ontologies. But they're not commonplace at all. On the contrary, I have never encountered a Semantic Web ontology that supports domain-specific subproperties for rdf:type. Users shouldn't need to look up different domain-specific type properties every time they want to work with type information in different domains. There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to specify the type of an instance, regardless of which branch in the tree of knowledge that instance exists in. is it. ( ) Comment I'm strongly involved in this property. At now I don't have a good internet connection, so I cannot write my opinion here! I'll write it this night or tomorrow night. -- ( ) See . ( ) See . ( ) Comment It is frustrating to change vision and organization of a part of the project, but Wikidata is young and these are ""adjustment of youth"". In the past I told that in principle for me is not important how to manage astronomical objects and I opposed to the deletion of P60 for technical reasons: 1) constraints and 2) management of the hierarchy. With Constraint:Type the first opposition decayed, but at now not the second! For two reasons: 1 how do we manage a hierarchy? I made the same question when we decided to delete P107. {{Tree}} does not work (see below) ⊸ → (#) ⊸ ⊸ → (#) ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ → (#) ⊸ → (#) ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ∞ ∞ ↑ ⊸ ∞ ∞ ↑ ⊸ ∞ ∞ ↑ ⊸ ∞ ∞ ∞ ↑ even if the tool ""wikidata-todo/tree.html"" work very well. 2 the other general problem, imho, is the lack of rules of the application of P31 and P279. We need to answer to a simple question: where do we stop the use of P31/P279? An example: in principle we cannot use to define people, because we can delete , , and and use P31 with three instances. It is crazy. Analogous examples can be done using cars, buildings and so on: we can use P31 to define cars for number of tires, manufacturer, colours. In principle we could delete all the properties that are not involved in numbers and use P31/P279. I, here, make my proposal that can be discussed in other places: use P31/P279 to distinguish ""real"" objects/concepts each other with a hierarchy with the prescriptions of the Semantic Web and use properties for intrinsic characteristics (a hierarchy of cars include for examples and other type of cars, but not manufacturer, numbers of tires, numbers of cylinders, colours and so on). Returning to P60. TomT0m has right: the actual tree is confused and mixed a lot of different intrinsic characteristics! I proposed a hierarchy for astronomical objects (I know, I ""freeze"" the question, sorry!) that are limited to the objects, but recently some contributors modified the tree as we can see . How do we prevent this? This can happen in other hierarchies! So, imho, [MASK] , because Delete , but we need rules to how to make hierarchies and clean the astronomical-object tree creating new properties for the intrinsic characteristics (using the rules we defined). -- ( ) P.S.: exist a substitute of the constraint One of ? In some cases no-value and some-values are used: how can we manage these values with P31/P279? out of chronology: I modified my opinion after of Emw in the discussion of the deletion of P132. -- ( ) , thanks for your thoughtful comment. You note several issues with P31, so I'll try to address them point by point: P31 is used as a catch-all property You note a major P31 , but I don't the fact that P31 is sometimes abused is reason enough to [MASK] this particular 'type of astronomical object' property. The antipattern is using P31 as a rather than a . This bad practice was rampant when P31 was called ""is a"", and is still prevalent in certain topic areas in Wikidata (here's looking at you, ). In its reductio ad absurdum form, the antipattern leads to the idea that ""we could delete all the properties that are not involved in numbers and use P31/P279"". For example, instead of structuring claims for an item something like: Option 1 : , , ... perhaps we could structure claims like: Option 2 : , , , , , ... Option 2 is, of course, absurd. It indicates a basic misunderstanding of P31 -- that it's OK to use 'instance of' as a tagging system. Doing this not only ruins the class hierarchy P31 is intended to help build, it more importantly dulls the expressiveness of Wikidata's property system. The property should be used sparingly on any given item. It specifies the type of an instance, which is a special property. Returning to the example, 'instance of' tells us probably the most important piece of information about the entity 'Bararck Obama': it represents an individual human, a person. That single fact tells us an immense amount about 'Barack Obama': it is an , has a , , , , etc. -- if it doesn't have a , you can go shakes its hand! It doesn't make sense to have more P31 values on items like 'Barack Obama', because they are largely redundant with the statement . If we know that 'Barack Obama' is a human, then saying 'Barack Obama ' tells virtually the same thing, except that Barack Obama is a human with the occupation . Thus, we move that value to a different property, , and so on for the rest of that item's properties. Like the human 'Barack Obama', the astronomical object 'Earth' has a canonical type: . Like 'instance of human' gives us a way to drastically narrow down what 'Barack Obama' is, so 'instance of planet' drastically narrows down what 'Earth' is. With that simple statement, we know not only that you cannot shake Earth's hand, but also the more nuanced distinction that Earth is not a . We do not need more P31 values for 'Earth' because they would be almost completely redundant with the statement 'Earth instance of planet'. Using P31 as such a catch-all property would be an antipattern, something to avoid. The hierarchies created with P31/279 are unstable In the past, the hierarchies constructed with P279 could be drastically transformed without anyone noticing. However, we now have two new tools to help monitor P279 hierachies: 1. (see the tree for ) 2. {{Tree}}, e.g. {{Tree|property=279|items=Q634}}, which displays as: → (+) → (@) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ With those tools, user communities interested in preserving a given hierarchy can much more easily notice they're changed. Using P279 also suggests a way to dynamically maintain constraints, if we want to check to value of a property falls within its declared range (colloquially called the 'allowed values') of a property: simply iterate ""up the chain"" and check that that value has a P31 or P279 in the chain. You note a few other issues, but this seems like enough to discuss for now. These points should help address your concerns for how operations could continue smoothly if we were to delete this redundant property. ( ) , thanks for your thoughtful comment. You note several issues with P31, so I'll try to address them point by point: P31 is used as a catch-all property P31 is used as a catch-all property You note a major P31 , but I don't the fact that P31 is sometimes abused is reason enough to [MASK] this particular 'type of astronomical object' property. The antipattern is using P31 as a rather than a . This bad practice was rampant when P31 was called ""is a"", and is still prevalent in certain topic areas in Wikidata (here's looking at you, ). In its reductio ad absurdum form, the antipattern leads to the idea that ""we could delete all the properties that are not involved in numbers and use P31/P279"". For example, instead of structuring claims for an item something like: Option 1 : , , ... Option 1 : , , ... , , ... perhaps we could structure claims like: Option 2 : , , , , , ... Option 2 : , , , , , ... , , , , , ... Option 2 is, of course, absurd. It indicates a basic misunderstanding of P31 -- that it's OK to use 'instance of' as a tagging system. Doing this not only ruins the class hierarchy P31 is intended to help build, it more importantly dulls the expressiveness of Wikidata's property system. The property should be used sparingly on any given item. It specifies the type of an instance, which is a special property. Returning to the example, 'instance of' tells us probably the most important piece of information about the entity 'Bararck Obama': it represents an individual human, a person. That single fact tells us an immense amount about 'Barack Obama': it is an , has a , , , , etc. -- if it doesn't have a , you can go shakes its hand! It doesn't make sense to have more P31 values on items like 'Barack Obama', because they are largely redundant with the statement . If we know that 'Barack Obama' is a human, then saying 'Barack Obama ' tells virtually the same thing, except that Barack Obama is a human with the occupation . Thus, we move that value to a different property, , and so on for the rest of that item's properties. Like the human 'Barack Obama', the astronomical object 'Earth' has a canonical type: . Like 'instance of human' gives us a way to drastically narrow down what 'Barack Obama' is, so 'instance of planet' drastically narrows down what 'Earth' is. With that simple statement, we know not only that you cannot shake Earth's hand, but also the more nuanced distinction that Earth is not a . We do not need more P31 values for 'Earth' because they would be almost completely redundant with the statement 'Earth instance of planet'. Using P31 as such a catch-all property would be an antipattern, something to avoid. The hierarchies created with P31/279 are unstable The hierarchies created with P31/279 are unstable In the past, the hierarchies constructed with P279 could be drastically transformed without anyone noticing. However, we now have two new tools to help monitor P279 hierachies: 1. (see the tree for ) 2. {{Tree}}, e.g. {{Tree|property=279|items=Q634}}, which displays as: → (+) → (@) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ 1. (see the tree for ) 2. {{Tree}}, e.g. {{Tree|property=279|items=Q634}}, which displays as: → (+) → (@) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ → (+) → (@) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ → (+) → (@) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ → (@) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ ⊸ → (%) ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ ⊸ → (%) ⊸ → (%) ⊸ ⊸ With those tools, user communities interested in preserving a given hierarchy can much more easily notice they're changed. Using P279 also suggests a way to dynamically maintain constraints, if we want to check to value of a property falls within its declared range (colloquially called the 'allowed values') of a property: simply iterate ""up the chain"" and check that that value has a P31 or P279 in the chain. You note a few other issues, but this seems like enough to discuss for now. These points should help address your concerns for how operations could continue smoothly if we were to delete this redundant property. ( ) @ : I enjoyed reading your comments, also I am not always agreeing with you. First, I don't believe that there exists a 'canonical type' of everything (especially in a world wide database). I can believe that there are some commonly used types or some best practices. Anyway, this is maybe only loosely connected to P60. I agree, we need 'tools to help monitor P279 hierachies', but I wouldn't say that we already have them: i) the external tools are running on data dumps which are not the newest data, ii) there is no internal version of the tree with reverse property, iii) there is no real monitor tool. Let me outline no. iii) a little further: I would suggest to add the ability to set 'watch hierarchies' in the same manner as 'watch page'. If you make a new page an include the tree template and set it to your watch list, then this will not watch at differences on the dynamic content by running the template. If you have a look at your example , you can't tell when the last edit was done and what changed since yesterday. I have some thought how ii) could be implemented, but maybe there are other places to discuss that. -- ( ) @ : I enjoyed reading your comments, also I am not always agreeing with you. First, I don't believe that there exists a 'canonical type' of everything (especially in a world wide database). I can believe that there are some commonly used types or some best practices. Anyway, this is maybe only loosely connected to P60. I agree, we need 'tools to help monitor P279 hierachies', but I wouldn't say that we already have them: i) the external tools are running on data dumps which are not the newest data, ii) there is no internal version of the tree with reverse property, iii) there is no real monitor tool. Let me outline no. iii) a little further: I would suggest to add the ability to set 'watch hierarchies' in the same manner as 'watch page'. If you make a new page an include the tree template and set it to your watch list, then this will not watch at differences on the dynamic content by running the template. If you have a look at your example , you can't tell when the last edit was done and what changed since yesterday. I have some thought how ii) could be implemented, but maybe there are other places to discuss that. -- ( ) @ : I enjoyed reading your comments, also I am not always agreeing with you. First, I don't believe that there exists a 'canonical type' of everything (especially in a world wide database). I can believe that there are some commonly used types or some best practices. Anyway, this is maybe only loosely connected to P60. I agree, we need 'tools to help monitor P279 hierachies', but I wouldn't say that we already have them: i) the external tools are running on data dumps which are not the newest data, ii) there is no internal version of the tree with reverse property, iii) there is no real monitor tool. Let me outline no. iii) a little further: I would suggest to add the ability to set 'watch hierarchies' in the same manner as 'watch page'. If you make a new page an include the tree template and set it to your watch list, then this will not watch at differences on the dynamic content by running the template. If you have a look at your example , you can't tell when the last edit was done and what changed since yesterday. I have some thought how ii) could be implemented, but maybe there are other places to discuss that. -- ( ) @ . Hi, your comment has a lot of sense. I want to put the emphasis on one thing : The use of P21 and 0279 is absolutely not incompatible with the use of P60. Moreother, the use of P31 = astronomical object can totally entail the use of P60 in usual semantic web framework. So one note about the extreme case of putting every information in classes : it is possible. But maybe a good practice would be to define classes wrt. some values on the properties on the item, like it can be the case in OWL for example (which mean we can define the instances of a class by a query on the presence and values on properties). We really miss queries. So I see no real emergency in deleting this property, as in that sense Semantic Web classes are inherently defined partly by redudancy information. As long as it does not harms the development of the class tree as it's totally parallel and a particular case. ( ) @ . Hi, your comment has a lot of sense. I want to put the emphasis on one thing : The use of P21 and 0279 is absolutely not incompatible with the use of P60. Moreother, the use of P31 = astronomical object can totally entail the use of P60 in usual semantic web framework. So one note about the extreme case of putting every information in classes : it is possible. But maybe a good practice would be to define classes wrt. some values on the properties on the item, like it can be the case in OWL for example (which mean we can define the instances of a class by a query on the presence and values on properties). We really miss queries. So I see no real emergency in deleting this property, as in that sense Semantic Web classes are inherently defined partly by redudancy information. As long as it does not harms the development of the class tree as it's totally parallel and a particular case. ( ) @ . Hi, your comment has a lot of sense. I want to put the emphasis on one thing : The use of P21 and 0279 is absolutely not incompatible with the use of P60. Moreother, the use of P31 = astronomical object can totally entail the use of P60 in usual semantic web framework. So one note about the extreme case of putting every information in classes : it is possible. But maybe a good practice would be to define classes wrt. some values on the properties on the item, like it can be the case in OWL for example (which mean we can define the instances of a class by a query on the presence and values on properties). We really miss queries. So I see no real emergency in deleting this property, as in that sense Semantic Web classes are inherently defined partly by redudancy information. As long as it does not harms the development of the class tree as it's totally parallel and a particular case. ( ) Thank you very much for you comment, clear and exhaustive. It should be in a guideline for creating hierarchies! I noted that also for ""taxonomy"" and ""administrative divisions"" there are discussions to how modify their hierarchies to use P31/P279. I'm agree with your position especially concerning ""ancillary"" properties. As highlighted by Zuphilip, we need more incisive instruments to check hierarchies. For example, I and other users organized the items for the property , and it was very difficult to understand from our progresses. As noted by , there is no real emergency in deleting this property and we can organize in the best manner the hierarchy and change the constraints to use the new features offered by P31/P279. (For example the term is not already officially used in astronomy, so I'm not sure if use it in our hierarchy or not!) . I hope developers will give us queries as soon as possible!  ;-) -- ( ) Thank you very much for you comment, clear and exhaustive. It should be in a guideline for creating hierarchies! I noted that also for ""taxonomy"" and ""administrative divisions"" there are discussions to how modify their hierarchies to use P31/P279. I'm agree with your position especially concerning ""ancillary"" properties. As highlighted by Zuphilip, we need more incisive instruments to check hierarchies. For example, I and other users organized the items for the property , and it was very difficult to understand from our progresses. As noted by , there is no real emergency in deleting this property and we can organize in the best manner the hierarchy and change the constraints to use the new features offered by P31/P279. (For example the term is not already officially used in astronomy, so I'm not sure if use it in our hierarchy or not!) . I hope developers will give us queries as soon as possible!  ;-) -- ( ) Thank you very much for you comment, clear and exhaustive. It should be in a guideline for creating hierarchies! I noted that also for ""taxonomy"" and ""administrative divisions"" there are discussions to how modify their hierarchies to use P31/P279. I'm agree with your position especially concerning ""ancillary"" properties. As highlighted by Zuphilip, we need more incisive instruments to check hierarchies. For example, I and other users organized the items for the property , and it was very difficult to understand from our progresses. As noted by , there is no real emergency in deleting this property and we can organize in the best manner the hierarchy and change the constraints to use the new features offered by P31/P279. (For example the term is not already officially used in astronomy, so I'm not sure if use it in our hierarchy or not!) . I hope developers will give us queries as soon as possible!  ;-) -- ( ) Thank you very much for you comment, clear and exhaustive. It should be in a guideline for creating hierarchies! I noted that also for ""taxonomy"" and ""administrative divisions"" there are discussions to how modify their hierarchies to use P31/P279. I'm agree with your position especially concerning ""ancillary"" properties. As highlighted by Zuphilip, we need more incisive instruments to check hierarchies. For example, I and other users organized the items for the property , and it was very difficult to understand from our progresses. As noted by , there is no real emergency in deleting this property and we can organize in the best manner the hierarchy and change the constraints to use the new features offered by P31/P279. (For example the term is not already officially used in astronomy, so I'm not sure if use it in our hierarchy or not!) . I hope developers will give us queries as soon as possible!  ;-) -- ( ) Comment . Unfortunately I do not know much English, to participate in the discussion. Therefore, a practical question. As specified in the property , for example, for the object : , , or ? or all together? -- ( ) 10:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Or object : , , , or ? -- ( ) 2005 RR43: All detached objects are trans-Neptunian, so not trans-Neptunian. It appears to me as well that all classical Kuiper belt objects are also trans-Neptunian, but are not all detached. In this case then, , and . -- ( ) Well, all these entities are not all well-defined. I'm for example suprised that you describe a TNO as an Asteroid. I have considered both TNO's and Asteroids as subclasses of Minor Planets, where maybe only Centaurs and Damocloids can be in both subclasses at the same time. Another question is if Neptun trojans and other 1:1-Neptun objects are TNO's. This far I have seen them in that group, even if they fail to recognize the litteral definition. -- ( ) I made no such description, and currently (which I have seen no reason to change). -- ( ) Ok, but putting items who maybe not are recognized by everybody or are not well-defined in the hierarchy of P31/P279 may cause problems. -- ( ) When you say ""not well defined"", do you mean that no-one has seen fit to define them, or that definitions are loose or differing? The former we can't do much about, but as these items for the most part have Wikipedia articles, I would expect the way to deal with the latter is to source the definitions and then rank them (coming very soon!) accordingly. -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) 2005 RR43: All detached objects are trans-Neptunian, so not trans-Neptunian. It appears to me as well that all classical Kuiper belt objects are also trans-Neptunian, but are not all detached. In this case then, , and . -- ( ) Well, all these entities are not all well-defined. I'm for example suprised that you describe a TNO as an Asteroid. I have considered both TNO's and Asteroids as subclasses of Minor Planets, where maybe only Centaurs and Damocloids can be in both subclasses at the same time. Another question is if Neptun trojans and other 1:1-Neptun objects are TNO's. This far I have seen them in that group, even if they fail to recognize the litteral definition. -- ( ) I made no such description, and currently (which I have seen no reason to change). -- ( ) Ok, but putting items who maybe not are recognized by everybody or are not well-defined in the hierarchy of P31/P279 may cause problems. -- ( ) When you say ""not well defined"", do you mean that no-one has seen fit to define them, or that definitions are loose or differing? The former we can't do much about, but as these items for the most part have Wikipedia articles, I would expect the way to deal with the latter is to source the definitions and then rank them (coming very soon!) accordingly. -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) Well, all these entities are not all well-defined. I'm for example suprised that you describe a TNO as an Asteroid. I have considered both TNO's and Asteroids as subclasses of Minor Planets, where maybe only Centaurs and Damocloids can be in both subclasses at the same time. Another question is if Neptun trojans and other 1:1-Neptun objects are TNO's. This far I have seen them in that group, even if they fail to recognize the litteral definition. -- ( ) I made no such description, and currently (which I have seen no reason to change). -- ( ) Ok, but putting items who maybe not are recognized by everybody or are not well-defined in the hierarchy of P31/P279 may cause problems. -- ( ) When you say ""not well defined"", do you mean that no-one has seen fit to define them, or that definitions are loose or differing? The former we can't do much about, but as these items for the most part have Wikipedia articles, I would expect the way to deal with the latter is to source the definitions and then rank them (coming very soon!) accordingly. -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) I made no such description, and currently (which I have seen no reason to change). -- ( ) Ok, but putting items who maybe not are recognized by everybody or are not well-defined in the hierarchy of P31/P279 may cause problems. -- ( ) When you say ""not well defined"", do you mean that no-one has seen fit to define them, or that definitions are loose or differing? The former we can't do much about, but as these items for the most part have Wikipedia articles, I would expect the way to deal with the latter is to source the definitions and then rank them (coming very soon!) accordingly. -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) Ok, but putting items who maybe not are recognized by everybody or are not well-defined in the hierarchy of P31/P279 may cause problems. -- ( ) When you say ""not well defined"", do you mean that no-one has seen fit to define them, or that definitions are loose or differing? The former we can't do much about, but as these items for the most part have Wikipedia articles, I would expect the way to deal with the latter is to source the definitions and then rank them (coming very soon!) accordingly. -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) When you say ""not well defined"", do you mean that no-one has seen fit to define them, or that definitions are loose or differing? The former we can't do much about, but as these items for the most part have Wikipedia articles, I would expect the way to deal with the latter is to source the definitions and then rank them (coming very soon!) accordingly. -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) It does not look like MPC recognize all groups we have articles about. I have seen at least one group (the OCO's) that only is recognized by a few astronomers. Another example is that some sources prefer to not separate Centaurs from Scattered Disc Objects. If we have a claim that source X tells that object A is an instance of B. And another claim with source Y who tells B is a subclass of C. By our semantic logic we then tell that A is an instance of C. But we have no source to that claim, it's only a consequence of two related claims. If a user would have added the claim ""A is an instance of C"", to a WP-article, it would have been considered OR. Now that claim is added by Wikidata, and nobody make any noise about it. -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) Interesting. This mean something about source inheritance and inferences which can be made with Wikidata datas. As for the classification and the class tree, classes are usually not sourced, just defined. We need to make a difference between sourced claims directly source, and deduced claims. ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) I see that Dwarfplanets are considered a ""subclass to Minor Planets"". It's true that all present Dwarfplanets also are Minor Planets. But I cannot see that the definition of Dwarfplanets tells us that Dwarfplanets is a subclass to Minor Planets. -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) Mmm, to understand better, is not this an extension/extension problem vs. ? ie. that the definition of dwarf planet do not imply they are all minor planets, but in practice every know darf planets are also minors ? ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) The classification of dwarf planets and some kind of minor planets is very difficult because the argument is very recent and in this case is better use sources. In this specific case, I remember that dwarf planets are considered as minor planets, but I need sources! The problems exposed by can be resolved, imho, classifying the objects as TNO (the first) and asteroid (the second) and use the property for the next classification. The problem of P196 is that the inner hierarchy is a to do! -- ( ) Delete . Completely redundant, per above. -- ( ) Delete - is a subclass of the /property/ ""instance of"" and can be replaced with the latter. ( ) Delete as I believe the same need is met with the generic instance-of/subclass-of, per most people above. (The lack of server-side constraints [managed by the community]--in this case, a long list a viable classes for things--seems terribly unfortunate. You know who can catch up to bot-generated constraint reports? Only other bots!) ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) Delete , redundant. ( ) The property is used on . Maybe it is better to warn them before deleting. -- ( ) Delete Serves no purpose since P31 exists. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Commons_category_(P373)_2: There is strong consensus to [MASK] this property at least for the time being. It can be nominated again when the suggested alternate ways to deal with commonscats are implemented. -- ( ) There is strong consensus to [MASK] this property at least for the time being. It can be nominated again when the suggested alternate ways to deal with commonscats are implemented. -- ( ) Delete but not yet Unnecessary property, but I would wait till : is fixed, because Wikipedias are using this property and it wouldn't be nice to leave them without alternative. Bear in mind that an item can be connected with , but that doesn't guarantee that it has a Commons category. -- ( ) [MASK] - the property is being used by other projects. Please read and update all the releted projects in their village pumps... ( ) [MASK] until there is a real ""commonscat"" link in the interwiki section, or consensus changes and there is an user tool to create a category item with a commonscat link. Specificially: Creating new category items for Commons-only links would violate : Consensus so far has been that a Commons page doesn't qualify an item for Wikidata. We'll need another RfC for this to replace the 2013 RfC at . could be migrated to ->commonswiki, but all that data came from people who used because it's convenient. Once is [MASK], will people still contribute Commons links at the same rate? Instead of the single step of just adding to an item, a user will be expected to already know that adding a Commons category link means doing everything below: create the new item; know the label standards for category items on Wikidata; add -> ; add to point back to the first item; go back to the first item and add pointing back to the new item; then go back to the new item add the ""commonswiki"" link everyone wanted in the first place. That's annoying even for intermediate users. What will really happen, instead, is that most users will just change their mind and skip it if there's not already a category item. The idea of going through 3 minutes of Wikidata's mandatory-baby-steps interface, just to add something that takes 20 seconds now, would make me just skip it half the time, and I'm not even new. Is the typical user really going to be expected to do that? Overall, saying that a semiautomatic tool could do it in the future doesn't count for much — we should have a new RfC, and then the tool, before we deprecate . -- ( ) Creating new category items for Commons-only links would violate : Consensus so far has been that a Commons page doesn't qualify an item for Wikidata. We'll need another RfC for this to replace the 2013 RfC at . could be migrated to ->commonswiki, but all that data came from people who used because it's convenient. Once is [MASK], will people still contribute Commons links at the same rate? Instead of the single step of just adding to an item, a user will be expected to already know that adding a Commons category link means doing everything below: create the new item; know the label standards for category items on Wikidata; add -> ; add to point back to the first item; go back to the first item and add pointing back to the new item; then go back to the new item add the ""commonswiki"" link everyone wanted in the first place. That's annoying even for intermediate users. What will really happen, instead, is that most users will just change their mind and skip it if there's not already a category item. The idea of going through 3 minutes of Wikidata's mandatory-baby-steps interface, just to add something that takes 20 seconds now, would make me just skip it half the time, and I'm not even new. Is the typical user really going to be expected to do that? already know that adding a Commons category link means doing everything below: create the new item; know the label standards for category items on Wikidata; add -> ; add to point back to the first item; go back to the first item and add pointing back to the new item; then go back to the new item add the ""commonswiki"" link everyone wanted in the first place. That's annoying even for intermediate users. What will really happen, instead, is that most users will just change their mind and skip it if there's not already a category item. The idea of going through 3 minutes of Wikidata's mandatory-baby-steps interface, just to add something that takes 20 seconds now, would make me just skip it half the time, and I'm not even new. Is the typical user really going to be expected to do that? Overall, saying that a semiautomatic tool could do it in the future doesn't count for much — we should have a new RfC, and then the tool, before we deprecate . -- ( ) [MASK] - per above, you would first need to change the notability policy before you can replace this template. You would also need to fix the lookup of random items problem ( ). ( ) Delete on principle. Let's [MASK] things consistent. The RfC is aged forever considering the lifetime of Wikidata and a lot of things are changed. I acknowledge the usability concerns but that's a pure interface problem that should be tackled at the interface level : a default gadget will be very convenient. A Wikidata Game is also very convenient. Last but not least : let's mutualize datas beetween projects. A commonscat is linked to the same item as a Wikipedia category, we will link all the equivalent projects categories at once. So the income ill be less duplicate items and a lot of work done once for a lot of projects category pages. Commons cat is not an isolated case, it's just the case for which a link to the category is the most useful. It could also be possible to [MASK] the property and make a bot translate the statement. [MASK] Not yet. I am one of these users, who regularry maintain . And there are many items, where two or three items have (amd should have) same link to commonscat. How to manage it without P373? People on Wikipedias wants to have link to commonscat even if this is not strictly the ame theme (random example: vs and , second random example: : , ) If there is possibility of strictly 1:1, P373 should be eliminated. But 1:1 is not possible yet. There are also many items which should be merged - and without this property should be bigger problem to find them together. Next problem: is used in 167613 items. But 46092 of them (1/4) have not inverse . One more problem - e.g. in cswiki we now have thousands of categories which gets target value for {{ }} only from P373. And there is no knownw way how to write this value hard-coded to these pages (something like {{subst:#property:P373}}). ( ) [MASK] We had this discussion four month ago: . And {{Property for deletion}} template is not placed on the property talk page, cf. header of this page. -- ( ) Template added. Template added. [MASK] I do not consider P373 as permanent solution, but that permanent solution from my view is greater integration of commonscat information to the item, not smaller. Also it is necessary to have regard to 150+ templates on wikis using P373 now; most of people from wikis care about info saved at wikidata, they do not care about our internal structure.-- ( ) [MASK] This is a useful property, I rely do not understand what is the purpose of the deletion. ( ) Delete, but only after technical ability to will be implemented. — ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] per Closeapple. - [MASK] ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: earliest_date_(P1319): No longer valid. ( ) No longer valid. ( ) [MASK] until the time datatype does so. -- ( ) [MASK] I assume that the popularity would increase if either general examples for all properties would be available or there would be an example usage property / qualifier which might be added "" inline "" in WD data. (GND has such examples.) I could find only occurences together with Unfortunately autolist does not provide direct qualifier search; i.e. you need to query all prop values ... FYI: https links do not recognize the ?q= parameters. Regards gangLeri ( ) It was put up for deletion just two days after creation. --- It was put up for deletion just two days after creation. --- Question When will ""eventually"" be? --- Would you have at least an earliest date? --- Would you have at least an earliest date? --- [MASK] It has some use as qualifier of unknown dates. -- ( ) [MASK] until a better solution comes up. As long as there is no other solution, it is necessary. -- ( ) Not [MASK] The time datatype is in place on the property, so apart from the above discussion in favor of a [MASK], the request reason is no longer valid. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P60_(P60)_2: ( ) Done. ( ) Done -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P133_(P133): Consensus to delete , use instead. -- ( ) Consensus to delete , use instead. -- ( ) It seems was wrongly created, as in the request it is stated ""The full classification could be calculated through the specific class of the language to its class and so on."" I believe ""specific class"" meant the most specific class, and not the broadest, as it is currently. ( | ) I think this should be [MASK]. It is more useful to include the ""next up"" language family, not the top one. Also it is not clear whether proposed groups like ""Altaic"" would be added as a claim for every Turkic language, etc. ( • ) I think this should be [MASK]. It is more useful to include the ""next up"" language family, not the top one. Also it is not clear whether proposed groups like ""Altaic"" would be added as a claim for every Turkic language, etc. ( • ) Delete is sufficient and more useful. does not manage the languages that are not linked to any language family. ( ) @ : I think subclass not part, when reading . ( ) Delete is sufficient. See . ( ) Delete instance of or subclass of are enough. ( ) Delete redundant with and . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: person_with_disabilities_(Q15978181): no consensus to delete this item -- ( ) no consensus to delete this item -- ( ) seems to be a target of a property, but is not in use. Hence it was requested for deletion at the , but I'd like to check here if there is any objection. the Requests for deletions is put on hold for now, but if there is consensus here, it can be [MASK]. - - ( / ) What property might that be? IIRC (cf. ) a handful of items was created by a certain user in an attempt to establish an 1:1 correspondence between Wikidata items and other systems for ""controlled vocabulary"" like and . IMHO this gravely conflicts with the Wikipedia-induced way of organizing knowledge here and therefore the remaining three items should be [MASK]. -- ( ) It relates a clearly identiable concept exposed in the GND ontology, we all know disabled people, i Oppose the deletion per WD:N. But I'd merge the item if there is some equivalent item to save the GND mapping. If we [MASK] items like this, we should add a note to . And we have to decide what happens with the female form "" "" that is right now part of the German label ""Behinderter / Behinderte"". -- ( ) If we [MASK] items like this, we should add a note to . And we have to decide what happens with the female form "" "" that is right now part of the German label ""Behinderter / Behinderte"". -- ( ) Subclassing might not be broad enough, the OP used the items to make some nordic deities an instance of them. Thus might be a more appropriate superclass, but then the use with is prohibited. The ""Wikidata way"" probably would be together with or a more specific denomination and avoids the pitfalls of implying biological species or gender or whatever problems might arise when trying to reflect the categorical hierarchy below to proper items. As to the GND ontology (you obviously are not referring to the ): The GND itself is an ""authority file"", implying weaker expectations with respect to internal consistence than e.g. a thesaurus. For it relays the definition of the concept to but furthermore gives a usage note (which strictly spoken only applies when using GND vocabulary within the context of subject cataloging by the RSWK ruleset): ""Use only when attributes of this group of people (e.g. unemployment) or the relation to other groups of people are to be described. Otherwise use "" "" [i.e. ], also in connection with rehabilitative, therapeutic etc. treatments. In conjunction with specific groups of persons use the combination with ""Behinderung"", e.g. Student ; Behinderung , Schüler ; Behinderung "". Clearly the GND is trying to restrict usage of personalized form if favor of the topical term whenever possible, probably for similar reasons as outlined above. Reference to the Brockhaus encyclopedia backs the claim that is a ""cleary identifyable concept"" in the sense of but the underlying bare-bones concept is . I would assert that any specific application of the concept as in tends to open a conflict between ""clearly identifiable"" (e.g. not to be used figuratively) and ""broadness"" of application. Thus as long there is no demonstratable use for within Wikidata I'd rather like not to have it. -- ( ) +1. Same for . -- ( ) @ : OK for the GND definition applied to deities, which we do not do in Wikidata. But it's enough to make it a subclass of for excluding deities are they won't be instances of human. Maybe this class is more equivalent to the union of the instances of the and the plain classes instances. But defining this class for human only is perfectly possible in OWL for example. In this language, classes can be formally defined by the properties and property values of items. If we define the class as items which are humans and with a claim with a value which is an instance of a handicap , then we made properly the link. Actually this can really be useful for querying, for example if you want to query the blind musicians, with a subclass of , this can make the query very simple. Maybe this would duplicate the disabilities classification, which is the only drawback I can see, but maybe not, the disabilities classification would probably be way more developped while the human subclass tree can be restricted to socially used classes (physical, mental, sensitive ...) and be less extensive. What I was aiming at was the following: The only use case known as yet were handicapped deities (""persons"", not ""humans"") which should be excluded by Wikidata policy. For me this shows that the ""orthogonal"" property with the specific kind of handicap as value is the much more appropriate way to go and the need for precombined classes like ""handicapped person"", ""handicapped human"", ""handicapped human female"", ... still has to be demonstrated. The fact that there is some language with a noun (eg. ""Behinderte"" in german) should not automatically make this noun Wikidata-notable. -- ( ) @ : The orthogonal nature of the property does not imply such a class definition cannot be made. For example I just read an article about the geometry abilities of blind mathematician. I think the clases blind people or deaf are widely used socially and really useful in real life, and not only to point a type of disability, but more to point the people who have this caracteristic. This does not imply we create all combination of classes such as blind people which wrote a song between midnight and 2 in the morning in 1958 , which have no practical realities at all. There is a big open space beetween almost no classes and this extrimity :) One lesson from the OWL models is that it's not because there exists properties that the class is not useful, actually properties are used to define classes. Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). Subclassing might not be broad enough, the OP used the items to make some nordic deities an instance of them. Thus might be a more appropriate superclass, but then the use with is prohibited. The ""Wikidata way"" probably would be together with or a more specific denomination and avoids the pitfalls of implying biological species or gender or whatever problems might arise when trying to reflect the categorical hierarchy below to proper items. As to the GND ontology (you obviously are not referring to the ): The GND itself is an ""authority file"", implying weaker expectations with respect to internal consistence than e.g. a thesaurus. For it relays the definition of the concept to but furthermore gives a usage note (which strictly spoken only applies when using GND vocabulary within the context of subject cataloging by the RSWK ruleset): ""Use only when attributes of this group of people (e.g. unemployment) or the relation to other groups of people are to be described. Otherwise use "" "" [i.e. ], also in connection with rehabilitative, therapeutic etc. treatments. In conjunction with specific groups of persons use the combination with ""Behinderung"", e.g. Student ; Behinderung , Schüler ; Behinderung "". Clearly the GND is trying to restrict usage of personalized form if favor of the topical term whenever possible, probably for similar reasons as outlined above. Reference to the Brockhaus encyclopedia backs the claim that is a ""cleary identifyable concept"" in the sense of but the underlying bare-bones concept is . I would assert that any specific application of the concept as in tends to open a conflict between ""clearly identifiable"" (e.g. not to be used figuratively) and ""broadness"" of application. Thus as long there is no demonstratable use for within Wikidata I'd rather like not to have it. -- ( ) +1. Same for . -- ( ) @ : OK for the GND definition applied to deities, which we do not do in Wikidata. But it's enough to make it a subclass of for excluding deities are they won't be instances of human. Maybe this class is more equivalent to the union of the instances of the and the plain classes instances. But defining this class for human only is perfectly possible in OWL for example. In this language, classes can be formally defined by the properties and property values of items. If we define the class as items which are humans and with a claim with a value which is an instance of a handicap , then we made properly the link. Actually this can really be useful for querying, for example if you want to query the blind musicians, with a subclass of , this can make the query very simple. Maybe this would duplicate the disabilities classification, which is the only drawback I can see, but maybe not, the disabilities classification would probably be way more developped while the human subclass tree can be restricted to socially used classes (physical, mental, sensitive ...) and be less extensive. What I was aiming at was the following: The only use case known as yet were handicapped deities (""persons"", not ""humans"") which should be excluded by Wikidata policy. For me this shows that the ""orthogonal"" property with the specific kind of handicap as value is the much more appropriate way to go and the need for precombined classes like ""handicapped person"", ""handicapped human"", ""handicapped human female"", ... still has to be demonstrated. The fact that there is some language with a noun (eg. ""Behinderte"" in german) should not automatically make this noun Wikidata-notable. -- ( ) @ : The orthogonal nature of the property does not imply such a class definition cannot be made. For example I just read an article about the geometry abilities of blind mathematician. I think the clases blind people or deaf are widely used socially and really useful in real life, and not only to point a type of disability, but more to point the people who have this caracteristic. This does not imply we create all combination of classes such as blind people which wrote a song between midnight and 2 in the morning in 1958 , which have no practical realities at all. There is a big open space beetween almost no classes and this extrimity :) One lesson from the OWL models is that it's not because there exists properties that the class is not useful, actually properties are used to define classes. Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). Subclassing might not be broad enough, the OP used the items to make some nordic deities an instance of them. Thus might be a more appropriate superclass, but then the use with is prohibited. The ""Wikidata way"" probably would be together with or a more specific denomination and avoids the pitfalls of implying biological species or gender or whatever problems might arise when trying to reflect the categorical hierarchy below to proper items. As to the GND ontology (you obviously are not referring to the ): The GND itself is an ""authority file"", implying weaker expectations with respect to internal consistence than e.g. a thesaurus. For it relays the definition of the concept to but furthermore gives a usage note (which strictly spoken only applies when using GND vocabulary within the context of subject cataloging by the RSWK ruleset): ""Use only when attributes of this group of people (e.g. unemployment) or the relation to other groups of people are to be described. Otherwise use "" "" [i.e. ], also in connection with rehabilitative, therapeutic etc. treatments. In conjunction with specific groups of persons use the combination with ""Behinderung"", e.g. Student ; Behinderung , Schüler ; Behinderung "". Clearly the GND is trying to restrict usage of personalized form if favor of the topical term whenever possible, probably for similar reasons as outlined above. Reference to the Brockhaus encyclopedia backs the claim that is a ""cleary identifyable concept"" in the sense of but the underlying bare-bones concept is . I would assert that any specific application of the concept as in tends to open a conflict between ""clearly identifiable"" (e.g. not to be used figuratively) and ""broadness"" of application. Thus as long there is no demonstratable use for within Wikidata I'd rather like not to have it. -- ( ) +1. Same for . -- ( ) +1. Same for . -- ( ) @ : OK for the GND definition applied to deities, which we do not do in Wikidata. But it's enough to make it a subclass of for excluding deities are they won't be instances of human. Maybe this class is more equivalent to the union of the instances of the and the plain classes instances. But defining this class for human only is perfectly possible in OWL for example. In this language, classes can be formally defined by the properties and property values of items. If we define the class as items which are humans and with a claim with a value which is an instance of a handicap , then we made properly the link. Actually this can really be useful for querying, for example if you want to query the blind musicians, with a subclass of , this can make the query very simple. Maybe this would duplicate the disabilities classification, which is the only drawback I can see, but maybe not, the disabilities classification would probably be way more developped while the human subclass tree can be restricted to socially used classes (physical, mental, sensitive ...) and be less extensive. What I was aiming at was the following: The only use case known as yet were handicapped deities (""persons"", not ""humans"") which should be excluded by Wikidata policy. For me this shows that the ""orthogonal"" property with the specific kind of handicap as value is the much more appropriate way to go and the need for precombined classes like ""handicapped person"", ""handicapped human"", ""handicapped human female"", ... still has to be demonstrated. The fact that there is some language with a noun (eg. ""Behinderte"" in german) should not automatically make this noun Wikidata-notable. -- ( ) @ : The orthogonal nature of the property does not imply such a class definition cannot be made. For example I just read an article about the geometry abilities of blind mathematician. I think the clases blind people or deaf are widely used socially and really useful in real life, and not only to point a type of disability, but more to point the people who have this caracteristic. This does not imply we create all combination of classes such as blind people which wrote a song between midnight and 2 in the morning in 1958 , which have no practical realities at all. There is a big open space beetween almost no classes and this extrimity :) One lesson from the OWL models is that it's not because there exists properties that the class is not useful, actually properties are used to define classes. Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). @ : OK for the GND definition applied to deities, which we do not do in Wikidata. But it's enough to make it a subclass of for excluding deities are they won't be instances of human. Maybe this class is more equivalent to the union of the instances of the and the plain classes instances. But defining this class for human only is perfectly possible in OWL for example. In this language, classes can be formally defined by the properties and property values of items. If we define the class as items which are humans and with a claim with a value which is an instance of a handicap , then we made properly the link. Actually this can really be useful for querying, for example if you want to query the blind musicians, with a subclass of , this can make the query very simple. Maybe this would duplicate the disabilities classification, which is the only drawback I can see, but maybe not, the disabilities classification would probably be way more developped while the human subclass tree can be restricted to socially used classes (physical, mental, sensitive ...) and be less extensive. What I was aiming at was the following: The only use case known as yet were handicapped deities (""persons"", not ""humans"") which should be excluded by Wikidata policy. For me this shows that the ""orthogonal"" property with the specific kind of handicap as value is the much more appropriate way to go and the need for precombined classes like ""handicapped person"", ""handicapped human"", ""handicapped human female"", ... still has to be demonstrated. The fact that there is some language with a noun (eg. ""Behinderte"" in german) should not automatically make this noun Wikidata-notable. -- ( ) @ : The orthogonal nature of the property does not imply such a class definition cannot be made. For example I just read an article about the geometry abilities of blind mathematician. I think the clases blind people or deaf are widely used socially and really useful in real life, and not only to point a type of disability, but more to point the people who have this caracteristic. This does not imply we create all combination of classes such as blind people which wrote a song between midnight and 2 in the morning in 1958 , which have no practical realities at all. There is a big open space beetween almost no classes and this extrimity :) One lesson from the OWL models is that it's not because there exists properties that the class is not useful, actually properties are used to define classes. Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). What I was aiming at was the following: The only use case known as yet were handicapped deities (""persons"", not ""humans"") which should be excluded by Wikidata policy. For me this shows that the ""orthogonal"" property with the specific kind of handicap as value is the much more appropriate way to go and the need for precombined classes like ""handicapped person"", ""handicapped human"", ""handicapped human female"", ... still has to be demonstrated. The fact that there is some language with a noun (eg. ""Behinderte"" in german) should not automatically make this noun Wikidata-notable. -- ( ) @ : The orthogonal nature of the property does not imply such a class definition cannot be made. For example I just read an article about the geometry abilities of blind mathematician. I think the clases blind people or deaf are widely used socially and really useful in real life, and not only to point a type of disability, but more to point the people who have this caracteristic. This does not imply we create all combination of classes such as blind people which wrote a song between midnight and 2 in the morning in 1958 , which have no practical realities at all. There is a big open space beetween almost no classes and this extrimity :) One lesson from the OWL models is that it's not because there exists properties that the class is not useful, actually properties are used to define classes. Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). @ : The orthogonal nature of the property does not imply such a class definition cannot be made. For example I just read an article about the geometry abilities of blind mathematician. I think the clases blind people or deaf are widely used socially and really useful in real life, and not only to point a type of disability, but more to point the people who have this caracteristic. This does not imply we create all combination of classes such as blind people which wrote a song between midnight and 2 in the morning in 1958 , which have no practical realities at all. There is a big open space beetween almost no classes and this extrimity :) One lesson from the OWL models is that it's not because there exists properties that the class is not useful, actually properties are used to define classes. Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). Looking at the current of professions (and related activities like ) are predominant. Probably most of these items are not linked to articles but I agree with their because they come handy when characterizing 's by means of , i.e. use the subclass of depicting the field which makes the item at hand notable. And because professions are properties (almost exactly) restricted to the domain of instances . In the tree there are also beginnings of additional hierarchies, like sex ( ), relative socio-biological concepts ( ), ethnological ( ), geographical ( ), professional ranks , and more: To most humans all of these approaches simultaneously apply, but usually are noted by properties like , if notable at all. Certainly we do not intend a future wikidata where most humans have a dozend with some of them of preferred rank. However thinking in terms of any of these alternate subtrees of might be appropriate in theory: perhaps the notability of the mathematician in your example above is solely founded on his blindness, not his mathematical achievements. Specifically for handicaps and physical features of humans I do not know of one single example at the moment where an item of this kind would be helpful and I see the problem that one would have to construct a hierarchy tree of these impairments without being backed by wikipedia articles - I would consider this the wikidata equivalent of . Again: I quite agree that any item of the kind "" intersected with some property"" is theoretically legitimate. But we should not create (or retain) them unless they are actually used here. And ""because some language has a word or phrase for it"" should not be considered a sufficient argument for . -- ( ) @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). @ : You're kidding ? is famous for beeing a deaf composer. is famous for beeing blind. for beeing both. (first) for beeing a disabled sportsman. Here is a whose it is the subject. You are saying it yourself: and he also was deaf later in his life. We normally don't consider it appropriate (here) to describe him as a deaf person who composed (although in theory again other persons already born deaf practiced some musical composing and are remarkable as deafs) or to regard him as someone in the intersection of composers with deaf people. For Pistorius I have no objections if a ""profession"" item reflecting would exist. Keller seems to be difficult. -- ( ) There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). There is nothing difficult here. A disableness is often a really important part of the identity of a person. It's not really open to debate IMHO. The slippery slope is not really an argument in these conditions (for example you don't play disabled sport if you aren't, we could have a constraint stating that the domain of the players of such a sport are disabled people). ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Ethnologue.com_language_code_(P1627): Withdrawn by proposer. ( ) Withdrawn by proposer. ( ) [MASK] but make it for pre-2009 (or better, pre-2005) ""capital letter"" SIL codes: ISO 639-3 is sort of a merger of ISO 639-2/T with SIL codes, but sometimes doesn't match either one. See the codes in vs. . Some background: The 3-letter ""capital letter"" (upper case) ""SIL codes"" started in the early 1970s and has been public since 1982. The codes were in the computer databases used for the 8th (1974) and 9th (1978) editions of the Ethnologue , but weren't actually printed in the Ethnologue itself until 10th edition (1982). These codes were used (with updates) through the 14th edition (2000). (See Simons ( ) reference in the artice. ) Meanwhile, in 1989, work started on the the 3-letter ISO 639-2 codes; ISO 639-2 was first released in 1998. The SIL codes and ISO 639-2 codes do not match. (Just to drive you nuts, some of ISO 639-2 doesn't even match itself: There is a ISO 639-2/B and a ISO 639-2/T; there are 20 languages for which the /B and /T codes are different.) SIL was in on the development of ISO 639-3 starting in 2002. In the 15th edition (2005), Ethnologue switched to lower-case codes that mostly matched the draft ISO/DIS 639-3, instead of the old ""SIL codes"". The 16th edition (2009) was the first to use full-standard ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 apparently gave precedence to the ISO 639-2 code first, then to the old ""SIL code"" only if no 639-2 code existed: Simons says ""hundreds of the Ethnologue language identifiers were changed in order to achieve alignment with ISO 639-2"". The 3-letter ""capital letter"" (upper case) ""SIL codes"" started in the early 1970s and has been public since 1982. The codes were in the computer databases used for the 8th (1974) and 9th (1978) editions of the Ethnologue , but weren't actually printed in the Ethnologue itself until 10th edition (1982). These codes were used (with updates) through the 14th edition (2000). (See Simons ( ) reference in the artice. ) Meanwhile, in 1989, work started on the the 3-letter ISO 639-2 codes; ISO 639-2 was first released in 1998. The SIL codes and ISO 639-2 codes do not match. (Just to drive you nuts, some of ISO 639-2 doesn't even match itself: There is a ISO 639-2/B and a ISO 639-2/T; there are 20 languages for which the /B and /T codes are different.) SIL was in on the development of ISO 639-3 starting in 2002. In the 15th edition (2005), Ethnologue switched to lower-case codes that mostly matched the draft ISO/DIS 639-3, instead of the old ""SIL codes"". The 16th edition (2009) was the first to use full-standard ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 apparently gave precedence to the ISO 639-2 code first, then to the old ""SIL code"" only if no 639-2 code existed: Simons says ""hundreds of the Ethnologue language identifiers were changed in order to achieve alignment with ISO 639-2"". In summary, all three standards (ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3, capital-letter pre-2005 SIL codes) are different: Even though they all use 3-letter codes, the code is often different in one or each of them. And SIL codes were the only comprehensive codes for the world's languages until 2005-2009, as far as I know. -- ( ) [MASK] After reading the comments by I think we should [MASK] the property. - Also: Wikidata has to stay true to the principle that any statement should be able to be made (as long as it can be sourced and is notable). And a widely used code, like in this case, is notable, even after it goes out of usage. -- ( ) Comment See . I support switching to ""3 letter uppercase"". The current codes are not called ""SIL code"". ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P202_(P202): After seven days there are Delete:7, [MASK]:0, and no other contributions. According to the rules for deletion this seems to mean ""Consensus to delete , use instead."". ( ) After seven days there are Delete:7, [MASK]:0, and no other contributions. According to the rules for deletion this seems to mean ""Consensus to delete , use instead."". ( ) Comment My reasoning is similar to that by for . ( ) Delete . Redundant with . ( ) Delete . Per Andrea Shan. -- ( ) Delete Per Andrea Shan and Emw. -- ( ) Delete Per Andrea Shan. -- Delete per above. -- ( ) Delete per above. -- Delete per above. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1623_(P1623): Consensus to delete , duplicate of -- ( ) Consensus to delete , duplicate of -- ( ) Comment Pinging people involved in : , -- Delete Better late than never. Can we redirect a property?? -- Delete If it is really the same identifier. -- ( ) Delete ""MMSI"" ( ): Same thing as , even if the formulation of the proposal wasn't ideal. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P766_(P766): About 9 month of discussion, Consensus is reached to delete. . -- ( ) About 9 month of discussion, Consensus is reached to delete. . -- ( ) [MASK] is inapplicable for objects, it is for events only. Formal reason: steps described in {{ }} was not done. — ( ) I do not see how it makes any sense to use a different property for objects and events. (sorry for the procedure, fixed by , though I do not think it matters that mich given that I am the property creator and I had informed on the talk page that I wanted to porpose it for deletion.)-- ( ) Additionally see long discussion: . — ( ) I do not think that the need for qualifiers is a valid reason for separating the property for events from the property for physical bodies. For many physical bodies, like mountaines, you don't really need time-qualifiers (well arguably you would but in most cases, that sounds way overkill). When the object has moved, you should mark the most recent as ""preferred"", which means you do not really need to read qualifiers for most purposes (you should be able to read the rank, but that is something that always needs to be done, and the best rank will soon be the only one returned by default by the Wikiparser). By contrast, using two different properties makes it more confusing for humans both on Wikidata and on Wikipedia. -- ( ) Mixing different relations types to one property is more confusable. There are more reasons was discussed in previous talk than you mention here. — ( ) As I understand your vision is based on English language where both relations are described by single word ""location"". But this vision creates problems for another languages where these relations are described by different ideas and different terms. — ( ) The only other reason I see discussed in the previous discussion is the label, but if there is no Russian word that covers both places and events, we can always had two words (as is already the case in English for )-- ( ) @ : In that discussion you claimed that therethere is a problem in Russian in using the same property for the location of an object and the location of an event but oyu did not explain what that problem is. Can you give us some examples of how this could be confusing as to it is more confusing to have two properties for the same characteristic of a thing. ( ) This is not same characteristic. Current place of movable object is not the same characteristic as point where event occurs. In Russian there is one word that describe both characteristics ( ), but this is very general word. It has many another meanings: job, post, seat, position, quarter and etc. Double naming is bad idea too. So this property with be used not only for event and bodies, but in many other situations. Queries for this property will take very strange and unexpected results. This is general problem: our meaning is defined by language. Every language has unique set of basic terms. For every basic term in one language can be found only similar term in another. But found term will not exact the same. This difference will produce claims expected for one language but unexpected for another. More general terms are more variable from language to language (and in meaning of course). So creating very general and less defined properties will increase level of disorder in Wikidata. This is way from database to datahell as I think. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) I do not see how it makes any sense to use a different property for objects and events. (sorry for the procedure, fixed by , though I do not think it matters that mich given that I am the property creator and I had informed on the talk page that I wanted to porpose it for deletion.)-- ( ) Additionally see long discussion: . — ( ) I do not think that the need for qualifiers is a valid reason for separating the property for events from the property for physical bodies. For many physical bodies, like mountaines, you don't really need time-qualifiers (well arguably you would but in most cases, that sounds way overkill). When the object has moved, you should mark the most recent as ""preferred"", which means you do not really need to read qualifiers for most purposes (you should be able to read the rank, but that is something that always needs to be done, and the best rank will soon be the only one returned by default by the Wikiparser). By contrast, using two different properties makes it more confusing for humans both on Wikidata and on Wikipedia. -- ( ) Mixing different relations types to one property is more confusable. There are more reasons was discussed in previous talk than you mention here. — ( ) As I understand your vision is based on English language where both relations are described by single word ""location"". But this vision creates problems for another languages where these relations are described by different ideas and different terms. — ( ) The only other reason I see discussed in the previous discussion is the label, but if there is no Russian word that covers both places and events, we can always had two words (as is already the case in English for )-- ( ) @ : In that discussion you claimed that therethere is a problem in Russian in using the same property for the location of an object and the location of an event but oyu did not explain what that problem is. Can you give us some examples of how this could be confusing as to it is more confusing to have two properties for the same characteristic of a thing. ( ) This is not same characteristic. Current place of movable object is not the same characteristic as point where event occurs. In Russian there is one word that describe both characteristics ( ), but this is very general word. It has many another meanings: job, post, seat, position, quarter and etc. Double naming is bad idea too. So this property with be used not only for event and bodies, but in many other situations. Queries for this property will take very strange and unexpected results. This is general problem: our meaning is defined by language. Every language has unique set of basic terms. For every basic term in one language can be found only similar term in another. But found term will not exact the same. This difference will produce claims expected for one language but unexpected for another. More general terms are more variable from language to language (and in meaning of course). So creating very general and less defined properties will increase level of disorder in Wikidata. This is way from database to datahell as I think. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) Additionally see long discussion: . — ( ) I do not think that the need for qualifiers is a valid reason for separating the property for events from the property for physical bodies. For many physical bodies, like mountaines, you don't really need time-qualifiers (well arguably you would but in most cases, that sounds way overkill). When the object has moved, you should mark the most recent as ""preferred"", which means you do not really need to read qualifiers for most purposes (you should be able to read the rank, but that is something that always needs to be done, and the best rank will soon be the only one returned by default by the Wikiparser). By contrast, using two different properties makes it more confusing for humans both on Wikidata and on Wikipedia. -- ( ) Mixing different relations types to one property is more confusable. There are more reasons was discussed in previous talk than you mention here. — ( ) As I understand your vision is based on English language where both relations are described by single word ""location"". But this vision creates problems for another languages where these relations are described by different ideas and different terms. — ( ) The only other reason I see discussed in the previous discussion is the label, but if there is no Russian word that covers both places and events, we can always had two words (as is already the case in English for )-- ( ) @ : In that discussion you claimed that therethere is a problem in Russian in using the same property for the location of an object and the location of an event but oyu did not explain what that problem is. Can you give us some examples of how this could be confusing as to it is more confusing to have two properties for the same characteristic of a thing. ( ) This is not same characteristic. Current place of movable object is not the same characteristic as point where event occurs. In Russian there is one word that describe both characteristics ( ), but this is very general word. It has many another meanings: job, post, seat, position, quarter and etc. Double naming is bad idea too. So this property with be used not only for event and bodies, but in many other situations. Queries for this property will take very strange and unexpected results. This is general problem: our meaning is defined by language. Every language has unique set of basic terms. For every basic term in one language can be found only similar term in another. But found term will not exact the same. This difference will produce claims expected for one language but unexpected for another. More general terms are more variable from language to language (and in meaning of course). So creating very general and less defined properties will increase level of disorder in Wikidata. This is way from database to datahell as I think. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) I do not think that the need for qualifiers is a valid reason for separating the property for events from the property for physical bodies. For many physical bodies, like mountaines, you don't really need time-qualifiers (well arguably you would but in most cases, that sounds way overkill). When the object has moved, you should mark the most recent as ""preferred"", which means you do not really need to read qualifiers for most purposes (you should be able to read the rank, but that is something that always needs to be done, and the best rank will soon be the only one returned by default by the Wikiparser). By contrast, using two different properties makes it more confusing for humans both on Wikidata and on Wikipedia. -- ( ) Mixing different relations types to one property is more confusable. There are more reasons was discussed in previous talk than you mention here. — ( ) As I understand your vision is based on English language where both relations are described by single word ""location"". But this vision creates problems for another languages where these relations are described by different ideas and different terms. — ( ) The only other reason I see discussed in the previous discussion is the label, but if there is no Russian word that covers both places and events, we can always had two words (as is already the case in English for )-- ( ) @ : In that discussion you claimed that therethere is a problem in Russian in using the same property for the location of an object and the location of an event but oyu did not explain what that problem is. Can you give us some examples of how this could be confusing as to it is more confusing to have two properties for the same characteristic of a thing. ( ) This is not same characteristic. Current place of movable object is not the same characteristic as point where event occurs. In Russian there is one word that describe both characteristics ( ), but this is very general word. It has many another meanings: job, post, seat, position, quarter and etc. Double naming is bad idea too. So this property with be used not only for event and bodies, but in many other situations. Queries for this property will take very strange and unexpected results. This is general problem: our meaning is defined by language. Every language has unique set of basic terms. For every basic term in one language can be found only similar term in another. But found term will not exact the same. This difference will produce claims expected for one language but unexpected for another. More general terms are more variable from language to language (and in meaning of course). So creating very general and less defined properties will increase level of disorder in Wikidata. This is way from database to datahell as I think. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) Mixing different relations types to one property is more confusable. There are more reasons was discussed in previous talk than you mention here. — ( ) As I understand your vision is based on English language where both relations are described by single word ""location"". But this vision creates problems for another languages where these relations are described by different ideas and different terms. — ( ) The only other reason I see discussed in the previous discussion is the label, but if there is no Russian word that covers both places and events, we can always had two words (as is already the case in English for )-- ( ) The only other reason I see discussed in the previous discussion is the label, but if there is no Russian word that covers both places and events, we can always had two words (as is already the case in English for )-- ( ) @ : In that discussion you claimed that therethere is a problem in Russian in using the same property for the location of an object and the location of an event but oyu did not explain what that problem is. Can you give us some examples of how this could be confusing as to it is more confusing to have two properties for the same characteristic of a thing. ( ) This is not same characteristic. Current place of movable object is not the same characteristic as point where event occurs. In Russian there is one word that describe both characteristics ( ), but this is very general word. It has many another meanings: job, post, seat, position, quarter and etc. Double naming is bad idea too. So this property with be used not only for event and bodies, but in many other situations. Queries for this property will take very strange and unexpected results. This is general problem: our meaning is defined by language. Every language has unique set of basic terms. For every basic term in one language can be found only similar term in another. But found term will not exact the same. This difference will produce claims expected for one language but unexpected for another. More general terms are more variable from language to language (and in meaning of course). So creating very general and less defined properties will increase level of disorder in Wikidata. This is way from database to datahell as I think. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) This is not same characteristic. Current place of movable object is not the same characteristic as point where event occurs. In Russian there is one word that describe both characteristics ( ), but this is very general word. It has many another meanings: job, post, seat, position, quarter and etc. Double naming is bad idea too. So this property with be used not only for event and bodies, but in many other situations. Queries for this property will take very strange and unexpected results. This is general problem: our meaning is defined by language. Every language has unique set of basic terms. For every basic term in one language can be found only similar term in another. But found term will not exact the same. This difference will produce claims expected for one language but unexpected for another. More general terms are more variable from language to language (and in meaning of course). So creating very general and less defined properties will increase level of disorder in Wikidata. This is way from database to datahell as I think. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) @ : I do not agree. By knowing what the object is we disambiguate the location pretty much surely. A location for an event or a place are absolutely no problem if we know what the of the item is. What is a hell is to find this way to find the good one on a lot of almost equivalent property except their domains range. I think to build specific properties we need examples on ambiguities generated by the fact we can use a general property twice on the same item with different meanings. Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) Your point is incorrect. If some domains are not intersected this is not point to use same property for different thinks. We must not mix different conceptions in one property. This will increase error count and make the property useless. About : currently it is the most undefined, conflicted and high error level property. Currently it can not be used to query object type. — ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete per . ( ) Delete harmful. Delete -- ( ) [MASK] Location is constitutional for (most) events but by definition ephemeral for movable objects. I can imagine an extension of to objects with a very strong geographical connection like or which were turned into ""movable objects"" centuries after originally coming into existence and now have also. -- Some event-items could use time qualifiers (say: : : 1999-2005, : since 2006). And sometimes, large buildings are moved ( , ). Keeping two different properties just because some things are more moveable than others seeems a bit complicated, and not really useful. -- ( ) I'm not convinced that will survive as ""event"" in the long run, since it really is a series of single events as ""instances"" and therefore more like the class . At least we should [MASK] in mind that this use of temporal and spatial qualifications might not that typical for events in general. Anyway: Events like , , and are in a certain sense absolutely and irremovably connected to both the location and the dates the respective sieges took place. And on the other hand ( probably exactly is one case mentioned above: Even if these temple(s) would be disassembled and relocated again to even more remote locations no one would state ""Don't refer to Abu Simbel any more because it's in Canberra now"". I'm not a native english speaker but maybe the two distinct properties are trying to reflect some subtle distinction which historically might have governed the use of the terms place vs. location . -- ( ) Some event-items could use time qualifiers (say: : : 1999-2005, : since 2006). And sometimes, large buildings are moved ( , ). Keeping two different properties just because some things are more moveable than others seeems a bit complicated, and not really useful. -- ( ) I'm not convinced that will survive as ""event"" in the long run, since it really is a series of single events as ""instances"" and therefore more like the class . At least we should [MASK] in mind that this use of temporal and spatial qualifications might not that typical for events in general. Anyway: Events like , , and are in a certain sense absolutely and irremovably connected to both the location and the dates the respective sieges took place. And on the other hand ( probably exactly is one case mentioned above: Even if these temple(s) would be disassembled and relocated again to even more remote locations no one would state ""Don't refer to Abu Simbel any more because it's in Canberra now"". I'm not a native english speaker but maybe the two distinct properties are trying to reflect some subtle distinction which historically might have governed the use of the terms place vs. location . -- ( ) I'm not convinced that will survive as ""event"" in the long run, since it really is a series of single events as ""instances"" and therefore more like the class . At least we should [MASK] in mind that this use of temporal and spatial qualifications might not that typical for events in general. Anyway: Events like , , and are in a certain sense absolutely and irremovably connected to both the location and the dates the respective sieges took place. And on the other hand ( probably exactly is one case mentioned above: Even if these temple(s) would be disassembled and relocated again to even more remote locations no one would state ""Don't refer to Abu Simbel any more because it's in Canberra now"". I'm not a native english speaker but maybe the two distinct properties are trying to reflect some subtle distinction which historically might have governed the use of the terms place vs. location . -- ( ) Delete I assume that is renamed , removing ""event"". It is not reasonable to distinct the location of an object regarding the type of the object. But of course, buildings remain buildings and will never be events. Thus, we broaden the domain of P766 to arbitrary objects.  — ( ) Delete . per the discussion above. ( ) Comment If is renamed to ""location"" or to ""event or object location"", that will make this property redundant. I would say to clarify the renaming first.-- ( ) [MASK] . Renaming is a prerequisite to deleting this one. ( ) Comment TO CLOSING ADMIN: See below where wrote in response to Emw: ""I must say I agree with that idea, assuming moving properties over can be done automatically"". Since only has 13 live edits since end of May, it might be difficult to get him here to clarify whether this means he changed his opinion but just didn't change the ""official"" vote. To me it looks like that. , you closed some requests here, what do you think? ( ) Comment TO CLOSING ADMIN: See below where wrote in response to Emw: ""I must say I agree with that idea, assuming moving properties over can be done automatically"". Since only has 13 live edits since end of May, it might be difficult to get him here to clarify whether this means he changed his opinion but just didn't change the ""official"" vote. To me it looks like that. , you closed some requests here, what do you think? ( ) Delete . I essentially agree with most of votes for deletion here. We shouldn't have properties for 'event location' and 'moveable object location'. Those properties should be merged into one, i.e. rename 'event location' to be 'location', copy all claims from this property into that one, and delete this property. Importantly, the 'domain' constraint the revised property should be removed. That would ensure subjects of the property are not assumed to be both 'events' and 'moveable objects'. ( ) Actually, since has the lower Property ID, wouldn't it make sense to relabel that property to 'location', and delete ? The other property has a few thousand more claims, but I'm inclined to prefer the lower-ID property as the one to [MASK]. What do you think, , , , , , , and ? ( ) I must say I agree with that idea, assuming moving properties over can be done automatically (ther eis no easy way to do it even manually.) ( ) @Emw: Support — ( ) Actually, since has the lower Property ID, wouldn't it make sense to relabel that property to 'location', and delete ? The other property has a few thousand more claims, but I'm inclined to prefer the lower-ID property as the one to [MASK]. What do you think, , , , , , , and ? ( ) I must say I agree with that idea, assuming moving properties over can be done automatically (ther eis no easy way to do it even manually.) ( ) @Emw: Support — ( ) I must say I agree with that idea, assuming moving properties over can be done automatically (ther eis no easy way to do it even manually.) ( ) @Emw: Support — ( ) Deleting is fine with me. I have not completely thought through the subproperty of ""part of"" thing, but that can be further investigated later if needed. -- ( ) Oh and there is also . I can't see any difference. -- ( ) is used on 4500 to 5000 pages. is used on 1000 to 1500 pages. is used on 5000 to 5500 pages so keeping P276 means we have a lot of cleaning up to do but I support combining these three properties. I have carefully read your disagreement above and I still have no idea what you think the problem is. I just know that you think there is a problem. If you want me to change my ! vote then please describe an actual use case where having one 'located in' property would create a problem and what that problem would be. ( ) Ok, I try again. Our mind is defined by language. Wikidata is multilingual project. Every language has different set of terms. The most of terms have correspondences in different languages. But only a little number of such correspondences are exact the same correspondence. For example English term ""location"" is correspond to Russian ""место"". But these are not exact the same terms. For example claim <место> is valid for Russian language, but is invalid. Russian-language users will use property named ""место"" for claims like <место> too. Such claims will be unexpected for English-language users. Inverse situation is possible too. Usually the more general term has more differences from language to language. So more general properties will generate more unexpected/error cases. The way to avoid this problem is creating strong defined specialized properties. Such properties can be well described by concrete label in every language. Its domains can be controlled automatically. — ( ) , thanks for the thoughtful response. The Russian word ""место"" to ""place"" in English, which is roughly synonymous with ""position"". position is also valid in English while located in is not. (The preferred property there is .) Is there some word or phrase in Russian that suggests the spatial location of the subject is within the spatial location of the object? Would "" "" work? ( ) ""расположен в"" is inapplicable for events and movable objects, only for unmovable objects. But I described general principle. Ever we find some good words for Russian-English pair, but another languages can have same problems. — ( ) Thank you and thank you for clarifying this. Ivan; We have similar problems in English which is why we have ridiculously long labels like . If ""место"" can be interpreted in 2 ways then I guess you will need a longer label in Russian - like ""место (use for physical place. Use P39 for office held)."" Just as the English label for Q44148 is ""Male animal"" to distinguish it from . I still say we should merge these properties. ( ) Ok, I try again. Our mind is defined by language. Wikidata is multilingual project. Every language has different set of terms. The most of terms have correspondences in different languages. But only a little number of such correspondences are exact the same correspondence. For example English term ""location"" is correspond to Russian ""место"". But these are not exact the same terms. For example claim <место> is valid for Russian language, but is invalid. Russian-language users will use property named ""место"" for claims like <место> too. Such claims will be unexpected for English-language users. Inverse situation is possible too. Usually the more general term has more differences from language to language. So more general properties will generate more unexpected/error cases. The way to avoid this problem is creating strong defined specialized properties. Such properties can be well described by concrete label in every language. Its domains can be controlled automatically. — ( ) , thanks for the thoughtful response. The Russian word ""место"" to ""place"" in English, which is roughly synonymous with ""position"". position is also valid in English while located in is not. (The preferred property there is .) Is there some word or phrase in Russian that suggests the spatial location of the subject is within the spatial location of the object? Would "" "" work? ( ) ""расположен в"" is inapplicable for events and movable objects, only for unmovable objects. But I described general principle. Ever we find some good words for Russian-English pair, but another languages can have same problems. — ( ) Thank you and thank you for clarifying this. Ivan; We have similar problems in English which is why we have ridiculously long labels like . If ""место"" can be interpreted in 2 ways then I guess you will need a longer label in Russian - like ""место (use for physical place. Use P39 for office held)."" Just as the English label for Q44148 is ""Male animal"" to distinguish it from . I still say we should merge these properties. ( ) , thanks for the thoughtful response. The Russian word ""место"" to ""place"" in English, which is roughly synonymous with ""position"". position is also valid in English while located in is not. (The preferred property there is .) Is there some word or phrase in Russian that suggests the spatial location of the subject is within the spatial location of the object? Would "" "" work? ( ) ""расположен в"" is inapplicable for events and movable objects, only for unmovable objects. But I described general principle. Ever we find some good words for Russian-English pair, but another languages can have same problems. — ( ) Thank you and thank you for clarifying this. Ivan; We have similar problems in English which is why we have ridiculously long labels like . If ""место"" can be interpreted in 2 ways then I guess you will need a longer label in Russian - like ""место (use for physical place. Use P39 for office held)."" Just as the English label for Q44148 is ""Male animal"" to distinguish it from . I still say we should merge these properties. ( ) ""расположен в"" is inapplicable for events and movable objects, only for unmovable objects. But I described general principle. Ever we find some good words for Russian-English pair, but another languages can have same problems. — ( ) Thank you and thank you for clarifying this. Ivan; We have similar problems in English which is why we have ridiculously long labels like . If ""место"" can be interpreted in 2 ways then I guess you will need a longer label in Russian - like ""место (use for physical place. Use P39 for office held)."" Just as the English label for Q44148 is ""Male animal"" to distinguish it from . I still say we should merge these properties. ( ) Thank you and thank you for clarifying this. Ivan; We have similar problems in English which is why we have ridiculously long labels like . If ""место"" can be interpreted in 2 ways then I guess you will need a longer label in Russian - like ""место (use for physical place. Use P39 for office held)."" Just as the English label for Q44148 is ""Male animal"" to distinguish it from . I still say we should merge these properties. ( ) [MASK] There are lingual differences between where something is and where something happend in many languages making labeling a merged property difficult and unclear. I also use and for different purposes in the same object. / ; Can you give us an example of an item where you have used and for different purposes? ( ) / You say that is and where is also . I still don't see the need for a different property for these two though I see that the label for P1134 in Swedish is more like ""Located in the locality / neighborhood / etc."" than the English label. I still see why you can't use the same property to say 'famous painting located in 'art gallery' which is located in 'central square' located in 'old town' located in 'central borough'. You have arrived at the smallest administrative entity so you switch and use {{P|131} for the continuation up to 'the city', 'Central region' and 'Country'. You have not convinced me to change my vote. ( ) ; Can you give us an example of an item where you have used and for different purposes? ( ) / You say that is and where is also . I still don't see the need for a different property for these two though I see that the label for P1134 in Swedish is more like ""Located in the locality / neighborhood / etc."" than the English label. I still see why you can't use the same property to say 'famous painting located in 'art gallery' which is located in 'central square' located in 'old town' located in 'central borough'. You have arrived at the smallest administrative entity so you switch and use {{P|131} for the continuation up to 'the city', 'Central region' and 'Country'. You have not convinced me to change my vote. ( ) / You say that is and where is also . I still don't see the need for a different property for these two though I see that the label for P1134 in Swedish is more like ""Located in the locality / neighborhood / etc."" than the English label. I still see why you can't use the same property to say 'famous painting located in 'art gallery' which is located in 'central square' located in 'old town' located in 'central borough'. You have arrived at the smallest administrative entity so you switch and use {{P|131} for the continuation up to 'the city', 'Central region' and 'Country'. You have not convinced me to change my vote. ( ) You say that is and where is also . I still don't see the need for a different property for these two though I see that the label for P1134 in Swedish is more like ""Located in the locality / neighborhood / etc."" than the English label. I still see why you can't use the same property to say 'famous painting located in 'art gallery' which is located in 'central square' located in 'old town' located in 'central borough'. You have arrived at the smallest administrative entity so you switch and use {{P|131} for the continuation up to 'the city', 'Central region' and 'Country'. You have not convinced me to change my vote. ( ) Delete support merge into and rename that to ""location"". ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: type_of_administrative_territorial_entity_(P132): About 1 year of discussion I decided to close. Consensus is to delete. by 12 [MASK] and 16 Delete . now we should use . -- ( ) About 1 year of discussion I decided to close. Consensus is to delete. by 12 [MASK] and 16 Delete . now we should use . -- ( ) For the record: Actually 17 Delete , one user wrote ""vote replace with instance of (P31)"" which has the same effect. ( ) First, ""place the {{Property for deletion}} template on the property talk page. Then, open the discussion on this page"", cf. header of this page. -- ( ) As far as I am informed Dexbot is removing (replacing) P107 statements. Can you elaborate more why you think this property should be [MASK]? To save one statement does not sound very convincing. Besides I think there are some good reasons for this property. -- ( ) See RfD for P60 above. -- ( ) Sorry, but I still don't see the historical steps. was started after the discussion here : ""When there are any of [P60, P132, P202], create a P31 claim of the same value and delete the P107 value"". Now, you want to delete the properties on which this bot is based on? -- ( ) See RfD for P60 above. -- ( ) Sorry, but I still don't see the historical steps. was started after the discussion here : ""When there are any of [P60, P132, P202], create a P31 claim of the same value and delete the P107 value"". Now, you want to delete the properties on which this bot is based on? -- ( ) Sorry, but I still don't see the historical steps. was started after the discussion here : ""When there are any of [P60, P132, P202], create a P31 claim of the same value and delete the P107 value"". Now, you want to delete the properties on which this bot is based on? -- ( ) Comment This property is heavenly used in the . The main porpose of this property is IMO to point at the actual administrative level. For example the administrative subdivision of Germany is rather complex: . The value of P132 of an administrative division is its ""level"", where there are also ""multi-level"" objects as or in Austria. These objects have in addition often several values connected by (which is for P60 AFAIK not the case). Can you select the right one out of the P31-claims without looking at the P132 claim? Have for example a look at , . Moreover, we can deal with , , in P31 and still always use as value for P132. One can create accurate queries by using the property together with the properties and . -- ( ) The closest you can get a ""kreisfrei stadt"" in Sweden can be found in . It is described as both a ""P132:kommun"" and ""P132:landsting"" in this case. The difference is that it looks like the term ""kreisfrei stadt"" (""landstingsfri stad"") has not been used in the Swedish language for maybe 100 years, but it's partly the same kind of concept. Another difference is that a ""landsting"" (County counsil) is difficult to describe as a geographic entity. -- ( ) The closest you can get a ""kreisfrei stadt"" in Sweden can be found in . It is described as both a ""P132:kommun"" and ""P132:landsting"" in this case. The difference is that it looks like the term ""kreisfrei stadt"" (""landstingsfri stad"") has not been used in the Swedish language for maybe 100 years, but it's partly the same kind of concept. Another difference is that a ""landsting"" (County counsil) is difficult to describe as a geographic entity. -- ( ) [MASK] for a municipality can have dozens of values like , , , , etc, but should only have the type of administrative division which is used for infoboxes and other classification templates. ( ) That is not a reason for [MASK]. It is no problem that something can be an instance of more classes. What is your real problem? College town or Hanseatic city are not administative units, are they? Municipality of Germany is one. If one is interested in administration one simply looks a the classes that are subclasses of administrative unit. There is no ""type of collegeness"" either, that would return whether something has a lot of college population. ( ) That is not a reason for [MASK]. It is no problem that something can be an instance of more classes. What is your real problem? College town or Hanseatic city are not administative units, are they? Municipality of Germany is one. If one is interested in administration one simply looks a the classes that are subclasses of administrative unit. There is no ""type of collegeness"" either, that would return whether something has a lot of college population. ( ) [MASK] Comment the organization of administrative divisions was the first big discussion in Wikidata and, imho, changes cannot be discussed only here. Why we cannot use more than one ontology? We can use instead of for example. @ : could you give an example of hierarchy using P31/P279 in this case? -- ( ) Therefore we can use =(a new item named ""type of administrative division""). I made this rfd because if all P132 is copied to P31.-- ( ) Could be interesting. I saw now the discussion you linked (thanks!). For me it is not a simple question, so I prefer to wait for queries. -- ( ) Therefore we can use =(a new item named ""type of administrative division""). I made this rfd because if all P132 is copied to P31.-- ( ) Could be interesting. I saw now the discussion you linked (thanks!). For me it is not a simple question, so I prefer to wait for queries. -- ( ) Could be interesting. I saw now the discussion you linked (thanks!). For me it is not a simple question, so I prefer to wait for queries. -- ( ) [MASK] Putting everything in P31 means that one has first to follow up the P279-tree until one gets the full information. A bot can do it fast but a human unser...? -- ( ) Delete Time is changing, opinions too. Having a generic property like P31 has some drawbacks but it will simplify a lot if we get rid of this last ""type""-property. -- ( ) Delete Time is changing, opinions too. Having a generic property like P31 has some drawbacks but it will simplify a lot if we get rid of this last ""type""-property. -- ( ) That's true of P132 also. -- ( ) Comment I don't understand which information a human would get with this property you would'nt get with P31 immediately... Could you give an example ? ( ) Well, would you directly know if a ""School district in Sweden"" is an administrative unit or not? -- ( ) The answer is no , it's a way to organize the Human resources in the schools of a municipality. -- ( ) That's true of P132 also. -- ( ) Comment I don't understand which information a human would get with this property you would'nt get with P31 immediately... Could you give an example ? ( ) Well, would you directly know if a ""School district in Sweden"" is an administrative unit or not? -- ( ) The answer is no , it's a way to organize the Human resources in the schools of a municipality. -- ( ) Well, would you directly know if a ""School district in Sweden"" is an administrative unit or not? -- ( ) The answer is no , it's a way to organize the Human resources in the schools of a municipality. -- ( ) The answer is no , it's a way to organize the Human resources in the schools of a municipality. -- ( ) Comment My gut instinct was to delete because it seemed to be used in the exact same way as ""instance of"". But Holger1959 makes a very interesting point that makes me wonder about all properties. If many properties are merged into ""instance of"", how will infoboxes and other tools using the data know that an item's defining type is, for example, ""municipality of Germany"" rather than a secondary type like ""college town""? I assume someone already has a solution for infoboxes, but I'd like to hear it before voting on any more properties. -- ( ) I suppose it is possible to do but there's another point by Holger1959. Each specific property can have constraint ""unique value"" but combined ""instance of"" can't have such constraint which is inconvenient for validation tracking. -- ( ) Unique value amongs a class that is an instance of would work. ( ) It looks like the ranking system has just been added today, so that solves one problem. So, if we were to [MASK] this, what would we do to make it worth duplicating the info in ""instance of"". I gather we'll use property constraints to limit what kind of data can go here? -- ( ) I suppose it is possible to do but there's another point by Holger1959. Each specific property can have constraint ""unique value"" but combined ""instance of"" can't have such constraint which is inconvenient for validation tracking. -- ( ) Unique value amongs a class that is an instance of would work. ( ) Unique value amongs a class that is an instance of would work. ( ) It looks like the ranking system has just been added today, so that solves one problem. So, if we were to [MASK] this, what would we do to make it worth duplicating the info in ""instance of"". I gather we'll use property constraints to limit what kind of data can go here? -- ( ) [MASK] mass deletion requests without considering the severe consequences as outlined by Holger (mixing with other classifications) and Infovarius (constraint checking). Please provide a fully working alternative tooling first before claiming that everything can be done with P31.   — ( ) Delete . There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to specify the type of an instance. The arguments above for keeping this property are founded upon very flawed ideas about constraints, as well as P31 endemic among the administrative subdivisions community. I explain those issues and point out solutions where helpful below. Items about administrative subdivisions tend to show a basic P31 abuse: using 'instance of' as a catch-all property to shoehorn in statements that belong in conventional properties (or don't belong at all). Let's consider an example: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , The fact that there are 6 'instance of' values for Aalen is a . To start, and are subclasses of , so the claim is redundant and should be removed. The P31 value should be moved to a new property 'capital of' (inverse of ). The other Aalen P31 values should likely be moved to other conventional properties. From what I can tell, is an obsolete, historical classification, and thus should have 'start' and 'end' dates indicating such. should be moved to an appropriate property for tourist marketing information -- having it in 'instance of' is also problematic because it's a subclass of 'town', which is conventionally disjoint with 'city'. seems like the most appropriate P31 value, since it's a subclass of . In other words, the that several have noted as a reason to [MASK] P132 is precisely how we should not be using P31. The claim ' ' that cites is an example of the poorly-designed type we get with that approach. (To be clear: this claim should be removed and, once the quantity datatype is available, replaced with a 'population' property claim.) Having types like 'city with tens of thousands of inhabitants' is poor practice because it is elevating a trivial result set into a class. Classes should entail larger batches of statements about a subclass or instance, and not merely one value of one very dynamic property that will obsolesced the moment queries are available. should generally have one value, not many values as often seen in items maintained by the . In rare cases with multiple P31 values, one should be usually be -- the classification that's most current, most widely used in the most reliable sources. P31 is for defining an instance's type ; it is not a catch-all property to throw in any plausible statement under the sun that makes sense when connected with the phrase ""is a"". is a fundamental tool to develop structured data, not a way to stuff fodder into Wikidata. The fact that entities can theoretically be classified along many axes is not a good argument to eschew generic type properties like 'instance of' in favor of domain-specific type properties like 'type of administrative division'. The same argument applies equally to domain-specific type properties. The only thing that makes P31 different than P132 is that the has put together a well-defined taxonomy (along certain axes) for P132. Nothing significant prevents them from doing the same with P31. As I've demonstrated above, the way they're using P31 right now is an antipattern. They've essentially discarded P31 and are now use P132 the way P31 should be used. says that P132 has useful 'unique value' (i.e. 'one of') constraint checks. It doesn't -- 'one of' constraints are actually horrible for P132. Check out the top of the and you'll see why -- over 300 'one of' constraints, one for each (direct or derived) subclass of 'administrative subdivision '. 'One of' constraints are designed for properties with a small number of possible values, e.g. a 'sex' property having 'one of' constraints 'male', 'female', 'intersex'. Having 300 'one of' constraints is a severe antipattern. If you think it's bad now, wait until starts covering larger swaths of the world's administrative subdivisions. 300 will be a drop in the bucket. The current approach of using 'one of' constraints for P132 is difficult to maintain and unscalable. Like having 6 'instance of' values is a bad code smell, so is having 300 'one of' constraints for a property. What this property is trying to do is ensure that the values of fulfill the statement 'subclass of administrative subdivision'. There's a better way to do that: use to replace the 300+ 'one of' constraints with 1 simple constraint: . That doesn't actually do much, though. It simply tells us whether the value of P132 is a subclass of administrative subdivision, which is pretty vacuous. It ignores the basic question of why we need that constraint. What good does it do, exactly, for this 'type of administrative division' property? Even ignoring my argument above that 'instance of' should have one (or at least one ) value, each value in the P31 hydra seen in traces back up to . So if we accept the idea that enable sane constraints as I argue in the previous paragraph, then P132 offers nothing more than P31. Like the P132 value for Aalen, all the P31 values for that item trace back to the claim . If a P31 value that violates that claim is added to instance of administrative subdivision, tools like and should be able to detect that. In summary, I've shown that P31 is widely misused in items about administrative subdivisions, and that this antipattern can be fixed by essentially using P31 as it is designed to be used -- i.e. by using P31 as P132 is used now. Also, I've shown major flaws in the idea that P132 is necessary to maintain useful constraints on items about administrative subdivisions. That in turn shows how P132 is redundant with P31. There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to specify the type of an instance. We should delete this property. ( ) I have also seen a misuse of P31 in many items I have in my watchlist. The most common, is the use of P31:city and P31:town without any real source. -- ( ) Why do you weaken the broad usability of ? Of course, New York City is instance of global city, port city, metropolis, cities in New York, former capitals of the United States, and former United States state capitals... Wow! All this could be expressed with P31 and again all these classes are possibly part of their own hierarchy (for example, ""former capitals of the United States"" might be subclass of ""cities of the US""). However, for a strictly regulated hierarchy, let us stick on specific subproperties of P31. This makes modeling, validation, and usage much more easier. To your examples: Aalen is instance of . This cannot be deduced from the population size as this is a term from the German . No way to deduce this, but can be perfectly modelled with P31. Aalen is instance of . Why should we introduce new properties for this? Again, this can be perfectly modeled with P31. Aalen could additionally be instanceof , river. all these are valid uses of instanceof. So it makes it just simpler to use for the highly regulated hierarchy specific properties. Of course, we will tag P132 a subproperty of P31 as soon as Wikibase allows this. Just wait until this is possible. In the meantime, we should let the people from do their great work in creating a consistent hierarchy. And no - there are no better tools for P31 out there.   — ( ) Instead of ""instance of former United States state capitals"" you should add ""instance of capital of United States end date 1XXX-XX-XX "". I agree that the population sometimes can be difficult to identify. for example, is not a well-defined entity. It is an informal entity, it has therefor no formal borders and the population can therefor not be accuratly specified. There is other items for the urban area of Stockholm, the municipality of Stockholm, the city of Stockholm and the metropolitan area of Stockholm, but Q1754 is neither of this. -- ( ) I updated some quantifiers in the ; improvements are almost always possible, cf. . Let me respond to some of @ :'s statements: "" is redundant and should be removed"" Aalen is a since 1339, long before it was a or . By replacing the statement, you will lose this information. Also I suggested on several discussions that maybe the object could be used instead. "" should be moved to an appropriate property for tourist marketing information"" Well, I could think about a property like 'touristic type', but do you not want to delete exactly such type-property? ""[...]class of 'town', which is conventionally disjoint with 'city'"" I doubted that these two classes are always disjoint. Please note that and is not the same. Logical entailment is a nice idea, but as far as I know it is not (yet) implemented in Wikidata. "" should generally have one value, not many values"" Why do you think so? I agree that extreme tagging as you mentioned above is not good. But for example it is quite common in the semantic web to add some more rdf:type properties in order to use the comination of several vocabularies. Moreover, if you for example compare with : they have 6 (different) values connected by rdf:typeof. I think it might be a good idea to discuss some reorganization with administrative objects as well as to push the implementation of more and better tools dealing also with quantifiers etc. -- ( ) I have also seen a misuse of P31 in many items I have in my watchlist. The most common, is the use of P31:city and P31:town without any real source. -- ( ) Why do you weaken the broad usability of ? Of course, New York City is instance of global city, port city, metropolis, cities in New York, former capitals of the United States, and former United States state capitals... Wow! All this could be expressed with P31 and again all these classes are possibly part of their own hierarchy (for example, ""former capitals of the United States"" might be subclass of ""cities of the US""). However, for a strictly regulated hierarchy, let us stick on specific subproperties of P31. This makes modeling, validation, and usage much more easier. To your examples: Aalen is instance of . This cannot be deduced from the population size as this is a term from the German . No way to deduce this, but can be perfectly modelled with P31. Aalen is instance of . Why should we introduce new properties for this? Again, this can be perfectly modeled with P31. Aalen could additionally be instanceof , river. all these are valid uses of instanceof. So it makes it just simpler to use for the highly regulated hierarchy specific properties. Of course, we will tag P132 a subproperty of P31 as soon as Wikibase allows this. Just wait until this is possible. In the meantime, we should let the people from do their great work in creating a consistent hierarchy. And no - there are no better tools for P31 out there.   — ( ) Instead of ""instance of former United States state capitals"" you should add ""instance of capital of United States end date 1XXX-XX-XX "". I agree that the population sometimes can be difficult to identify. for example, is not a well-defined entity. It is an informal entity, it has therefor no formal borders and the population can therefor not be accuratly specified. There is other items for the urban area of Stockholm, the municipality of Stockholm, the city of Stockholm and the metropolitan area of Stockholm, but Q1754 is neither of this. -- ( ) Why do you weaken the broad usability of ? Of course, New York City is instance of global city, port city, metropolis, cities in New York, former capitals of the United States, and former United States state capitals... Wow! All this could be expressed with P31 and again all these classes are possibly part of their own hierarchy (for example, ""former capitals of the United States"" might be subclass of ""cities of the US""). However, for a strictly regulated hierarchy, let us stick on specific subproperties of P31. This makes modeling, validation, and usage much more easier. To your examples: Aalen is instance of . This cannot be deduced from the population size as this is a term from the German . No way to deduce this, but can be perfectly modelled with P31. Aalen is instance of . Why should we introduce new properties for this? Again, this can be perfectly modeled with P31. Aalen could additionally be instanceof , river. Aalen is instance of . This cannot be deduced from the population size as this is a term from the German . No way to deduce this, but can be perfectly modelled with P31. Aalen is instance of . Why should we introduce new properties for this? Again, this can be perfectly modeled with P31. Aalen could additionally be instanceof , river. all these are valid uses of instanceof. So it makes it just simpler to use for the highly regulated hierarchy specific properties. Of course, we will tag P132 a subproperty of P31 as soon as Wikibase allows this. Just wait until this is possible. In the meantime, we should let the people from do their great work in creating a consistent hierarchy. And no - there are no better tools for P31 out there.   — ( ) Instead of ""instance of former United States state capitals"" you should add ""instance of capital of United States end date 1XXX-XX-XX "". I agree that the population sometimes can be difficult to identify. for example, is not a well-defined entity. It is an informal entity, it has therefor no formal borders and the population can therefor not be accuratly specified. There is other items for the urban area of Stockholm, the municipality of Stockholm, the city of Stockholm and the metropolitan area of Stockholm, but Q1754 is neither of this. -- ( ) Instead of ""instance of former United States state capitals"" you should add ""instance of capital of United States end date 1XXX-XX-XX "". I agree that the population sometimes can be difficult to identify. for example, is not a well-defined entity. It is an informal entity, it has therefor no formal borders and the population can therefor not be accuratly specified. There is other items for the urban area of Stockholm, the municipality of Stockholm, the city of Stockholm and the metropolitan area of Stockholm, but Q1754 is neither of this. -- ( ) I updated some quantifiers in the ; improvements are almost always possible, cf. . Let me respond to some of @ :'s statements: "" is redundant and should be removed"" Aalen is a since 1339, long before it was a or . By replacing the statement, you will lose this information. Also I suggested on several discussions that maybe the object could be used instead. "" should be moved to an appropriate property for tourist marketing information"" Well, I could think about a property like 'touristic type', but do you not want to delete exactly such type-property? ""[...]class of 'town', which is conventionally disjoint with 'city'"" I doubted that these two classes are always disjoint. Please note that and is not the same. Logical entailment is a nice idea, but as far as I know it is not (yet) implemented in Wikidata. "" should generally have one value, not many values"" Why do you think so? I agree that extreme tagging as you mentioned above is not good. But for example it is quite common in the semantic web to add some more rdf:type properties in order to use the comination of several vocabularies. Moreover, if you for example compare with : they have 6 (different) values connected by rdf:typeof. "" is redundant and should be removed"" Aalen is a since 1339, long before it was a or . By replacing the statement, you will lose this information. Also I suggested on several discussions that maybe the object could be used instead. "" should be moved to an appropriate property for tourist marketing information"" Well, I could think about a property like 'touristic type', but do you not want to delete exactly such type-property? ""[...]class of 'town', which is conventionally disjoint with 'city'"" I doubted that these two classes are always disjoint. Please note that and is not the same. Logical entailment is a nice idea, but as far as I know it is not (yet) implemented in Wikidata. "" should generally have one value, not many values"" Why do you think so? I agree that extreme tagging as you mentioned above is not good. But for example it is quite common in the semantic web to add some more rdf:type properties in order to use the comination of several vocabularies. Moreover, if you for example compare with : they have 6 (different) values connected by rdf:typeof. I think it might be a good idea to discuss some reorganization with administrative objects as well as to push the implementation of more and better tools dealing also with quantifiers etc. -- ( ) Delete — @ : I agree. I'd much rather have the type of administrative division be the preferred or only P31 value of political divisions and move all their other P31 values to superclasses of those values (like ""US state"" under ""federated state"") or to another property (like ""city with hundreds of thousands of people"" as a population property). At I've been trying to find a way to organize the types of administrative divisions so that they can each have one P31 value and still be sorted into the right superclasses. -- ( ) Delete for EmW. I'm totally agree with your considerations! Using P31 as you told, we can improve the hierarchy made with P132. -- ( ) Delete , per EmW. should be used instead. -- ( ) I'd tend to vote delete but administrative divisions are often very tricky to deal with. point has to be taken into consideration: we should have an idea on either how to say ""is a spa town"" without using p31 or, if we want to use p31 for that, how we can avoid having ""spa town"" showing up in infobox instead of the administrative status. I do not think that marking p132 as a subclass of p31 is a really good solution because what can be considered an administrative division is pretty fuzzy. An alternative solution would be smarter templates, but they may be rather heavy to manage, and that would require third-party users to have similarly sophisticated tools. Alternatively, we could rank the current administrative status as ""preferred"", but both ""spa town"" and former administrative status would be ranked as ""normal"", and that sounds a bit messy. Perhaps a p31 ""legal status"" subproperty could work but I am not sure. -- ( ) The problem with using ranks is that for the city infobox, of course the administrative status is preferred. However, for the ""Spa infobox"", instanceof ""spa town deluxe"" is of course the preferred one. I do not think that ranks work for this problem. We do not know in what our users are interested in. Nonetheless, ranks are great if you have two alternative values for the same specific statement, where one is the current or more valid claim; however, instanceof Spa town and instance of , both are equally valid. With smarter templates, we would move the handling of complexity to the users, which if interested in the administrative hierarchy would need to be aware that it might happen that there are cities which are also spa towns, port towns, ...  — ( ) The problem with using ranks is that for the city infobox, of course the administrative status is preferred. However, for the ""Spa infobox"", instanceof ""spa town deluxe"" is of course the preferred one. I do not think that ranks work for this problem. We do not know in what our users are interested in. Nonetheless, ranks are great if you have two alternative values for the same specific statement, where one is the current or more valid claim; however, instanceof Spa town and instance of , both are equally valid. With smarter templates, we would move the handling of complexity to the users, which if interested in the administrative hierarchy would need to be aware that it might happen that there are cities which are also spa towns, port towns, ...  — ( ) Delete I think all ""(instance|type) of x properties"" are redundant and should be merged with . -- ( ) Delete Agree, all ""(instance|type) of x properties"" should be merged with . (But P31 could have many values in my opinion.) ( ) Side- Comment Regarding the remark ""'town', which is conventionally disjoint with 'city'"": note that in much of continental Europe, there is no division between towns and cities. This is an example of the difficulty of making a language-independent classification. Items like would probably better be a subclass of locality (human settlement) in general, not of town/city/village. ( ) Yes. In English it is ""by the letter"" related to ""town"" and in Swedish it is related to ""ort"" (settlement/locality). This is one of the big challenges in this project. -- ( ) Yes. In English it is ""by the letter"" related to ""town"" and in Swedish it is related to ""ort"" (settlement/locality). This is one of the big challenges in this project. -- ( ) Delete and replace with . — , [MASK] as there are IMO no acceptable outline of a migration/deletion process. I am not aggainst some reorganization, but here the question is only delete or not. -- ( ) You're opposing for the reason that there is no ""outline of a migration"" process and yet you offer no outline of such a process. I'm puzzled. That aside, as part of the P107 removal I asked Amir to add P31 where P132 was used. For a substantial number of items, P132 could simply be removed at this time. For most or even all other uses of this property, it seems pretty clear to me that P132 could simply be replaced by P31. -- ( ) I see migration a little bit larger. Certainly, one question is with which property the old one should be replaced. The proposal was to take . But in the discussion above it become clear that this will not be the end. Let me cite Emw from above: "" should generally have one value, not many values as often seen in items maintained by the country subdivisions task force"". Thus, it is really not clear how to replace the (multiple) statements on the same object. Another question is how can we manage the statement and for example enforce that the general object is not used as an administrative value. There are people who are working at the constraint violations, see . How would you migrate the constraints at ? How would you migrate constraints on other properties containing P132? I haven't read a word about that here. There is also a lot of work to be done on the ontology involving administrative units. And yes, I will help to reorganize stuff. But for the moment I guess it is easier to work in a seperate property. -- ( ) I guess it is less of a problem to combine ""city in U.S."" with ""spa town"" or ""town in U.S."" with ""county seat"". I see no problems there. There are also for example some ""county in New York state"" who are ""borough in New York city"" at the same time, without any serious problems. Adding ""population"" and ""area"" to such items will give no big problems (as far as I know, I'm not an expert of the organisation of NY). But I see some cases where ""city"" and ""island"" are used in the same item. Since ""population"" and ""area"" most often isn't exactly the same for the island as for the city, we will have some serious problems in those cases. Is the area-property for the island or for the city ? We can add qualifiers to solve it, but it would result in the Wikidata-version of . -- ( ) You're opposing for the reason that there is no ""outline of a migration"" process and yet you offer no outline of such a process. I'm puzzled. That aside, as part of the P107 removal I asked Amir to add P31 where P132 was used. For a substantial number of items, P132 could simply be removed at this time. For most or even all other uses of this property, it seems pretty clear to me that P132 could simply be replaced by P31. -- ( ) I see migration a little bit larger. Certainly, one question is with which property the old one should be replaced. The proposal was to take . But in the discussion above it become clear that this will not be the end. Let me cite Emw from above: "" should generally have one value, not many values as often seen in items maintained by the country subdivisions task force"". Thus, it is really not clear how to replace the (multiple) statements on the same object. Another question is how can we manage the statement and for example enforce that the general object is not used as an administrative value. There are people who are working at the constraint violations, see . How would you migrate the constraints at ? How would you migrate constraints on other properties containing P132? I haven't read a word about that here. There is also a lot of work to be done on the ontology involving administrative units. And yes, I will help to reorganize stuff. But for the moment I guess it is easier to work in a seperate property. -- ( ) I guess it is less of a problem to combine ""city in U.S."" with ""spa town"" or ""town in U.S."" with ""county seat"". I see no problems there. There are also for example some ""county in New York state"" who are ""borough in New York city"" at the same time, without any serious problems. Adding ""population"" and ""area"" to such items will give no big problems (as far as I know, I'm not an expert of the organisation of NY). But I see some cases where ""city"" and ""island"" are used in the same item. Since ""population"" and ""area"" most often isn't exactly the same for the island as for the city, we will have some serious problems in those cases. Is the area-property for the island or for the city ? We can add qualifiers to solve it, but it would result in the Wikidata-version of . -- ( ) I see migration a little bit larger. Certainly, one question is with which property the old one should be replaced. The proposal was to take . But in the discussion above it become clear that this will not be the end. Let me cite Emw from above: "" should generally have one value, not many values as often seen in items maintained by the country subdivisions task force"". Thus, it is really not clear how to replace the (multiple) statements on the same object. Another question is how can we manage the statement and for example enforce that the general object is not used as an administrative value. There are people who are working at the constraint violations, see . How would you migrate the constraints at ? How would you migrate constraints on other properties containing P132? I haven't read a word about that here. There is also a lot of work to be done on the ontology involving administrative units. And yes, I will help to reorganize stuff. But for the moment I guess it is easier to work in a seperate property. -- ( ) I guess it is less of a problem to combine ""city in U.S."" with ""spa town"" or ""town in U.S."" with ""county seat"". I see no problems there. There are also for example some ""county in New York state"" who are ""borough in New York city"" at the same time, without any serious problems. Adding ""population"" and ""area"" to such items will give no big problems (as far as I know, I'm not an expert of the organisation of NY). But I see some cases where ""city"" and ""island"" are used in the same item. Since ""population"" and ""area"" most often isn't exactly the same for the island as for the city, we will have some serious problems in those cases. Is the area-property for the island or for the city ? We can add qualifiers to solve it, but it would result in the Wikidata-version of . -- ( ) I guess it is less of a problem to combine ""city in U.S."" with ""spa town"" or ""town in U.S."" with ""county seat"". I see no problems there. There are also for example some ""county in New York state"" who are ""borough in New York city"" at the same time, without any serious problems. Adding ""population"" and ""area"" to such items will give no big problems (as far as I know, I'm not an expert of the organisation of NY). But I see some cases where ""city"" and ""island"" are used in the same item. Since ""population"" and ""area"" most often isn't exactly the same for the island as for the city, we will have some serious problems in those cases. Is the area-property for the island or for the city ? We can add qualifiers to solve it, but it would result in the Wikidata-version of . -- ( ) [MASK] until there is an acceptable migration path. -- I now vote replace with . I have sometimes found it more or less difficult to find a good definition of what is an ""administrative division"". When the administrative function of a unit has been deprecated or when the administrative function is of less importance, I have seen it been questioned if P132 should be used. That is why I already now use P31 in Swedish urban areas. In the same way I guess you can ask yourself how much administration is today connected to Countys in some parts of New England. -- ( ) Delete and replace with . Agree with and the above of . Whether a class is administrative or not can be defined on the class level. ( ) [MASK] . This property can be used to create a nice hierarchy of administrative divisions. I'm not clear how this can be done with P31. Many infoboxes want to know the administrative division where something is located. I'm not clear how this can be easily determined without this property. [MASK] and get the devs to create a 'Subproperty' property then declare this a subproperty of P31. ( ) ""a nice hierarchy of administrative divisions"" would be nice to have. But ,when I edit about Sweden, I do not find any ""nice hierarchy"", I'm afraid. -- ( ) P31 is based on rdf:type, and subproperties of rdf:type are not valid in OWL DL. Thus, I think it would be a bad idea to create subproperties of P31. More: . ( ) That does not address the concern published. ( ) @ - As I wrote: ""Whether a class is administrative or not can be defined on the class level."". If A is an instance of B and B is a subclass of ""administrative unit"", then the information is there to create a tree. If you don't understand it, please tell. ( ) ""a nice hierarchy of administrative divisions"" would be nice to have. But ,when I edit about Sweden, I do not find any ""nice hierarchy"", I'm afraid. -- ( ) ""a nice hierarchy of administrative divisions"" would be nice to have. But ,when I edit about Sweden, I do not find any ""nice hierarchy"", I'm afraid. -- ( ) P31 is based on rdf:type, and subproperties of rdf:type are not valid in OWL DL. Thus, I think it would be a bad idea to create subproperties of P31. More: . ( ) That does not address the concern published. ( ) That does not address the concern published. ( ) @ - As I wrote: ""Whether a class is administrative or not can be defined on the class level."". If A is an instance of B and B is a subclass of ""administrative unit"", then the information is there to create a tree. If you don't understand it, please tell. ( ) The hierarchy of administrative divisions are organized through subclass trees. The exact structure is being discussed at -- ( ) The hierarchy of administrative divisions are organized through subclass trees. The exact structure is being discussed at -- ( ) Delete I think my comment as a delete should come as no surprise; I have—like Emw (maybe because of him? :)—systematically argued for deletion of type properties. The information of necessity can be and is captured through the use of . -- ( ) My last comment to , maybe is an argument to split a lot of items about administrative entities. If it is done, I think there will be easier to make the merge of P132 and P31 possible. It demands us to use P31 with more care. -- ( ) My last comment to , maybe is an argument to split a lot of items about administrative entities. If it is done, I think there will be easier to make the merge of P132 and P31 possible. It demands us to use P31 with more care. -- ( ) [MASK] :P31 is no alternative, following Pasleim and Holger-- ( ) Comment , Pasleim changed to ""delete"". Comment , Pasleim changed to ""delete"". [MASK] P31 is (mis)used for a lot of claims causing that property field to be overpopulated. P132 offer a much more distinct and clear definition for administrative subdivisions. / I agree that the misuse of P31 is a BIG BIG problem. When I look around in some nations, I see that P31 already is used instead of P132. And I guess, that the rank-tool maybe can solve the problem with the misuse of P31? -- ( ) I agree that the misuse of P31 is a BIG BIG problem. When I look around in some nations, I see that P31 already is used instead of P132. And I guess, that the rank-tool maybe can solve the problem with the misuse of P31? -- ( ) [MASK] All discussion before show that we need to [MASK] that property. -- ( ) [MASK] ( ) Delete , per , me. For consistency in the datas mostly. Delete because in my eyes it does not bring advantages over , it rather introduces new problems as stated above. Especially agree with . ( ) Delete per and . ( ) [MASK] Not everything can be done with P31. And we must have in mind that information should be easy to be reused. Looking up in the tree of P31 for which one is the administrative division, is really complicated and expensive. - I'll ask details. We discussed a lot about that and we did not find anything that can't be done with . We even proposed mechanisms that will simplify the subclass tree, which would not be simpler with a dedicated property, by the way. I'll ask details. We discussed a lot about that and we did not find anything that can't be done with . We even proposed mechanisms that will simplify the subclass tree, which would not be simpler with a dedicated property, by the way. [MASK] makes the geographic structure easy to identify and maintain. ----- [MASK] Not everything can be altered with P31. by at Delete ( ) Delete Redundant. ( ) Delete , after some practice, the redundancy does not appear practical. One reason I was a bit reluctant to use P31 here is that tP31 is apparently assumeed to represent a stable feature of the item while administrative status changes with time, but using a different property for that does not appear to do any good. -- ( ) Comment As of today there are 20 delete (incl. 1 replace with P31) and 12 [MASK]. Some original ""[MASK]"" have been changed by the respective users to ""delete"", e.g. see and (stroke and voted further down). Could review and maybe clarify his [MASK]? If my opinion concerning this procedure is not clear, here I confirm my Delete . A question: is it possible to transform this property in ""subproperty"" of P31, when statement of property will be available? -- ( ) If my opinion concerning this procedure is not clear, here I confirm my Delete . A question: is it possible to transform this property in ""subproperty"" of P31, when statement of property will be available? -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: type_of_administrative_territorial_entity_(P132): Property was [MASK], no more discussion here needed. -- ( ) Property was [MASK], no more discussion here needed. -- ( ) Saying that an item is a ""province of Russia"", whilst ""province of Russia"" is a subClassOf ""administrative entity"" implies that the item is an ""administrative entity"". That is the core of classification. ( ) But I'm not saying someplace is 'province of Russia'. I'm say it is 'administrative entity' and 'province of Russia'. The reason for doing this is so the hierarchy of 'administrative entities' is kept separate from all the other things which a 'province of Russia' might be an ( ) I don't know what Vladimir meant with a ""province of Russia"" and what that would be. But if there is an item that has ""type of adm. entity=province of Russia"", then it should also have ""instance of=province of Russia"". ""instance of"" should be as precise as possible, that is done so for mountains, lakes, ships, cars . ... I don't know why you want to [MASK] the ""hierarchy of administrative entities"" separate and what that would be. ""New York State"" is an instance of a U.S. state. P132 and P31 have exactly the same value. P31 could also have ""entity that has a name start with the letter N."" Then instanceOf contains other data than ""administrative hierarchy"" but the administrative hierarchy is still there. ""US state"" is in the subclass tree for administrative territorial entities. ""entity that has a name start with the letter N."" is not, since a natter is not an administrative entity, but starts with N (in English). If P31 and P132 are filled correctly, then the P132 values will for every item also exist in P31. Duplication increases maintenance work. Every edit in P132 also has to be done in P31. ( ) : humans are all identified as ""instance of:human"" not ""instance of""football player"" or ""instance of:politician"" or ""instance of:U.S.citizen"" or ""instance of:person born in Malta"" so it is incorrect to say that 'instance of' is always as precise as possible. If that were so then there are a lot of other properties which could also be replaced by 'instance of' - properties like ""genre"" for instance which is used with ""instance of:novel"" and ""instance of:film"" and other types of creative work to add precision. ( ) : Thanks a lot for pointing me to this error I made! My statement was wrong. I am now thinking about the difference. The subclasses for humans that you mentioned can all be described by the class human and a few additional properties - and no more. A U.S. state, a province of Russia, a province of Spain, a province of Canada cannot be described that easy. They are all organizational units that claim some relation to a specified territory. They can differ in official designation (state/province...), how the head -if any - is selected (appointment, election), what functions/rights they have, .... One could also ask whether there is a single ""instance of"" claim or several. Some administrative entity items have several, but most have one. Those that have several could in some cases be split, e.g. if the only reason for having it combined is coincidence of boundaries, like in some English Wikipedia articles, e.g. several islands and administrative entities are combined. Do you think that could be an important difference - the number of properties that can be attached to a class (human/administrative entity) to describe the subclass (politician, U.S. citizen/ province of Spain)? ( ) But I'm not saying someplace is 'province of Russia'. I'm say it is 'administrative entity' and 'province of Russia'. The reason for doing this is so the hierarchy of 'administrative entities' is kept separate from all the other things which a 'province of Russia' might be an ( ) I don't know what Vladimir meant with a ""province of Russia"" and what that would be. But if there is an item that has ""type of adm. entity=province of Russia"", then it should also have ""instance of=province of Russia"". ""instance of"" should be as precise as possible, that is done so for mountains, lakes, ships, cars .... I don't know why you want to [MASK] the ""hierarchy of administrative entities"" separate and what that would be. ""New York State"" is an instance of a U.S. state. P132 and P31 have exactly the same value. P31 could also have ""entity that has a name start with the letter N. "" Then instanceOf contains other data than ""administrative hierarchy"" but the administrative hierarchy is still there. ""US state"" is in the subclass tree for administrative territorial entities. ""entity that has a name start with the letter N. "" is not, since a natter is not an administrative entity, but starts with N (in English). If P31 and P132 are filled correctly, then the P132 values will for every item also exist in P31. Duplication increases maintenance work. Every edit in P132 also has to be done in P31. ( ) : humans are all identified as ""instance of:human"" not ""instance of""football player"" or ""instance of:politician"" or ""instance of:U.S.citizen"" or ""instance of:person born in Malta"" so it is incorrect to say that 'instance of' is always as precise as possible. If that were so then there are a lot of other properties which could also be replaced by 'instance of' - properties like ""genre"" for instance which is used with ""instance of:novel"" and ""instance of:film"" and other types of creative work to add precision. ( ) : Thanks a lot for pointing me to this error I made! My statement was wrong. I am now thinking about the difference. The subclasses for humans that you mentioned can all be described by the class human and a few additional properties - and no more. A U.S. state, a province of Russia, a province of Spain, a province of Canada cannot be described that easy. They are all organizational units that claim some relation to a specified territory. They can differ in official designation (state/province...), how the head -if any - is selected (appointment, election), what functions/rights they have, . ... One could also ask whether there is a single ""instance of"" claim or several. Some administrative entity items have several, but most have one. Those that have several could in some cases be split, e.g. if the only reason for having it combined is coincidence of boundaries, like in some English Wikipedia articles, e.g. several islands and administrative entities are combined. Do you think that could be an important difference - the number of properties that can be attached to a class (human/administrative entity) to describe the subclass (politician, U.S. citizen/ province of Spain)? ( ) I don't know what Vladimir meant with a ""province of Russia"" and what that would be. But if there is an item that has ""type of adm. entity=province of Russia"", then it should also have ""instance of=province of Russia"". ""instance of"" should be as precise as possible, that is done so for mountains, lakes, ships, cars . ... I don't know why you want to [MASK] the ""hierarchy of administrative entities"" separate and what that would be. ""New York State"" is an instance of a U.S. state. P132 and P31 have exactly the same value. P31 could also have ""entity that has a name start with the letter N."" Then instanceOf contains other data than ""administrative hierarchy"" but the administrative hierarchy is still there. ""US state"" is in the subclass tree for administrative territorial entities. ""entity that has a name start with the letter N."" is not, since a natter is not an administrative entity, but starts with N (in English). If P31 and P132 are filled correctly, then the P132 values will for every item also exist in P31. Duplication increases maintenance work. Every edit in P132 also has to be done in P31. ( ) : humans are all identified as ""instance of:human"" not ""instance of""football player"" or ""instance of:politician"" or ""instance of:U.S.citizen"" or ""instance of:person born in Malta"" so it is incorrect to say that 'instance of' is always as precise as possible. If that were so then there are a lot of other properties which could also be replaced by 'instance of' - properties like ""genre"" for instance which is used with ""instance of:novel"" and ""instance of:film"" and other types of creative work to add precision. ( ) : Thanks a lot for pointing me to this error I made! My statement was wrong. I am now thinking about the difference. The subclasses for humans that you mentioned can all be described by the class human and a few additional properties - and no more. A U.S. state, a province of Russia, a province of Spain, a province of Canada cannot be described that easy. They are all organizational units that claim some relation to a specified territory. They can differ in official designation (state/province...), how the head -if any - is selected (appointment, election), what functions/rights they have, .... One could also ask whether there is a single ""instance of"" claim or several. Some administrative entity items have several, but most have one. Those that have several could in some cases be split, e.g. if the only reason for having it combined is coincidence of boundaries, like in some English Wikipedia articles, e.g. several islands and administrative entities are combined. Do you think that could be an important difference - the number of properties that can be attached to a class (human/administrative entity) to describe the subclass (politician, U.S. citizen/ province of Spain)? ( ) : humans are all identified as ""instance of:human"" not ""instance of""football player"" or ""instance of:politician"" or ""instance of:U.S.citizen"" or ""instance of:person born in Malta"" so it is incorrect to say that 'instance of' is always as precise as possible. If that were so then there are a lot of other properties which could also be replaced by 'instance of' - properties like ""genre"" for instance which is used with ""instance of:novel"" and ""instance of:film"" and other types of creative work to add precision. ( ) : Thanks a lot for pointing me to this error I made! My statement was wrong. I am now thinking about the difference. The subclasses for humans that you mentioned can all be described by the class human and a few additional properties - and no more. A U.S. state, a province of Russia, a province of Spain, a province of Canada cannot be described that easy. They are all organizational units that claim some relation to a specified territory. They can differ in official designation (state/province...), how the head -if any - is selected (appointment, election), what functions/rights they have, . ... One could also ask whether there is a single ""instance of"" claim or several. Some administrative entity items have several, but most have one. Those that have several could in some cases be split, e.g. if the only reason for having it combined is coincidence of boundaries, like in some English Wikipedia articles, e.g. several islands and administrative entities are combined. Do you think that could be an important difference - the number of properties that can be attached to a class (human/administrative entity) to describe the subclass (politician, U.S. citizen/ province of Spain)? ( ) : humans are all identified as ""instance of:human"" not ""instance of""football player"" or ""instance of:politician"" or ""instance of:U.S.citizen"" or ""instance of:person born in Malta"" so it is incorrect to say that 'instance of' is always as precise as possible. If that were so then there are a lot of other properties which could also be replaced by 'instance of' - properties like ""genre"" for instance which is used with ""instance of:novel"" and ""instance of:film"" and other types of creative work to add precision. ( ) : Thanks a lot for pointing me to this error I made! My statement was wrong. I am now thinking about the difference. The subclasses for humans that you mentioned can all be described by the class human and a few additional properties - and no more. A U.S. state, a province of Russia, a province of Spain, a province of Canada cannot be described that easy. They are all organizational units that claim some relation to a specified territory. They can differ in official designation (state/province...), how the head -if any - is selected (appointment, election), what functions/rights they have, .... One could also ask whether there is a single ""instance of"" claim or several. Some administrative entity items have several, but most have one. Those that have several could in some cases be split, e.g. if the only reason for having it combined is coincidence of boundaries, like in some English Wikipedia articles, e.g. several islands and administrative entities are combined. Do you think that could be an important difference - the number of properties that can be attached to a class (human/administrative entity) to describe the subclass (politician, U.S. citizen/ province of Spain)? ( ) : Thanks a lot for pointing me to this error I made! My statement was wrong. I am now thinking about the difference. The subclasses for humans that you mentioned can all be described by the class human and a few additional properties - and no more. A U.S. state, a province of Russia, a province of Spain, a province of Canada cannot be described that easy. They are all organizational units that claim some relation to a specified territory. They can differ in official designation (state/province...), how the head -if any - is selected (appointment, election), what functions/rights they have, .... One could also ask whether there is a single ""instance of"" claim or several. Some administrative entity items have several, but most have one. Those that have several could in some cases be split, e.g. if the only reason for having it combined is coincidence of boundaries, like in some English Wikipedia articles, e.g. several islands and administrative entities are combined. Do you think that could be an important difference - the number of properties that can be attached to a class (human/administrative entity) to describe the subclass (politician, U.S. citizen/ province of Spain)? ( ) Due to request on my user talk page, I will reopen to discuss the new proposal. however, will going to delete for sure.-- ( ) - the ""new proposal"" was started by a user that voted [MASK]. No one else supported the new proposal, the only other that talked opposed it. The user that asked for reopening is also one that voted [MASK]. I think if they want a new property they should seek another venue. Also the reasoning by the reopen requester "" It's not even sure that people who voted once are still active user or haven't changed theirs minds. "" can be taken for both directions. Even more, since two voters switched from [MASK] to Delete, it could be argued that more would switch in the direction of Delete. I propose to re-close so that the whole thread can be properly archived, otherwise it may stay here for another year. ( ) - the ""new proposal"" was started by a user that voted [MASK]. No one else supported the new proposal, the only other that talked opposed it. The user that asked for reopening is also one that voted [MASK]. I think if they want a new property they should seek another venue. Also the reasoning by the reopen requester "" It's not even sure that people who voted once are still active user or haven't changed theirs minds. "" can be taken for both directions. Even more, since two voters switched from [MASK] to Delete, it could be argued that more would switch in the direction of Delete. I propose to re-close so that the whole thread can be properly archived, otherwise it may stay here for another year. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: number_of_platform_tracks_(P1103): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] , now I can query the value using simple construction: {{#property:P1103}}. Is there so simple way to query value in suggested case? Railway station contains many thinks except platforms (ways, buildings and etc.). But we have information about platforms and ways only for the most stations. It is bad situation use property with incomplete lists. Something like < > and . — ( ) [MASK] . As I read the description of , it is the opposite of . That means that cannot be replaced by as that would mix instances of a railway stations with the generel concept of perrons. For instance you cannot say < 13>, because you would not claim < >. So this proposal would radical change how another property is used without discussion of this first. I do not oppose to replacing several properties into one, but the proposal must provide a good replacement. Regards, ( ) Using the paradigm described by the [MASK]-voters would imply that we need an abundance of ""number of ..."" properties like ""number of gun barrels"" for weapons, ""number of pylons"" and/or ""number of arcs"" for bridges, ""number of hardpoints"" for aircraft, etc, etc. Better then to use the generic method described in the delete-proposal. / @ :: I really do not understand your comment. The two [MASK]-voters above use very different arguments, and if you read my vote above you will see that I would not like to see an abundance of ""number of ..."" properties, but that I do not think that the proposed replacement is good. But come with a better replacement, and I am likely to support you. Regards, ( ) As I understand it, Ivan wants to [MASK] this property because it is easier to make queries. A vaild point, but a quite weak one. He also says it is bad with incomplete lists of . I think that is inevitable. You want to [MASK] this property because you say ""you can not use that way without violating the constraints"". First of all I believe that constraint is wrong. definitly has parts that are . Secondly, numbers over ten thousand, and so does the constraint violations of most well-used properties. Does anyone care about constraints anyway? If the constraints was enforced by the GUI it would be a different matter, but ""inverse"" constraints can not be enforced because one of them have to be added first. Furthermore, this boils down to two paradigms: Using one or a few generic propreties with qualifiers to build the structure of Wikidata. Or creating a new property for every need. The first paradigm means and will have to go. The second paradigm means we can [MASK] them. The second paradigm also means we have to create lots of similar properties. I can see two arguments for the first paradigm. First, the biggest obstacle for me when entering data into Wikidata is that I don't know what properties there are that I can use for the data I have. Even more properties won't make it any easier. Second, for every statement like ""this item has a number of X"" there will in most cases not exist any property ""number of X"", but there will almost certanly exist an item about X. / @ :: I do not talk about constraints as checked by bots (I do think these are very useful, but they are in no way authoritative). I talk about what is stated on each property's talk page about their intended usage. And you propose here to change the significance of . I think that it is bad idea to do that, as that would mean that the property would suddenly have two different ways to be used. Instead , I would prefer a new property designed to replace the properties. And before one exists, I cannot support deletion of these. Regards, ( ) @ : I think Dipsacus fullonum's point is that we should not use < > because platform is a class rather than a concrete object and -relatedly- there can be instances of platforms outside Copenhagen station. That may be a trick question abut that would deserve wider discussion than this deletion proposal. -- ( ) Using the paradigm described by the [MASK]-voters would imply that we need an abundance of ""number of ..."" properties like ""number of gun barrels"" for weapons, ""number of pylons"" and/or ""number of arcs"" for bridges, ""number of hardpoints"" for aircraft, etc, etc. Better then to use the generic method described in the delete-proposal. / @ :: I really do not understand your comment. The two [MASK]-voters above use very different arguments, and if you read my vote above you will see that I would not like to see an abundance of ""number of ..."" properties, but that I do not think that the proposed replacement is good. But come with a better replacement, and I am likely to support you. Regards, ( ) As I understand it, Ivan wants to [MASK] this property because it is easier to make queries. A vaild point, but a quite weak one. He also says it is bad with incomplete lists of . I think that is inevitable. You want to [MASK] this property because you say ""you can not use that way without violating the constraints"". First of all I believe that constraint is wrong. definitly has parts that are . Secondly, numbers over ten thousand, and so does the constraint violations of most well-used properties. Does anyone care about constraints anyway? If the constraints was enforced by the GUI it would be a different matter, but ""inverse"" constraints can not be enforced because one of them have to be added first. Furthermore, this boils down to two paradigms: Using one or a few generic propreties with qualifiers to build the structure of Wikidata. Or creating a new property for every need. The first paradigm means and will have to go. The second paradigm means we can [MASK] them. The second paradigm also means we have to create lots of similar properties. I can see two arguments for the first paradigm. First, the biggest obstacle for me when entering data into Wikidata is that I don't know what properties there are that I can use for the data I have. Even more properties won't make it any easier. Second, for every statement like ""this item has a number of X"" there will in most cases not exist any property ""number of X"", but there will almost certanly exist an item about X. / @ :: I do not talk about constraints as checked by bots (I do think these are very useful, but they are in no way authoritative). I talk about what is stated on each property's talk page about their intended usage. And you propose here to change the significance of . I think that it is bad idea to do that, as that would mean that the property would suddenly have two different ways to be used. Instead , I would prefer a new property designed to replace the properties. And before one exists, I cannot support deletion of these. Regards, ( ) @ : I think Dipsacus fullonum's point is that we should not use < > because platform is a class rather than a concrete object and -relatedly- there can be instances of platforms outside Copenhagen station. That may be a trick question abut that would deserve wider discussion than this deletion proposal. -- ( ) @ :: I really do not understand your comment. The two [MASK]-voters above use very different arguments, and if you read my vote above you will see that I would not like to see an abundance of ""number of ..."" properties, but that I do not think that the proposed replacement is good. But come with a better replacement, and I am likely to support you. Regards, ( ) As I understand it, Ivan wants to [MASK] this property because it is easier to make queries. A vaild point, but a quite weak one. He also says it is bad with incomplete lists of . I think that is inevitable. You want to [MASK] this property because you say ""you can not use that way without violating the constraints"". First of all I believe that constraint is wrong. definitly has parts that are . Secondly, numbers over ten thousand, and so does the constraint violations of most well-used properties. Does anyone care about constraints anyway? If the constraints was enforced by the GUI it would be a different matter, but ""inverse"" constraints can not be enforced because one of them have to be added first. Furthermore, this boils down to two paradigms: Using one or a few generic propreties with qualifiers to build the structure of Wikidata. Or creating a new property for every need. The first paradigm means and will have to go. The second paradigm means we can [MASK] them. The second paradigm also means we have to create lots of similar properties. I can see two arguments for the first paradigm. First, the biggest obstacle for me when entering data into Wikidata is that I don't know what properties there are that I can use for the data I have. Even more properties won't make it any easier. Second, for every statement like ""this item has a number of X"" there will in most cases not exist any property ""number of X"", but there will almost certanly exist an item about X. / @ :: I do not talk about constraints as checked by bots (I do think these are very useful, but they are in no way authoritative). I talk about what is stated on each property's talk page about their intended usage. And you propose here to change the significance of . I think that it is bad idea to do that, as that would mean that the property would suddenly have two different ways to be used. Instead , I would prefer a new property designed to replace the properties. And before one exists, I cannot support deletion of these. Regards, ( ) @ : I think Dipsacus fullonum's point is that we should not use < > because platform is a class rather than a concrete object and -relatedly- there can be instances of platforms outside Copenhagen station. That may be a trick question abut that would deserve wider discussion than this deletion proposal. -- ( ) As I understand it, Ivan wants to [MASK] this property because it is easier to make queries. A vaild point, but a quite weak one. He also says it is bad with incomplete lists of . I think that is inevitable. You want to [MASK] this property because you say ""you can not use that way without violating the constraints"". First of all I believe that constraint is wrong. definitly has parts that are . Secondly, numbers over ten thousand, and so does the constraint violations of most well-used properties. Does anyone care about constraints anyway? If the constraints was enforced by the GUI it would be a different matter, but ""inverse"" constraints can not be enforced because one of them have to be added first. Furthermore, this boils down to two paradigms: Using one or a few generic propreties with qualifiers to build the structure of Wikidata. Or creating a new property for every need. The first paradigm means and will have to go. The second paradigm means we can [MASK] them. The second paradigm also means we have to create lots of similar properties. I can see two arguments for the first paradigm. First, the biggest obstacle for me when entering data into Wikidata is that I don't know what properties there are that I can use for the data I have. Even more properties won't make it any easier. Second, for every statement like ""this item has a number of X"" there will in most cases not exist any property ""number of X"", but there will almost certanly exist an item about X. / @ :: I do not talk about constraints as checked by bots (I do think these are very useful, but they are in no way authoritative). I talk about what is stated on each property's talk page about their intended usage. And you propose here to change the significance of . I think that it is bad idea to do that, as that would mean that the property would suddenly have two different ways to be used. Instead , I would prefer a new property designed to replace the properties. And before one exists, I cannot support deletion of these. Regards, ( ) @ : I think Dipsacus fullonum's point is that we should not use < > because platform is a class rather than a concrete object and -relatedly- there can be instances of platforms outside Copenhagen station. That may be a trick question abut that would deserve wider discussion than this deletion proposal. -- ( ) @ :: I do not talk about constraints as checked by bots (I do think these are very useful, but they are in no way authoritative). I talk about what is stated on each property's talk page about their intended usage. And you propose here to change the significance of . I think that it is bad idea to do that, as that would mean that the property would suddenly have two different ways to be used. Instead , I would prefer a new property designed to replace the properties. And before one exists, I cannot support deletion of these. Regards, ( ) @ : I think Dipsacus fullonum's point is that we should not use < > because platform is a class rather than a concrete object and -relatedly- there can be instances of platforms outside Copenhagen station. That may be a trick question abut that would deserve wider discussion than this deletion proposal. -- ( ) @ : I think Dipsacus fullonum's point is that we should not use < > because platform is a class rather than a concrete object and -relatedly- there can be instances of platforms outside Copenhagen station. That may be a trick question abut that would deserve wider discussion than this deletion proposal. -- ( ) [MASK] per Dipsacus fullonum. — Delete per proposer. ( ) [MASK] per 3 {{ }} ers above, P527+1114 could be unfair for dozens of East Asian stations. -- ( ) [MASK] it's important to say a station has < 0>, but il would be very weird to have < 0>. So [MASK] this propertu very useful for infoboxes. ( ) [MASK] : ""number of platforms"" ( ): per . --- [MASK] can use on many Korean train station-- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: pseudonym_(P742): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Comment Than we have to rename P1449 first. A nickname is if I call you ""Putty"". A pseudonym is something else. -- ( ) I agree that nickname and pseudonym are two dirfferent concepts. Enough different to have separate properties. On the other hand, a change of to a monolingual text instead of string would be a desirable progress.-- ( ) I agree that nickname and pseudonym are two dirfferent concepts. Enough different to have separate properties. On the other hand, a change of to a monolingual text instead of string would be a desirable progress. -- ( ) Question Are either of these distinct enough from the ""also known as"" / ""aliases"" field at the top of the page? ( ) The main function of is for searching on Wikidata. The main function of properties is for structuring information. They can also be used in infoboxes on Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia projects). ( ) The main function of is for searching on Wikidata. The main function of properties is for structuring information. They can also be used in infoboxes on Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia projects). ( ) [MASK] . A nickname is not the same as a pseudonym. We also need , , , and nom de guerre. ( ) [MASK] ""pseudonym"" ( ): not the same as ""nickname"" . --- [MASK] Agree that a pseudonym is a very specific type of name separate from . ( ) [MASK] Agree. Maybe should be of . -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P198_(P198): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Comment Next to ""ship class"" which is redundant with ""instanceOf"", ""ship builder"" is redundant with ""manufacturer"". Pinging creator and sole proposer : . ( ) [MASK] ""ship builder"" may be redundant with ""manufacturer"", but ""ship class"" is definitly not redundant with ""instance of"". The now [MASK] property (watercraft type) was, but is not! / , you probably want to make that comment above. ! Voting to [MASK] this property doesn't make sense with your comment. -- ( ) Thanks fot the heads-up, . I cancel my vote. / , you probably want to make that comment above. ! Voting to [MASK] this property doesn't make sense with your comment. -- ( ) Thanks fot the heads-up, . I cancel my vote. / Thanks fot the heads-up, . I cancel my vote. / Delete , per Andrea Shan. ( ) [MASK] ""ship builder"" ( ): ""builder"" is more appropriate than ""manufacturer"" for ships. --- Where is the proof for that bogus claim? P176 reads ""main manufacturer of this product (excluding sub-contracted manufacturers)"". Does care to specify what with P176 is less appropriate for ships that P198? ( ) This is an English problem, not a conceptual problem. This is no fondamental difference between builder or manufacturer. In other languages this difference doesn't exist. And wikidata works with concept not with English grammar. ( ) Where is the proof for that bogus claim? P176 reads ""main manufacturer of this product (excluding sub-contracted manufacturers)"". Does care to specify what with P176 is less appropriate for ships that P198? ( ) This is an English problem, not a conceptual problem. This is no fondamental difference between builder or manufacturer. In other languages this difference doesn't exist. And wikidata works with concept not with English grammar. ( ) [MASK] Property necessary for WP infoboxes. Rather make it subclassOf when that relation becomes available. -- @ : A ship infobox could simply use the value ""manufacturer""-value from the ship item in Wikidata, couldn't it? ( ) @ : A ship infobox could simply use the value ""manufacturer""-value from the ship item in Wikidata, couldn't it? ( ) Delete , per Andrea Shan. ( ) Delete seems redundant with ""manufacturer"" to me. ( ) Delete redundant as above. -- ( ) Delete Redundant. ( ) Delete ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: applies_to_jurisdiction_(P1001): consensus to delete not reached -- ( ) consensus to delete not reached -- ( ) is in jurisdiction of contains jurisdiction applies to jurisdiction Question @ : How is ""in the jurisdiction of"" different than ? And how is ""contains jurisdiction"" different than ? -- ( ) @ : So far I haven't seen any use of p131 other than to denote government-related entities. If other uses were acceptable, then I still think it is necessary to reboot p1001. It has too many inconsistent uses and the labels in other languages refer to different concepts. -- ( ) @ :: If is just for other administrative entities, I'm in trouble: I just added it to a bunch of other geographical items yesterday. I think and would work (and are being used) for the first two replacements. -- ( ) @ : So far I haven't seen any use of p131 other than to denote government-related entities. If other uses were acceptable, then I still think it is necessary to reboot p1001. It has too many inconsistent uses and the labels in other languages refer to different concepts. -- ( ) @ :: If is just for other administrative entities, I'm in trouble: I just added it to a bunch of other geographical items yesterday. I think and would work (and are being used) for the first two replacements. -- ( ) @ :: If is just for other administrative entities, I'm in trouble: I just added it to a bunch of other geographical items yesterday. I think and would work (and are being used) for the first two replacements. -- ( ) Neutral on deletion of P1001 specifically. (My only knowledge is about the suggested replacements.) -- ( ) @ : alternatively all labels and descriptions from p1001 could be [MASK] so the users can translate the current label into other languages, with the hope that the wrong uses of this properties will be corrected over time. -- ( ) @ : alternatively all labels and descriptions from p1001 could be [MASK] so the users can translate the current label into other languages, with the hope that the wrong uses of this properties will be corrected over time.-- ( ) @ : alternatively all labels and descriptions from p1001 could be [MASK] so the users can translate the current label into other languages, with the hope that the wrong uses of this properties will be corrected over time. -- ( ) Oppose deleting only to replace it with a new property which is also called 'applies to jurisdiction'. If the P1001 is being used where or are more appropriate then ammend the description to make it clearer how it should be used and add some aliases to P131 and P150 so they show up in searches for 'jurisdiction'. If there is a real use case that isn't covered by these three existing properties then propose the creation of that additional property. Nothing you have said above justifies the deletion of P1001. ( ) @ : I think you are opposing the original deletion proposal, but that has changed (see below). The current proposal is to deprecate p1001 in favour of a generic ""applies to"" property (based on ). Of course while p1001 is deprecated there would be time to move the statements either to ""is in administrative territorial entity"" or to ""applies to"".-- ( ) @ : I think you are opposing the original deletion proposal, but that has changed (see below). The current proposal is to deprecate p1001 in favour of a generic ""applies to"" property (based on ). Of course while p1001 is deprecated there would be time to move the statements either to ""is in administrative territorial entity"" or to ""applies to"". -- ( ) Delete With merge with in a general property ""applies to"". ( ) I have no objection. - ( ) Question : Is this a proposal to use in most cases, or to create a new property that is similar to P518? -- ( ) @ : I have suggested to extend (See: ), but I don't know yet if there is any objection.-- ( ) @ : I have suggested to extend (See: ), but I don't know yet if there is any objection. -- ( ) [MASK] I don't think can alter this... by at Oppose . (Abstain on whether to [MASK] or delete.) This property is problematic, but replacing it with a generic ""applies to"" leaves the meaning ambiguous, and might not work well in all languages. -- ( ) Oppose . It could be renamed, but it's an important enough statistic that we should [MASK] it. Also, Yair_rand is probably right that merging it with P:applies_to would create ambiguity in a number of languages. P:applies_to is a qualifier that means ""this property is only valid in these contexts"" whereas P:jurisdiction means ""this item only has authority over that item"". P:jurisdiction also isn't the same as P:in_administrative_entity; for example, is in England but it has jurisdiction over England and Wales while is in Wales and only has jurisdiction over Wales. The jurisdiction property could possibly also have non-geography values; for example, a medical ethics review board only has jurisdiction over registered doctors and nurses. -- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] as per above. Much as I would like a generic qualifier property like 'applies to' I think there is also a need for a specific property for jurisdiction. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: contains_settlement_(P1383): withdrawn -- ( ) withdrawn -- ( ) I don't understand your comment 'settlements are not parts of the municipality'. In my opinion villages/hamlets are part of a municipality, so we can use P527 ( ). ( ) They are not parts. They don't form a municipality. The municipality is not a collection of settlements. The municipality is an administrative entity, settlements are geographical entities. The municipality administers the settlements. The settlements belong to the jurisdiction of the municipality. They are not parts. P150 is just good, if we lift the restriction. Otherwise P1383 should be used. I don't understand why P150 is restricted. It is the same relation. -- ( ) They are not parts. They don't form a municipality. The municipality is not a collection of settlements. The municipality is an administrative entity, settlements are geographical entities. The municipality administers the settlements. The settlements belong to the jurisdiction of the municipality. They are not parts. P150 is just good, if we lift the restriction. Otherwise P1383 should be used. I don't understand why P150 is restricted. It is the same relation. -- ( ) is specifically for formal administrative entities. looks like the inverse of but can be used by informal settlements (or houses or whatever) that are located in the Administrative entity. I am happy to delete all the statements and replace them with statements in the items for the settlements where they belong. Putting a bunch of P1383 statements in the item for the Administrative entity is IMHO the wrong way to do it. ( ) just like is a property in many infoboxes. The only reason P150 can't be used is a constraint that restricts it only to administrative entities and excludes settlements that are not administrative entities. It just cuts off the last level in a hierarchy. The settlements of an administrative unit is an exact, legal fact, not among other whatevers. What property do you suggest to list them? -- ( ) excludes settlements that are not administrative entities - any example? ( ) Villages of a municipality. -- ( ) just like is a property in many infoboxes. The only reason P150 can't be used is a constraint that restricts it only to administrative entities and excludes settlements that are not administrative entities. It just cuts off the last level in a hierarchy. The settlements of an administrative unit is an exact, legal fact, not among other whatevers. What property do you suggest to list them? -- ( ) excludes settlements that are not administrative entities - any example? ( ) Villages of a municipality. -- ( ) excludes settlements that are not administrative entities - any example? ( ) Villages of a municipality. -- ( ) Villages of a municipality. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Datatype_change:_P357_(P357),_P387_(P387),_P392_(P392),_P438_(P438): consensus to change the datatype -- ( ) consensus to change the datatype -- ( ) The difference between a title and a subtitle is useful for books, articles, pamphlets, etc. -- ( ) @Dereckson: the proposal was to change the datatype, not to merge the properties. I think this should indeed be better, but, for inscriptions at least, I would rather wait until we know if we can add ""no language"" and ""language undetermined"" (see ).-- ( ) Sounds reasonable, but we can probably create monolingual-text versions of these in the meantime, even if we can't delete the old ones yet. -- ( ) Yes it may take some time to make the full conversion anyway, as we need to add the language value that for each statement, and many are probably not provided as qualfiers. Also, we should probably let the old properties coexist with the new for some time, so that clients can adapt their codes. -- ( ) Do each of these need property proposals? -- ( ) I have made a proposal for a new title property at , but it would probably have been better to make one bulk proposal. -- ( ) Support -- ( ) Sounds reasonable, but we can probably create monolingual-text versions of these in the meantime, even if we can't delete the old ones yet. -- ( ) Yes it may take some time to make the full conversion anyway, as we need to add the language value that for each statement, and many are probably not provided as qualfiers. Also, we should probably let the old properties coexist with the new for some time, so that clients can adapt their codes. -- ( ) Do each of these need property proposals? -- ( ) I have made a proposal for a new title property at , but it would probably have been better to make one bulk proposal. -- ( ) Support -- ( ) Yes it may take some time to make the full conversion anyway, as we need to add the language value that for each statement, and many are probably not provided as qualfiers. Also, we should probably let the old properties coexist with the new for some time, so that clients can adapt their codes. -- ( ) Do each of these need property proposals? -- ( ) I have made a proposal for a new title property at , but it would probably have been better to make one bulk proposal. -- ( ) Support -- ( ) Do each of these need property proposals? -- ( ) I have made a proposal for a new title property at , but it would probably have been better to make one bulk proposal. -- ( ) Support -- ( ) I have made a proposal for a new title property at , but it would probably have been better to make one bulk proposal. -- ( ) Support -- ( ) Support -- ( ) Comment I just created . -- ( ) Oppose against the change. We already have and to mark item language, enforcing language specification into every title is overcomplication. (existing of new property is not an argument -- to create new property we needed 3 people, not consensus). Also, there is still no answer what to do with artificial languages that can't be specified in drop-down list (but have appropriate q-IDs). Or what to do with titles like ""cthulhu fhtagn"" (no, that is not English). -- ( ) @ : This problem will be resolved if we can add language = uncoded languages (ISO 639-2 : ""mis""), and use / as qualifier. -- ( ) For me it still looks like creating problems instead of solving. Simple cases must be simple -- specify language once (in / ) and use qualifiers in cases of different languages. Do not force user to specify languages several times. -- ( ) Oppose @ : You've convinced me. makes things indeed more complicated. -- ( ) @ : You assume that title and subtitle are always in the same language than the text but this is not always the case. If you think about translations you have titles which are not translated (TV series or movies can [MASK] the title in the original language even if the version is in another language). I find more disturbing the use of original language and language in the same item than having to enter several times the language. It is better to lose a little more time at the beginning to enter clear data than to spend more time in the future to understand the different ways to use original language and language by several thousands of contributors. The only reason to [MASK] is if we don't have the possibility to select the proper language. And if you have a look at the monolingual version of title and subtitle was already waited. I modified the recommendations of to use and without better opposition I will launch the move from to according to the rules edited in . We can't [MASK] 2 properties for the same concept. ( ) @ : 1. no, i do not and never assumed that. But I assume (try to prove me wrong) that 99% of cases title and subtitle are in the same language. 2. Handling translations is different questions. I can hardly understand why you trying to [MASK] data ""clean"" using new datatype and at the same time keeping data ""dirty"" by placing different subjects (original movie and translations) into the same entity. 3. One can always change it back, it is not an argument. 4. You must not start any operation until we have consensus, sorry. -- ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d. .k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) @ : This problem will be resolved if we can add language = uncoded languages (ISO 639-2 : ""mis""), and use / as qualifier. -- ( ) For me it still looks like creating problems instead of solving. Simple cases must be simple -- specify language once (in / ) and use qualifiers in cases of different languages. Do not force user to specify languages several times. -- ( ) Oppose @ : You've convinced me. makes things indeed more complicated. -- ( ) @ : You assume that title and subtitle are always in the same language than the text but this is not always the case. If you think about translations you have titles which are not translated (TV series or movies can [MASK] the title in the original language even if the version is in another language). I find more disturbing the use of original language and language in the same item than having to enter several times the language. It is better to lose a little more time at the beginning to enter clear data than to spend more time in the future to understand the different ways to use original language and language by several thousands of contributors. The only reason to [MASK] is if we don't have the possibility to select the proper language. And if you have a look at the monolingual version of title and subtitle was already waited. I modified the recommendations of to use and without better opposition I will launch the move from to according to the rules edited in . We can't [MASK] 2 properties for the same concept. ( ) @ : 1. no, i do not and never assumed that. But I assume (try to prove me wrong) that 99% of cases title and subtitle are in the same language. 2. Handling translations is different questions. I can hardly understand why you trying to [MASK] data ""clean"" using new datatype and at the same time keeping data ""dirty"" by placing different subjects (original movie and translations) into the same entity. 3. One can always change it back, it is not an argument. 4. You must not start any operation until we have consensus, sorry. -- ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d..k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) For me it still looks like creating problems instead of solving. Simple cases must be simple -- specify language once (in / ) and use qualifiers in cases of different languages. Do not force user to specify languages several times. -- ( ) Oppose @ : You've convinced me. makes things indeed more complicated. -- ( ) @ : You assume that title and subtitle are always in the same language than the text but this is not always the case. If you think about translations you have titles which are not translated (TV series or movies can [MASK] the title in the original language even if the version is in another language). I find more disturbing the use of original language and language in the same item than having to enter several times the language. It is better to lose a little more time at the beginning to enter clear data than to spend more time in the future to understand the different ways to use original language and language by several thousands of contributors. The only reason to [MASK] is if we don't have the possibility to select the proper language. And if you have a look at the monolingual version of title and subtitle was already waited. I modified the recommendations of to use and without better opposition I will launch the move from to according to the rules edited in . We can't [MASK] 2 properties for the same concept. ( ) @ : 1. no, i do not and never assumed that. But I assume (try to prove me wrong) that 99% of cases title and subtitle are in the same language. 2. Handling translations is different questions. I can hardly understand why you trying to [MASK] data ""clean"" using new datatype and at the same time keeping data ""dirty"" by placing different subjects (original movie and translations) into the same entity. 3. One can always change it back, it is not an argument. 4. You must not start any operation until we have consensus, sorry. -- ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d..k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) Oppose @ : You've convinced me. makes things indeed more complicated. -- ( ) @ : You assume that title and subtitle are always in the same language than the text but this is not always the case. If you think about translations you have titles which are not translated (TV series or movies can [MASK] the title in the original language even if the version is in another language). I find more disturbing the use of original language and language in the same item than having to enter several times the language. It is better to lose a little more time at the beginning to enter clear data than to spend more time in the future to understand the different ways to use original language and language by several thousands of contributors. The only reason to [MASK] is if we don't have the possibility to select the proper language. And if you have a look at the monolingual version of title and subtitle was already waited. I modified the recommendations of to use and without better opposition I will launch the move from to according to the rules edited in . We can't [MASK] 2 properties for the same concept. ( ) @ : 1. no, i do not and never assumed that. But I assume (try to prove me wrong) that 99% of cases title and subtitle are in the same language. 2. Handling translations is different questions. I can hardly understand why you trying to [MASK] data ""clean"" using new datatype and at the same time keeping data ""dirty"" by placing different subjects (original movie and translations) into the same entity. 3. One can always change it back, it is not an argument. 4. You must not start any operation until we have consensus, sorry. -- ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d. .k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) @ : You assume that title and subtitle are always in the same language than the text but this is not always the case. If you think about translations you have titles which are not translated (TV series or movies can [MASK] the title in the original language even if the version is in another language). I find more disturbing the use of original language and language in the same item than having to enter several times the language. It is better to lose a little more time at the beginning to enter clear data than to spend more time in the future to understand the different ways to use original language and language by several thousands of contributors. The only reason to [MASK] is if we don't have the possibility to select the proper language. And if you have a look at the monolingual version of title and subtitle was already waited. I modified the recommendations of to use and without better opposition I will launch the move from to according to the rules edited in . We can't [MASK] 2 properties for the same concept. ( ) @ : 1. no, i do not and never assumed that. But I assume (try to prove me wrong) that 99% of cases title and subtitle are in the same language. 2. Handling translations is different questions. I can hardly understand why you trying to [MASK] data ""clean"" using new datatype and at the same time keeping data ""dirty"" by placing different subjects (original movie and translations) into the same entity. 3. One can always change it back, it is not an argument. 4. You must not start any operation until we have consensus, sorry. -- ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d. .k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) @ : 1. no, i do not and never assumed that. But I assume (try to prove me wrong) that 99% of cases title and subtitle are in the same language. 2. Handling translations is different questions. I can hardly understand why you trying to [MASK] data ""clean"" using new datatype and at the same time keeping data ""dirty"" by placing different subjects (original movie and translations) into the same entity. 3. One can always change it back, it is not an argument. 4. You must not start any operation until we have consensus, sorry. -- ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d. .k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) @ : The consensus for moving to exists from more than one year and was approved with the guideline for sourcing ( ). If we start to discuss again and again topics which were solved, we never take decisions. Title was ever one of the main reasons of the development of the monolingual datatype. According to the comment on this was planned and announced to everyone using that guideline. So if you want a consensus to delete , I agree and I think we have to solve exceptions before to do that, but there is no need of consensus to move to because the consensus exists already. You don't assume that 100% of the titles have the same language than the text but you assume only 99%. If you start to ask me to prove anything I can play childish and ask you to do the same. Here the question is not to know who has the longest d. .k but to think and to propose solutions which can be applied to the maximum of cases in order to avoid exceptions which are a nightmare to solve and to be sure that all contributors will apply. ""Handling translations is different questions."" No this is not a different question: again we need global solutions, for original work and their translations. Do you want to start a help page describing all different scenarios and how to solve them ? With the monolingual datatype we get ride of the difference original language and language and we don't have to start to work with qualifiers. ( ) Another thing that may be worth noticing is that most Wikipedias seem to recommend putting foreign language string inside a . Now I am not sure it is tremendously useful, but it is so widely done that I suppose there are valid reasons for it. And this can be done much more simply, and more accurately, with monoligual text than with normal strings. - ( ) The original language of the film is German. But what language is the title: Fack ju Göhte ? German or wrong spelled English? And if the title is a name like ""Anna""? The film might be French, the person whom the name belongs to English but the author has choose it because he thought of his Spanish girlfriend. -- ( ) There will be cases that are hard/impossible to determine. This is the reason behind . For titles like ""Anna"", I tend to think this should be considered to be in the same language as the original language of the movie, unless we have reasons to consider otherwise. -- ( ) @Kolja21. Very bad examples. Fack ju Göhte : Can't be wrong spelled English because English doesn't use ""¨"". ""Anna"": Can the string datatype solve that problem ? No, both string and monolingual datatypes fail to solve that problem. But you can apply the same reasoning to solve both cases: the language of the title is the same like the language of the original text/movie. ( ) The original language of the film is German. But what language is the title: Fack ju Göhte ? German or wrong spelled English? And if the title is a name like ""Anna""? The film might be French, the person whom the name belongs to English but the author has choose it because he thought of his Spanish girlfriend. -- ( ) There will be cases that are hard/impossible to determine. This is the reason behind . For titles like ""Anna"", I tend to think this should be considered to be in the same language as the original language of the movie, unless we have reasons to consider otherwise. -- ( ) @Kolja21. Very bad examples. Fack ju Göhte : Can't be wrong spelled English because English doesn't use ""¨"". ""Anna"": Can the string datatype solve that problem ? No, both string and monolingual datatypes fail to solve that problem. But you can apply the same reasoning to solve both cases: the language of the title is the same like the language of the original text/movie. ( ) There will be cases that are hard/impossible to determine. This is the reason behind . For titles like ""Anna"", I tend to think this should be considered to be in the same language as the original language of the movie, unless we have reasons to consider otherwise. -- ( ) @Kolja21. Very bad examples. Fack ju Göhte : Can't be wrong spelled English because English doesn't use ""¨"". ""Anna"": Can the string datatype solve that problem ? No, both string and monolingual datatypes fail to solve that problem. But you can apply the same reasoning to solve both cases: the language of the title is the same like the language of the original text/movie. ( ) Support , particularly for quote. The datatype should be used exclusively for non-lingual data. -- ( ) Support , agree with . The ""no language"", ""language undetermined"" and ""uncoded language"" possibilities should be added to the datatype, though.-- ( ) Support , agree with . The ""no language"", ""language undetermined"" and ""uncoded language"" possibilities should be added to the datatype, though. -- ( ) Comment Can we just change these properties' data type from string to monolingual text? Is it technically possible? If so, we do not need to delete these properties. -- ( ) it's technically not possible. -- ( ) it's technically not possible. -- ( ) Support . as Yair above. ( ) Comment As far as I understand, the main problem of switching from string to monolingual text is that we cannot omit the language when entering monolingual text. Thus, we will not be able to enter some special cases of titles, so we will either need two separate properties (which is not good) or to add special cases for the language part like ""language undefined"" or ""no language"". But if we have monolingual text with ""no language"", do we really need string data type at all? :) -- ( ) @ : String is needed. for example can not be in any languages.-- ( ) Well, String is essentially Monolingual text with ""no language"". Am I missing anything here? -- ( ) Well, String is essentially Monolingual text with ""no language"". Am I missing anything here? -- ( ) Support for quote at least; nonsensical to quote text without indicating language. -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1134_(P1134): Consensus is to merge into . ( ) Consensus is to merge into . ( ) Delete Redundant as all the other location properties. Thank you ! ( ) [MASK] Is not about a object or a event, but about place within a park, a historic district or a another non administrative unit. Distinct form and . -- ( ) You say ""Is not about a object or a event, but about place within a park"" - P276 is about the location, not an event. It can also accept a place within a park as value. ""but about place within a park, a historic district or a another non administrative unit"" - A park and a historic district are also administrative entities. ""Distinct form and ."" - But here the claim is, that it is redundant with , not with P131 or P706. Looking at some items P1134 Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, Urban agglomeration of Quebec City P1134 Western Pomerania P1134 St. Georg (Hamburg) it looks as if , and can very well handle it all. ( ) I see P1134 as usefull to link a place to a statistical or a non administrative divisions. I see more P1134 as a place in a zone and P276 as a point location. I am not sure I want to see the buildings and the event of a village like in the same property. I make me think that if we regroup P1138 and P276 and will be linked by the same proterty to . How I will be able to extract the geographical features of the park? -- ( ) It has already been decided to use P276 on events and on physical objects. Selecting geographical features of a park? Select everything that is located in the park and is a geographical feature. I think : ""claim[276:(tree[ ][][276])] and claim[31:(tree[ ][][279])]"" where location choice can be and class choice can be one of the classes that are subclasses of . Or you take the top class and remove some, e.g. remove by adding "" and noclaim[31:(tree[15642541][][279])]"". Does this help? ( ) I remember more a argument who followed the creation of , that helping. You can probably do the same query from , but nobody asked for is deletion. I am probably to stubborn to come to a compromise. -- ( ) The first item that has P1435 that I looked at is . It has ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"" : 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Île-de-France. No physical location. Also the 7th is in Paris and Paris is in Ile-de-France, so the latter two could be redundant. One reason to not delete P131 could be, that it is nothing physical. The 7th arrondissement has no mass. Crimea is an example, where different administrative entities exist in the same area - laws of physics say this is impossible. These simply are no physical objects. ( ) You say ""Is not about a object or a event, but about place within a park"" - P276 is about the location, not an event. It can also accept a place within a park as value. ""but about place within a park, a historic district or a another non administrative unit"" - A park and a historic district are also administrative entities. ""Distinct form and ."" - But here the claim is, that it is redundant with , not with P131 or P706. ""Is not about a object or a event, but about place within a park"" - P276 is about the location, not an event. It can also accept a place within a park as value. ""but about place within a park, a historic district or a another non administrative unit"" - A park and a historic district are also administrative entities. ""Distinct form and ."" - But here the claim is, that it is redundant with , not with P131 or P706. Looking at some items P1134 Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, Urban agglomeration of Quebec City P1134 Western Pomerania P1134 St. Georg (Hamburg) P1134 Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, Urban agglomeration of Quebec City P1134 Western Pomerania P1134 St. Georg (Hamburg) it looks as if , and can very well handle it all. ( ) I see P1134 as usefull to link a place to a statistical or a non administrative divisions. I see more P1134 as a place in a zone and P276 as a point location. I am not sure I want to see the buildings and the event of a village like in the same property. I make me think that if we regroup P1138 and P276 and will be linked by the same proterty to . How I will be able to extract the geographical features of the park? -- ( ) It has already been decided to use P276 on events and on physical objects. Selecting geographical features of a park? Select everything that is located in the park and is a geographical feature. I think : ""claim[276:(tree[ ][][276])] and claim[31:(tree[ ][][279])]"" where location choice can be and class choice can be one of the classes that are subclasses of . Or you take the top class and remove some, e.g. remove by adding "" and noclaim[31:(tree[15642541][][279])]"". Does this help? ( ) I remember more a argument who followed the creation of , that helping. You can probably do the same query from , but nobody asked for is deletion. I am probably to stubborn to come to a compromise. -- ( ) The first item that has P1435 that I looked at is . It has ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"" : 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Île-de-France. No physical location. Also the 7th is in Paris and Paris is in Ile-de-France, so the latter two could be redundant. One reason to not delete P131 could be, that it is nothing physical. The 7th arrondissement has no mass. Crimea is an example, where different administrative entities exist in the same area - laws of physics say this is impossible. These simply are no physical objects. ( ) I see P1134 as usefull to link a place to a statistical or a non administrative divisions. I see more P1134 as a place in a zone and P276 as a point location. I am not sure I want to see the buildings and the event of a village like in the same property. I make me think that if we regroup P1138 and P276 and will be linked by the same proterty to . How I will be able to extract the geographical features of the park? -- ( ) It has already been decided to use P276 on events and on physical objects. Selecting geographical features of a park? Select everything that is located in the park and is a geographical feature. I think : ""claim[276:(tree[ ][][276])] and claim[31:(tree[ ][][279])]"" where location choice can be and class choice can be one of the classes that are subclasses of . Or you take the top class and remove some, e.g. remove by adding "" and noclaim[31:(tree[15642541][][279])]"". Does this help? ( ) I remember more a argument who followed the creation of , that helping. You can probably do the same query from , but nobody asked for is deletion. I am probably to stubborn to come to a compromise. -- ( ) The first item that has P1435 that I looked at is . It has ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"" : 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Île-de-France. No physical location. Also the 7th is in Paris and Paris is in Ile-de-France, so the latter two could be redundant. One reason to not delete P131 could be, that it is nothing physical. The 7th arrondissement has no mass. Crimea is an example, where different administrative entities exist in the same area - laws of physics say this is impossible. These simply are no physical objects. ( ) It has already been decided to use P276 on events and on physical objects. Selecting geographical features of a park? Select everything that is located in the park and is a geographical feature. I think : ""claim[276:(tree[ ][][276])] and claim[31:(tree[ ][][279])]"" where location choice can be and class choice can be one of the classes that are subclasses of . Or you take the top class and remove some, e.g. remove by adding "" and noclaim[31:(tree[15642541][][279])]"". Does this help? ( ) I remember more a argument who followed the creation of , that helping. You can probably do the same query from , but nobody asked for is deletion. I am probably to stubborn to come to a compromise. -- ( ) The first item that has P1435 that I looked at is . It has ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"" : 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Île-de-France. No physical location. Also the 7th is in Paris and Paris is in Ile-de-France, so the latter two could be redundant. One reason to not delete P131 could be, that it is nothing physical. The 7th arrondissement has no mass. Crimea is an example, where different administrative entities exist in the same area - laws of physics say this is impossible. These simply are no physical objects. ( ) I remember more a argument who followed the creation of , that helping. You can probably do the same query from , but nobody asked for is deletion. I am probably to stubborn to come to a compromise. -- ( ) The first item that has P1435 that I looked at is . It has ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"" : 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Île-de-France. No physical location. Also the 7th is in Paris and Paris is in Ile-de-France, so the latter two could be redundant. One reason to not delete P131 could be, that it is nothing physical. The 7th arrondissement has no mass. Crimea is an example, where different administrative entities exist in the same area - laws of physics say this is impossible. These simply are no physical objects. ( ) The first item that has P1435 that I looked at is . It has ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"" : 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, Île-de-France. No physical location. Also the 7th is in Paris and Paris is in Ile-de-France, so the latter two could be redundant. One reason to not delete P131 could be, that it is nothing physical. The 7th arrondissement has no mass. Crimea is an example, where different administrative entities exist in the same area - laws of physics say this is impossible. These simply are no physical objects. ( ) uses all four location properties ( , , and ). Please tell me which one is redundant. / All beside . The other can be obtained from where is located. ( ) So can , but is it a usable data-model where most properties has to be obtained through two, three or four levels of inheritance? As long as there is no implicit inheritance-statements in Wikidata, I'd say no, it is not. / No, P17 reads ""sovereign state of this item"", it is not limited to location. All beside . The other can be obtained from where is located. ( ) So can , but is it a usable data-model where most properties has to be obtained through two, three or four levels of inheritance? As long as there is no implicit inheritance-statements in Wikidata, I'd say no, it is not. / No, P17 reads ""sovereign state of this item"", it is not limited to location. So can , but is it a usable data-model where most properties has to be obtained through two, three or four levels of inheritance? As long as there is no implicit inheritance-statements in Wikidata, I'd say no, it is not. / No, P17 reads ""sovereign state of this item"", it is not limited to location. No, P17 reads ""sovereign state of this item"", it is not limited to location. Delete . Use to give the location of an event or an object in a building, street, village etc which is smaller than an administrative territorial entity and is not a terrain feature. Use with and or omit these and figure them out from the item that points at. So we have 'location:Dutch masters gallery' which in turn has 'location:national gallery' which has 'location:Trafalgar Square' which is 'located in the administrative territorial entity:City of Westminster'. There is no reason to have both and . ( ) "" figure them out from the item that location (P276) points at "" - yes please. Comment ... but I can see editors choosing 'location:Dutch masters gallery' which is 'part of:national gallery' (and allows a transitive relationship between a museum and its galleries). So a pure location walk up the tree wouldn't work - queries would need to consider both location and part relationships. - ( ) "" figure them out from the item that location (P276) points at "" - yes please. Comment ... but I can see editors choosing 'location:Dutch masters gallery' which is 'part of:national gallery' (and allows a transitive relationship between a museum and its galleries). So a pure location walk up the tree wouldn't work - queries would need to consider both location and part relationships. - ( ) Delete per Michiel1972 and others ... redundant. ( ) Comment I'm not sure is a fusion-deletion is the best option. Shouldn't we think about re-organizing these properties ? For me is not just about location but far more precise : the location is not just any place but an administrative territorial entity, and the item is not just in this entity but belongs to this entity (with implications for the laws for instance). Idem for , it's not just a location it's about ecosystem and natural stuff too. When the location is not administrative nor « geo-physical-natural-whatever » (it could be statistical, sociologic, historical, traditionnal, fictionnal, etc.), seems the right property to me. In the same spirit, on the french Wikipédia, we have several articles for similar thing. Eg. and (I took a simple one), what properties should be use to describe the relation beetween this two items ? An other correlated point : how should we use these properties ? Eg. wich has not really been cleared. Cdlt, ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1306_(P1306): [MASK] [MASK] Delete Merge with since don't have a external link. -- ( ) Note we also have and .-- ( ) Delete Merge with . ( ) Delete Per Kvardek du. ( ) Comment odd that it's unused. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: date_of_baptism_(P1636): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Just convert those to P1636. The preference is to use specific properties rather than one property with thousands of qualifiers. --- Thousands of qualifiers? For ""dates of "" one only needs and this exists already. So instead of date of baptism, date of burial, date of funeral, date of marriage, date of care incident, date of assault, date of dating, date of retirement ( ), one uses and . What further qualifiers do you think of? ( ) @ : Could you please give a link to the RFC where this was discussed ? ( ) No idea, but the result on the development plan is that . --- Thousands of qualifiers? For ""dates of "" one only needs and this exists already. So instead of date of baptism, date of burial, date of funeral, date of marriage, date of care incident, date of assault, date of dating, date of retirement ( ), one uses and . What further qualifiers do you think of? ( ) @ : Could you please give a link to the RFC where this was discussed ? ( ) No idea, but the result on the development plan is that . --- No idea, but the result on the development plan is that . --- Comment At said: "" 'More direct' time (and location) properties means a special time (and location) property for every type of event. Hundreds of them. With users having to try and find the right one. This is not better. "" and supported the creation. Then suddenly a dedicated property P1636 is created, but this does not allow to store the location. One would need an extra one for this. And then, maybe one wants baptizer. So, one has three new properties. And the information related to one event is spread between several properties. ( ) "" 'More direct' time (and location) properties means a special time (and location) property for every type of event. Hundreds of them. With users having to try and find the right one. This is not better. "" and supported the creation. Then suddenly a dedicated property P1636 is created, but this does not allow to store the location. One would need an extra one for this. And then, maybe one wants baptizer. So, one has three new properties. And the information related to one event is spread between several properties. ( ) @ : Ayack, you created the property. Do you know where the proposal is? - About this deletion request: The two end-members of this discussion are either ""one property for all events with qualifiers being used to further describe the events"" and ""specific properties for any possible event with qualifiers only used for clarifications"". In any case I don't think we should take the appearance in the Wikidata-interface into consideration. Wikidata is somewhat of a hybrid between a data-entry form and a data-view. The data is going to be ""unübersichtlich"" (is unoverviewability a English word?) in either case and special database-view might need to be developed for domain-specific knowledge. (The secret behind ""big data"" is probably filtering 99.99 % of the information you don't want to see). See . — ( ) See . — ( ) 1)There is no filtering. The UI is as it is. Apart from UI problems: there can be several weddings and divorces, then one has to connect time/location/partner properties for each - how is this done? At I wanted to add the baptizer, but I found no generic ""event/action carried out by"". Now, it there is time of baptism and in future location of baptism, then one also needs baptizer. It doesn't scale. ( ) 2) ""specific properties for any possible event with qualifiers only used for clarifications"" - There are ~8000 subclasses of . If one needs on average two properties, that would be 16 000. Good luck. ( ) @ : Actually it does scale. We already have more than 1600 properties so 16000 is just one order of magnitude more. Increasing this number should not influence our decision, in my opinion. - In any case it might be a good idea to do a thorough review of all the event properties. Do you have time to set up an RfC about this? -- ( ) @ : 1329 at , and six of these marked for deletion. Almost 600 of these are of type=string, AFAICS not much else than identifiers. That is ~700 left. From these, only some come as pairs or groups, like the ""time of""/""location of"" pairs. Where is ""location of baptism""? The implementers of ""time of baptism"" broke storing the location in an obvious property. Once we have property-type statements enabled, we will be able to set up subproperty-trees, so that will scale better than it currently does. But still maintaining this tree will add some work. Beside, as Filceoalaire noted, in addition to the ""date of X"" tree, we will need a ""place of X"" tree, and possibly others. Putting ""date of X"" and ""place of X"" in separate statements makes more sense when they come from different source, but still that is a bit unwieldy to work with. Another benefit of is that we can have a start date + an end date qualifier. (Admittedly that's off topic in a discussion about baptism, and hopefully, we will be able to do the same thing in the future in a single snak) I find convenient to use in infoboxe, or in scripts like . -- ( ) 1) Regarding location tree: [MASK] in mind that location itself comes in different forms: ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"", ""located on terrain feature (P706)"", ""located in place (P1134)"" and ""location (P276)"". So maybe some people then will like to have ""baptism located in the administrative territorial entity"", ""baptism located on terrain feature"", ""baptism located in place"". From physics, I think, time and location is sufficient. 2) Regarding start and end date in one snak: Look at ISO 8601, it allows to have one string containing both. @ : Actually it does scale. We already have more than 1600 properties so 16000 is just one order of magnitude more. Increasing this number should not influence our decision, in my opinion. - In any case it might be a good idea to do a thorough review of all the event properties. Do you have time to set up an RfC about this? -- ( ) @ : 1329 at , and six of these marked for deletion. Almost 600 of these are of type=string, AFAICS not much else than identifiers. That is ~700 left. From these, only some come as pairs or groups, like the ""time of""/""location of"" pairs. Where is ""location of baptism""? The implementers of ""time of baptism"" broke storing the location in an obvious property. Once we have property-type statements enabled, we will be able to set up subproperty-trees, so that will scale better than it currently does. But still maintaining this tree will add some work. Beside, as Filceoalaire noted, in addition to the ""date of X"" tree, we will need a ""place of X"" tree, and possibly others. Putting ""date of X"" and ""place of X"" in separate statements makes more sense when they come from different source, but still that is a bit unwieldy to work with. Another benefit of is that we can have a start date + an end date qualifier. (Admittedly that's off topic in a discussion about baptism, and hopefully, we will be able to do the same thing in the future in a single snak) I find convenient to use in infoboxe, or in scripts like . -- ( ) 1) Regarding location tree: [MASK] in mind that location itself comes in different forms: ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"", ""located on terrain feature (P706)"", ""located in place (P1134)"" and ""location (P276)"". So maybe some people then will like to have ""baptism located in the administrative territorial entity"", ""baptism located on terrain feature"", ""baptism located in place"". From physics, I think, time and location is sufficient. 2) Regarding start and end date in one snak: Look at ISO 8601, it allows to have one string containing both. @ : 1329 at , and six of these marked for deletion. Almost 600 of these are of type=string, AFAICS not much else than identifiers. That is ~700 left. From these, only some come as pairs or groups, like the ""time of""/""location of"" pairs. Where is ""location of baptism""? The implementers of ""time of baptism"" broke storing the location in an obvious property. @ : 1329 at , and six of these marked for deletion. Almost 600 of these are of type=string, AFAICS not much else than identifiers. That is ~700 left. From these, only some come as pairs or groups, like the ""time of""/""location of"" pairs. Where is ""location of baptism""? The implementers of ""time of baptism"" broke storing the location in an obvious property. @ : 1329 at , and six of these marked for deletion. Almost 600 of these are of type=string, AFAICS not much else than identifiers. That is ~700 left. From these, only some come as pairs or groups, like the ""time of""/""location of"" pairs. Where is ""location of baptism""? The implementers of ""time of baptism"" broke storing the location in an obvious property. @ : 1329 at , and six of these marked for deletion. Almost 600 of these are of type=string, AFAICS not much else than identifiers. That is ~700 left. From these, only some come as pairs or groups, like the ""time of""/""location of"" pairs. Where is ""location of baptism""? The implementers of ""time of baptism"" broke storing the location in an obvious property. Once we have property-type statements enabled, we will be able to set up subproperty-trees, so that will scale better than it currently does. But still maintaining this tree will add some work. Beside, as Filceoalaire noted, in addition to the ""date of X"" tree, we will need a ""place of X"" tree, and possibly others. Putting ""date of X"" and ""place of X"" in separate statements makes more sense when they come from different source, but still that is a bit unwieldy to work with. Another benefit of is that we can have a start date + an end date qualifier. (Admittedly that's off topic in a discussion about baptism, and hopefully, we will be able to do the same thing in the future in a single snak) I find convenient to use in infoboxe, or in scripts like . -- ( ) 1) Regarding location tree: [MASK] in mind that location itself comes in different forms: ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"", ""located on terrain feature (P706)"", ""located in place (P1134)"" and ""location (P276)"". So maybe some people then will like to have ""baptism located in the administrative territorial entity"", ""baptism located on terrain feature"", ""baptism located in place"". From physics, I think, time and location is sufficient. 2) Regarding start and end date in one snak: Look at ISO 8601, it allows to have one string containing both. 1) Regarding location tree: [MASK] in mind that location itself comes in different forms: ""located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)"", ""located on terrain feature (P706)"", ""located in place (P1134)"" and ""location (P276)"". So maybe some people then will like to have ""baptism located in the administrative territorial entity"", ""baptism located on terrain feature"", ""baptism located in place"". From physics, I think, time and location is sufficient. 2) Regarding start and end date in one snak: Look at ISO 8601, it allows to have one string containing both. Delete . If someone is baptised twice then using this property as a first rank property won't tell us which date applies to which baptism. Using 'point in time' as a qualifier we do not have this problem. Getting baptised twice may be unusual but getting married twice is not. A politician is often elected to various positions over their career. Each of these positions use the property with qualifiers for start date, end date, preceded by, succeeded by, electoral district. Creating special properties won't help here as these qualifiers each apply to a particular statement. The only way round this is for us to have a separate Qitem for each of these events (rather than including them in the Qitem for the person). This will not (in my opinion) be an improvement. Qualifiers are useful and we should take advantage of them. ( ) [MASK] IIRC the intention to introduce a date of baptism property was to be able to record an analogy for in cases like where the date of birth is not known however it is an established fact that in that time baptism a) was already recorded and b) took place within a couple of days after birth. Thus the baptism property was not intended to record another ""significant event"" (taking up some denomination) in live but rather as an insignificant deviation from but usually quite good approximation to the unknown date of birth (and therefore denomination and place / church of baptism are not relevant in this respect). Of course, when and will be contracted to some complex ""significant-event""-property, the baptism property/ies could change alike. -- ( ) Comment Baptism can occur at any time after birth and there can be several occurrences - or none. While for humans there is a 1:1 relation with respect to birth. The property is not labeled ""date of baptism with the intention to be able to record an analogy"" or ""date of baptism in cases like Ludwig van Beethoven"" ""date of baptism in the Xth to Yth century"" but is labeled ""date of baptism"". And what is complex about the ""significant-event""-property is probably a secret of . Does Gymel find it less complex splitting properties of one event between different statements in a way that doesn't allow the data consumer to know which belong together? Complexity reduced that much, that functionality was lost.... Comment Baptism can occur at any time after birth and there can be several occurrences - or none. While for humans there is a 1:1 relation with respect to birth. The property is not labeled ""date of baptism with the intention to be able to record an analogy"" or ""date of baptism in cases like Ludwig van Beethoven"" ""date of baptism in the Xth to Yth century"" ""date of baptism with the intention to be able to record an analogy"" or ""date of baptism in cases like Ludwig van Beethoven"" ""date of baptism in the Xth to Yth century"" but is labeled ""date of baptism"". And what is complex about the ""significant-event""-property is probably a secret of . Does Gymel find it less complex splitting properties of one event between different statements in a way that doesn't allow the data consumer to know which belong together? Complexity reduced that much, that functionality was lost.... Comment One problem with giving dates as qualifiers is that you can't then specify qualifiers on those dates (because you can't have a qualifier on a qualifier). So, for example, you can't mark a date of such an event as ""circa"" using , or other similar such qualifiers. ( ) Delete per above and per in the other section above. ( ) [MASK] per . ( ) [MASK] old records have not 'date of birth' sometimes, but only 'date of baptism'. -- ( ) [MASK] as alternative to date of birth for older records. - ( ) [MASK] necessary for many cases, where there is no birth date only date of baptism. The birth date of is not exactly known, but we do know the date of baptism for sure. Usualy it is assumed he was born only a few days before, so the latest possible day is one day before and that day went into the biographies. I think it suits not to use a location (like a church) as a qualifier for a date. A simple property is better to handle in infoboxes than a property with qualifier. -- ( ) [MASK] The arguments above suggest that the date of baptism in early childhood was only used as a proxy for birth date long ago. But the website shows that even today, for the purpose of applying for a United States passport, a baptismal certificate can substitute for a birth certificate. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Datatype_change:_religious_name_(P1635): datatype change is not possible as multilingual text is not available -- ( ) datatype change is not possible as multilingual text is not available -- ( ) the datatype you suggest isn't available. --- I suggest add message ""Warning: This property will be [MASK] then multilingual datatype appears. Be ready to switch your algorithms to new property."" to the property talk page and [MASK] the property for now. Conversion multiple monolingual values to one multilingual is looked simple. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Datatype_change:_P743_(P743): consensus to change datatype, see now -- ( ) consensus to change datatype, see now -- ( ) Support . This feature is useless without language. -- Not useless, e. g. , United Kingdom is shortened UK language-independant, but a monolingual datatype would be more useful; Support -- ( ) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is shortened to United Kingdom or Royaume Uni etc. Looks like multilingual datatype is required. ( ) Not useless, e. g. , United Kingdom is shortened UK language-independant, but a monolingual datatype would be more useful; Support -- ( ) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is shortened to United Kingdom or Royaume Uni etc. Looks like multilingual datatype is required. ( ) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is shortened to United Kingdom or Royaume Uni etc. Looks like multilingual datatype is required. ( ) Oppose the language is usually obvious from context of parent property (if used as qualifier for full name like or ) or entity (check of the entity). may be we just need to make this property ""qualifier only"". -- ( ) Support That's correct. -- ( ) I'm the ""father"" of this property and I agree that this datatype is not the best. But I am not sure ""monolingual text"" is the best option. I used this for example as ""Stockholm"" as short name for ""Stockholm City"" and ""Stockholm Municipality"". I am not sure monolingual Stockholm would be a good option in for example Portuguese or Finnish, since they use other names for this entity. Observe that I have never proposed that this property should be used for abbreviations like United Kingdom/UK, rather for when you write ""Municipality: ""[[Stockholm Municipalty|Stockholm]]"" in templates. The use should then be something like [[ | ]] instead of [[ | ]] in the code in our templates. This especially when the ""short name"" is not identical with the ""label"", something I experience problems with in the Swedish language. Look for example in where you find two entities with the same short name ""Vetlanda"" but who has different official names ""Vetlanda landskommun"" and ""Vetlanda stad"". Add to that ""Vetlanda köping"", ""Vetlanda municipalsamhälle"", ""Vetlanda kommun"", ""Vetlanda församling"", ""Vetlanda socken"", ""Vetlanda distrikt"" and the urban area of ""Vetlanda"", and you see some of my problems. The long names here are the official (with maybe some exception) but the full official names are not always used our templates. -- ( ) Delete in favor of datatype change. Having for entities like NATO or the European Union doesn't make much sense, considering that they have multiple official languages. You can't correspond a short name to a specific language without using as a qualifier for the short name. I don't see an advantage using this method over using monolingual datatype. — ( ) Support changing the datatype of ""short name"" ( ) from string to monolingual string. --- Sounds like most of you talk about this property as an ""abbreviation""-property. It was never proposed or intended as such! A mono -lingual datatype does not fit the purpose of the property. You need a multi -lingual datatype. -- ( ) Sounds like most of you talk about this property as an ""abbreviation""-property. It was never proposed or intended as such! A mono -lingual datatype does not fit the purpose of the property. You need a multi -lingual datatype. -- ( ) Comment the shortening (abbreviate, contract, reduce or whatever) of a word *is* language-dependant. Coca Cola is shortened as « Coca » in French, as « Cola » in German, as « Coke » in English, etc. European Union is abbreviate as EU in English and German but UE in French. On , is « USA » but USA is English (and for the irony : English is *not* the official language of USA), in French, the short name is « États-Unis ». And so on. @ said the language if obvious but it isn't, 東京 is both Japanese and Chinese (Hant) but 东京 is Chinese only (Hans), and it's the same place! and what about multilingual context? For Switzerland − where there is 5 official/national languages − which one is obvious? As said, French *and* English are *both* official languages of NATO/OTAN, which one is the obvious one and which one should be prefered ? Plus, it's not only about « officiality », sometimes there is both an official full name and a official short name. If we need this property to be multilingual, why not add the ISO 639-2 code « mul »? Cdlt, ( ) In fact, it's more “zxx” than “mul”. I just found this request on phabricator : \o/ ( ) In fact, it's more “zxx” than “mul”. I just found this request on phabricator : \o/ ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: vessel_class_(P289): No consensus to delete this, so kept. -- ( ) No consensus to delete this, so kept. -- ( ) Comment - This is as redundant as ""lake type"" and ""mountain type"". The item USS Ronald Reagan has both ""instance of = Nimitz-class aircraft carrier"" AND ""ship class = Nimitz-class aircraft carrier"". Same duplication ""Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov ( )"" with ""Kiev-class aircraft carrier"". Below are some numbers to show that currently the values are not consistent: ""claim[289]"" - 912 items ""claim[31:(tree[11446][][279])]"" - 28,323 items (instances of ""ship"" or one of its subclasses) ""claim[289] and claim[31:(tree[11446][][279])]"" - 857 items - inconsistency, should be 912 ""claim[289] and claim[31]"" - 895 items - inconsistency, should be 912 ""claim[289] and noclaim[31:(tree[11446][][279])]"" - 55 items - inconsistency, should be zero ""claim[289] and noclaim[31:(tree[11446][][279])] and claim[31]"" - 38 items - inconsistency, should be zero ""claim[289]"" - 912 items ""claim[31:(tree[11446][][279])]"" - 28,323 items (instances of ""ship"" or one of its subclasses) ""claim[289] and claim[31:(tree[11446][][279])]"" - 857 items - inconsistency, should be 912 ""claim[289] and claim[31]"" - 895 items - inconsistency, should be 912 ""claim[289] and noclaim[31:(tree[11446][][279])]"" - 55 items - inconsistency, should be zero ""claim[289] and noclaim[31:(tree[11446][][279])] and claim[31]"" - 38 items - inconsistency, should be zero By eliminating P289 the above inconsistencies will be eliminated too. ( ) @ , , : -- ( ) Here is the last discussion: -- ( ) Delete . ship class is redundant with . ( ) Comment maybe those users that voted on lake type (@ , , , , : and on mountain type @ , , , : can have a look here, since it is the same kind of redundancy, only instead of lakes and mountains, it is in the domain of ships. There also seems to be no other domain specific type redundancy for concrete physical entities/instances, no for cars (type of car), no for rivers (type of river), no for buildings (type of building). ( ) [MASK] This one is not as clear as lake type. Ship class is a characteristic expected to be displayed in WP infoboxes; classes should be readily available from WD - I mean, not any type of ship, but specifically a class of ship. First, there are a set of specific constraints (see ); second, there are hundreds of classes of ship but not all ships belong to formally defined ship classes. As a result, a given ship may be = something that is not a ship class... for example, currently and while and If we get rid of , you only get it will be difficult for infoboxes to get the ship class because the infobox itself would have to ensure that points to something that is an . It might eventually be possible to replace that property with some on-the-fly query that would check if the target of P31 is a and if so return it. Possible in some distant future... I'm not even sure that it will be feasible after gets deployed. -- and while and and while and while and while and If we get rid of , you only get it will be difficult for infoboxes to get the ship class because the infobox itself would have to ensure that points to something that is an . It might eventually be possible to replace that property with some on-the-fly query that would check if the target of P31 is a and if so return it. Possible in some distant future... I'm not even sure that it will be feasible after gets deployed. -- Comment that is a misuse of instanceOf. InstanceOf has to be as precise as it can, so I changed it to ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"". ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"" is a subclass of ""coastal defence ship"". ANY ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"" is ALSO A ""coastal defence ship"" - here it is even reflected in the English language title, the string ""coastal defence ship"" is also contained in ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"". String matching aside, the information that the ship is a ""coastal defence ship"" is found upwards in the classification tree. That is exactly the same for lakes, mountains, cars, air planes, ... my fix to the item fixes your second point, "" there are hundreds of classes of ship but not all ships belong to formally defined ship classes. As a result, a given ship may be = something that is not a ship class... for example "" now P31 gives a ship class. ( ) @ : I guess I wasn't clear enough. If the infobox wants to display the field ""ship class"" for , what does it display? How is it different from ? Belonging to a ship class is very different from being a certain type of ship . These are two different concepts, assigned independently. Of course, all ships of a given class belong to the same type, but that will not help WP infoboxes figure out what to display in the field ""ship class"". BTW I find it quite impolite that you elect to ""fix"" the item that I chose as an exemple. Not that I do not agree with your change, but I was using it as an example, you see? -- @ : An invalid example. Anyone could have fixed it. I find it impolite that you find it impolite if editors fix items. Regarding WP infoboxes figuring out what to display - at the Wikidata item I cannot find a value for a ship class for that ship. So, yes, if there is not value for X than WP infoboxes may have a hard time to figure out what to display - if they are unable to figure out to display no value for X as empty string or ""unknown"" or something similar. ( ) that is a misuse of instanceOf. InstanceOf has to be as precise as it can, so I changed it to ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"". ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"" is a subclass of ""coastal defence ship"". ANY ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"" is ALSO A ""coastal defence ship"" - here it is even reflected in the English language title, the string ""coastal defence ship"" is also contained in ""Sverige class coastal defence ship"". String matching aside, the information that the ship is a ""coastal defence ship"" is found upwards in the classification tree. That is exactly the same for lakes, mountains, cars, air planes, ... my fix to the item fixes your second point, "" there are hundreds of classes of ship but not all ships belong to formally defined ship classes. As a result, a given ship may be = something that is not a ship class... for example "" now P31 gives a ship class. ( ) @ : I guess I wasn't clear enough. If the infobox wants to display the field ""ship class"" for , what does it display? How is it different from ? Belonging to a ship class is very different from being a certain type of ship . These are two different concepts, assigned independently. Of course, all ships of a given class belong to the same type, but that will not help WP infoboxes figure out what to display in the field ""ship class"". BTW I find it quite impolite that you elect to ""fix"" the item that I chose as an exemple. Not that I do not agree with your change, but I was using it as an example, you see? -- @ : An invalid example. Anyone could have fixed it. I find it impolite that you find it impolite if editors fix items. Regarding WP infoboxes figuring out what to display - at the Wikidata item I cannot find a value for a ship class for that ship. So, yes, if there is not value for X than WP infoboxes may have a hard time to figure out what to display - if they are unable to figure out to display no value for X as empty string or ""unknown"" or something similar. ( ) @ : I guess I wasn't clear enough. If the infobox wants to display the field ""ship class"" for , what does it display? How is it different from ? Belonging to a ship class is very different from being a certain type of ship . These are two different concepts, assigned independently. Of course, all ships of a given class belong to the same type, but that will not help WP infoboxes figure out what to display in the field ""ship class"". BTW I find it quite impolite that you elect to ""fix"" the item that I chose as an exemple. Not that I do not agree with your change, but I was using it as an example, you see? -- @ : An invalid example. Anyone could have fixed it. I find it impolite that you find it impolite if editors fix items. Regarding WP infoboxes figuring out what to display - at the Wikidata item I cannot find a value for a ship class for that ship. So, yes, if there is not value for X than WP infoboxes may have a hard time to figure out what to display - if they are unable to figure out to display no value for X as empty string or ""unknown"" or something similar. ( ) @ : An invalid example. Anyone could have fixed it. I find it impolite that you find it impolite if editors fix items. Regarding WP infoboxes figuring out what to display - at the Wikidata item I cannot find a value for a ship class for that ship. So, yes, if there is not value for X than WP infoboxes may have a hard time to figure out what to display - if they are unable to figure out to display no value for X as empty string or ""unknown"" or something similar. ( ) Comment The documentation contains an error, since USS Enterprise is not a watercraft. Also, the property name is misleading, since the property is applied to submarines, which are not classified as ships in Wikidata. So the valid another consistency test is, after some fixing: ""claim[289] and noclaim[31:(tree[1229765][][279])]"" returns four items , all are described as fictional spaceships/starships. ( ) [MASK] the association of ""type of ship"" with ""class of ship"" is like confusing pears with apples : they are two different characteristics of ship that cannot be joined together. To delete and to modelling correctly ships, we should use two instances of (e.g. and and , that it would be better not to do! -- ( ) Sorry, I don't get your point. In your example, the statement is enough since a subclass of . Can you give an other example in order to make things clearer ? ( ) I changed the example, even if it may be too much simple. I'm not expert on ship, but I followed this and the previous discussion and ontologically I'm right with the distinction between the two classifications as explained by Laddo. I have seen some items of ships and in most of the cases the statements of P31 and P289 are the same: the two hierarchies need to be fixed. In this situation it is obvious that someone ask the deletion of P289. -- ( ) @ , : Could you take a look to ? I try to explain why this is not a misuse. Could you read and we can discuss what is unclear and needs to be clarified. If we later all agree maybe we should asopt this page to shorten the future discussions and to help everybody :) I have read the explanation, but I still persist that the most important classification of is that she is a . That she also is a of a is also important, but secondary to what watercraft type she is. / Sorry, I don't get your point. In your example, the statement is enough since a subclass of . Can you give an other example in order to make things clearer ? ( ) I changed the example, even if it may be too much simple. I'm not expert on ship, but I followed this and the previous discussion and ontologically I'm right with the distinction between the two classifications as explained by Laddo. I have seen some items of ships and in most of the cases the statements of P31 and P289 are the same: the two hierarchies need to be fixed. In this situation it is obvious that someone ask the deletion of P289. -- ( ) @ , : Could you take a look to ? I try to explain why this is not a misuse. Could you read and we can discuss what is unclear and needs to be clarified. If we later all agree maybe we should asopt this page to shorten the future discussions and to help everybody :) I have read the explanation, but I still persist that the most important classification of is that she is a . That she also is a of a is also important, but secondary to what watercraft type she is. / I changed the example, even if it may be too much simple. I'm not expert on ship, but I followed this and the previous discussion and ontologically I'm right with the distinction between the two classifications as explained by Laddo. I have seen some items of ships and in most of the cases the statements of P31 and P289 are the same: the two hierarchies need to be fixed. In this situation it is obvious that someone ask the deletion of P289. -- ( ) @ , : Could you take a look to ? I try to explain why this is not a misuse. Could you read and we can discuss what is unclear and needs to be clarified. If we later all agree maybe we should asopt this page to shorten the future discussions and to help everybody :) I have read the explanation, but I still persist that the most important classification of is that she is a . That she also is a of a is also important, but secondary to what watercraft type she is. / @ , : Could you take a look to ? I try to explain why this is not a misuse. Could you read and we can discuss what is unclear and needs to be clarified. If we later all agree maybe we should asopt this page to shorten the future discussions and to help everybody :) I have read the explanation, but I still persist that the most important classification of is that she is a . That she also is a of a is also important, but secondary to what watercraft type she is. / I have read the explanation, but I still persist that the most important classification of is that she is a . That she also is a of a is also important, but secondary to what watercraft type she is. / [MASK] Using to specify which class a ship belongs to is a missuse of P31. Example: is a and has been so for her enrire service. However, she belonged to the class up to 2009 when she was reclassified as . This also reflects the use of the data in infoboxes. A ship is not an instance of a ship class, it is an instance of a ship type. This is particurlarly true for classless or single-ship-class ships. If is a ship class for some ships and a ship type for some ships (that does not belong to a class) that property is going to be useless for inclusion in infoboxes. / There is no ontological difference between a ""ship class"" and a ""ship type"". A given instance of a ship like HMS Ven is indeed an a ship class, e.g. Koster -class mine countermeasures vessel. That ship class is ontologically a another ship class, e.g. mine countermeasures vessel and so on up until . ""Ship class"" and ""ship type"" are domain-specific versions of ; they just indicate different in ship taxonomy. And like rank-specific 'type of' properties from biological taxonomy, this one should also be [MASK]. Consider this comment from the : Imaging deleting all taxonomical properties (like , , etc) and using only . Such data model would be useless on other Wikimedia projects. and fulfills the same purpose for ships as , do for animals — Note how and the other properties there all have labels like ""(OBSOLETE) family (P71)"" or are [MASK], except for P31. While I differ with WikiProject Taxonomy in certain basic aspects of their approach to classification, they were utterly correct in deprecating those biological analogs of ""ship class"". This debate has already been settled. Use 's solution and apply an 'ontological rank' property to determine the desired subclasses of 'ship' to show in a given infobox. Fortunately, ships are a relatively small domain and is not used on any Wikimedia client site per . Let's finish migrating the data away from this redundant 'type of' property, delete it, and use as a generic solution for classifying this kind of thing, like the rest of the Semantic Web. ( ) I stand by my conviction that deleting such properties makes the use of Wikidata much more difficult to use as a source of data and therefore is contraproductive. / I also disagree with the statement There is no ontological difference between a ""ship class"" and a ""ship type"" . could be said to be a of , but absolutly not . / Does care to prove that there is no ship that is an instanceOf ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel""? That ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel"" is a class of ships is already in the name. Is Are ship classes, classes without instances? What do they class then? ( ) , when I say ""there is no ontological difference between a 'ship class' and a 'ship type'"", I mean more precisely that any given ship class or ship type is -- in the terms of ontology -- a class. They are merely different ranks in a ship taxonomy. Yes, a ship like HMS Ven may change its ""ship class"", but that does not entail that it is not an instance of a given ""ship class"" at any given time. Whether it is a good idea to use instance of here is a question on which reasonable people might disagree, but given that Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel mine countermeasures vessel, whether HMS Ven is an instance of Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel is not a matter of debate among people familiar with ontology. Your assertion that ""HMS Ven "" could be said to be a member of ""Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel"" further indicates a lack of familiarity with basic membership properties. For example, ""John Lennon instance of male"" is correct but ""John Lennon member of male"" is not. Similarly, HMS Ven could be said to be a member of , but to say "" "" is an elementary mistake. I encourage you to read . It's an excellent introduction that might help clarify things better than I've done here. ( ) It is not a misunderstanding of basic membership properties. A class has members. That is the most basic property of a class in hierarchy. is in instance of or because they are not classes . / Comment In August reduced the precision of the instanceOf value to fit with his personal view, instead of the definition of that property. ( ) There is no ontological difference between a ""ship class"" and a ""ship type"". A given instance of a ship like HMS Ven is indeed an a ship class, e.g. Koster -class mine countermeasures vessel. That ship class is ontologically a another ship class, e.g. mine countermeasures vessel and so on up until . ""Ship class"" and ""ship type"" are domain-specific versions of ; they just indicate different in ship taxonomy. And like rank-specific 'type of' properties from biological taxonomy, this one should also be [MASK]. Consider this comment from the : Imaging deleting all taxonomical properties (like , , etc) and using only . Such data model would be useless on other Wikimedia projects. and fulfills the same purpose for ships as , do for animals — Imaging deleting all taxonomical properties (like , , etc) and using only . Such data model would be useless on other Wikimedia projects. and fulfills the same purpose for ships as , do for animals — Note how and the other properties there all have labels like ""(OBSOLETE) family (P71)"" or are [MASK], except for P31. While I differ with WikiProject Taxonomy in certain basic aspects of their approach to classification, they were utterly correct in deprecating those biological analogs of ""ship class"". This debate has already been settled. Use 's solution and apply an 'ontological rank' property to determine the desired subclasses of 'ship' to show in a given infobox. Fortunately, ships are a relatively small domain and is not used on any Wikimedia client site per . Let's finish migrating the data away from this redundant 'type of' property, delete it, and use as a generic solution for classifying this kind of thing, like the rest of the Semantic Web. ( ) I stand by my conviction that deleting such properties makes the use of Wikidata much more difficult to use as a source of data and therefore is contraproductive. / I also disagree with the statement There is no ontological difference between a ""ship class"" and a ""ship type"" . could be said to be a of , but absolutly not . / Does care to prove that there is no ship that is an instanceOf ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel""? That ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel"" is a class of ships is already in the name. Is Are ship classes, classes without instances? What do they class then? ( ) , when I say ""there is no ontological difference between a 'ship class' and a 'ship type'"", I mean more precisely that any given ship class or ship type is -- in the terms of ontology -- a class. They are merely different ranks in a ship taxonomy. Yes, a ship like HMS Ven may change its ""ship class"", but that does not entail that it is not an instance of a given ""ship class"" at any given time. Whether it is a good idea to use instance of here is a question on which reasonable people might disagree, but given that Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel mine countermeasures vessel, whether HMS Ven is an instance of Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel is not a matter of debate among people familiar with ontology. Your assertion that ""HMS Ven "" could be said to be a member of ""Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel"" further indicates a lack of familiarity with basic membership properties. For example, ""John Lennon instance of male"" is correct but ""John Lennon member of male"" is not. Similarly, HMS Ven could be said to be a member of , but to say "" "" is an elementary mistake. I encourage you to read . It's an excellent introduction that might help clarify things better than I've done here. ( ) It is not a misunderstanding of basic membership properties. A class has members. That is the most basic property of a class in hierarchy. is in instance of or because they are not classes . / I stand by my conviction that deleting such properties makes the use of Wikidata much more difficult to use as a source of data and therefore is contraproductive. / I also disagree with the statement There is no ontological difference between a ""ship class"" and a ""ship type"" . could be said to be a of , but absolutly not . / Does care to prove that there is no ship that is an instanceOf ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel""? That ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel"" is a class of ships is already in the name. Is Are ship classes, classes without instances? What do they class then? ( ) , when I say ""there is no ontological difference between a 'ship class' and a 'ship type'"", I mean more precisely that any given ship class or ship type is -- in the terms of ontology -- a class. They are merely different ranks in a ship taxonomy. Yes, a ship like HMS Ven may change its ""ship class"", but that does not entail that it is not an instance of a given ""ship class"" at any given time. Whether it is a good idea to use instance of here is a question on which reasonable people might disagree, but given that Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel mine countermeasures vessel, whether HMS Ven is an instance of Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel is not a matter of debate among people familiar with ontology. Your assertion that ""HMS Ven "" could be said to be a member of ""Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel"" further indicates a lack of familiarity with basic membership properties. For example, ""John Lennon instance of male"" is correct but ""John Lennon member of male"" is not. Similarly, HMS Ven could be said to be a member of , but to say "" "" is an elementary mistake. I encourage you to read . It's an excellent introduction that might help clarify things better than I've done here. ( ) It is not a misunderstanding of basic membership properties. A class has members. That is the most basic property of a class in hierarchy. is in instance of or because they are not classes . / Does care to prove that there is no ship that is an instanceOf ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel""? That ""Landsort-class mine countermeasures vessel"" is a class of ships is already in the name. Is Are ship classes, classes without instances? What do they class then? ( ) , when I say ""there is no ontological difference between a 'ship class' and a 'ship type'"", I mean more precisely that any given ship class or ship type is -- in the terms of ontology -- a class. They are merely different ranks in a ship taxonomy. Yes, a ship like HMS Ven may change its ""ship class"", but that does not entail that it is not an instance of a given ""ship class"" at any given time. Whether it is a good idea to use instance of here is a question on which reasonable people might disagree, but given that Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel mine countermeasures vessel, whether HMS Ven is an instance of Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel is not a matter of debate among people familiar with ontology. Your assertion that ""HMS Ven "" could be said to be a member of ""Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel"" further indicates a lack of familiarity with basic membership properties. For example, ""John Lennon instance of male"" is correct but ""John Lennon member of male"" is not. Similarly, HMS Ven could be said to be a member of , but to say "" "" is an elementary mistake. I encourage you to read . It's an excellent introduction that might help clarify things better than I've done here. ( ) It is not a misunderstanding of basic membership properties. A class has members. That is the most basic property of a class in hierarchy. is in instance of or because they are not classes . / , when I say ""there is no ontological difference between a 'ship class' and a 'ship type'"", I mean more precisely that any given ship class or ship type is -- in the terms of ontology -- a class. They are merely different ranks in a ship taxonomy. Yes, a ship like HMS Ven may change its ""ship class"", but that does not entail that it is not an instance of a given ""ship class"" at any given time. Whether it is a good idea to use instance of here is a question on which reasonable people might disagree, but given that Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel mine countermeasures vessel, whether HMS Ven is an instance of Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel is not a matter of debate among people familiar with ontology. Your assertion that ""HMS Ven "" could be said to be a member of ""Koster-class mine countermeasures vessel"" further indicates a lack of familiarity with basic membership properties. For example, ""John Lennon instance of male"" is correct but ""John Lennon member of male"" is not. Similarly, HMS Ven could be said to be a member of , but to say "" "" is an elementary mistake. I encourage you to read . It's an excellent introduction that might help clarify things better than I've done here. ( ) It is not a misunderstanding of basic membership properties. A class has members. That is the most basic property of a class in hierarchy. is in instance of or because they are not classes . / It is not a misunderstanding of basic membership properties. A class has members. That is the most basic property of a class in hierarchy. is in instance of or because they are not classes . / Comment In August reduced the precision of the instanceOf value to fit with his personal view, instead of the definition of that property. ( ) [MASK] ""ship class"" ( ): A defined property seems more appropriate for this. Makes it easier to maintain as well. Things in tend to be mixed up and not necessarily better maintained. --- ""A defined property seems more appropriate for this"" - does care to explain in how far rdf:Type is not a ""defined property""? Does Jura1 care to consider that ""Things in tend to be mixed up and not necessarily better maintained."" can be true along with ""Things in tend to be mixed up and not necessarily better maintained.""? If one can insert the IDs of each property into a phrase, how can such a phrase be used to vote for one property? ( ) ""A defined property seems more appropriate for this"" - does care to explain in how far rdf:Type is not a ""defined property""? Does Jura1 care to consider that ""Things in tend to be mixed up and not necessarily better maintained."" can be true along with ""Things in tend to be mixed up and not necessarily better maintained.""? If one can insert the IDs of each property into a phrase, how can such a phrase be used to vote for one property? ( ) Comment Among millions of products that exist, and further millions of physical items made without human labor, ""items"" in subClass ""ship"" are deemed that special by four users, that they are the only items to get their own property for classification. Some even promote misuse of instanceOf. ( ) Redefine : A ship class ( Nimitz , Dreadnought , Concordia , Flower, etc) is just a name that is used by humans to group individual ships of specific types (aircraft carrier, battleship, cruise ship, corvette, etc). A specific ship need not belong to any class but will always have a type. The foregoing being true, then I suggest that this property P289 is incorrectly defined because it combines class name and ship type into a single value when the two should be kept separate and only be combined at the point of use. This last is important, not only because ships need not belong to defined classes, but also, because when used in final article form, the combination of ship class and type must be properly styled and, depending on use, hyphenated or not hyphenated. Ship classes named for a member of the class are italicized: Nimitz class when the compound term describes the class and: Nimitz -class aircraft carrier when the compound term describes the ship type. When a ship class is not named for a member of the class, the same hyphenation rules apply, but the class name is not italicized: Flower-class corvette. All of this is presentation detail which is not something that Wikidata should concern itself about. If P289 is allowed to stand as is, users of the data, in order to provide correct presentation, must disassemble the property value to apply appropriate styling and hyphenation. P289 should be redefined to be just the class name. The ship's type should be provided by another property. — ( ) Comment If a ship has a class, then it's type can be derived from that class, since every class only has one type? ( ) Yes, but why force subscribing wikis into doing that derivation or extraction? Yes, but why force subscribing wikis into doing that derivation or extraction? At enwiki, the meta thing commonly called a ship class is a construct built from one or more primitives: markup connective text or <-class> optional parenthetic disambiguator optional nationality disambiguator optional parenthetic disambiguator At enwiki, the meta thing commonly called a ship class is a construct built from one or more primitives: markup connective text or <-class> optional parenthetic disambiguator optional nationality disambiguator optional parenthetic disambiguator markup connective text or <-class> optional parenthetic disambiguator optional nationality disambiguator optional parenthetic disambiguator I can't speak for other wikis which may do things differently, but at enwiki, we already have the tools necessary to assemble and render a correctly formatted meta ship class for all of the above except those few that require the optional nationality disambiguation ( disambiguated from ). I can't speak for other wikis which may do things differently, but at enwiki, we already have the tools necessary to assemble and render a correctly formatted meta ship class for all of the above except those few that require the optional nationality disambiguation ( disambiguated from ). Don't make those tools obsolete by lumping all of these primitives into a single property. Don't make those tools obsolete by lumping all of these primitives into a single property. — ( ) Delete redundant with To mark a class as a class of ships, for example ''nimitz class'', use Delete redundant with To mark a class as a class of ships, for example ''nimitz class'', use [MASK] I really can't say it better than has been said above but it seems clear to me that we should maintain the distinction of instance of and ship. Otherwise it seems to me that the instance of a vessel, would be ship, submarine, etc. This would also make instance of a huge unwieldy mess with too many tangential associations that would skew its usefulness into a ""Stuff"" category. ( ) In the vast number of instances where I personally used the class rather than the type of ship , I had maybe one, maybe two cases where it was not evidently clear that the type of ship could not be derived from its ship class (with the appropriate relationships). Have you not actually worked with the data? -- ( ) Although I am fairly new to Wikidata I have worked with ship articles often in the past. I do agree that in general most ships classes are evident but there are also a number of cases, particularly with older vessels, where this is not evident. At the end of the day I really don't feel that strongly about it but it doesn't seem like an ideal solution to be to get rid of this property. ( ) In the vast number of instances where I personally used the class rather than the type of ship , I had maybe one, maybe two cases where it was not evidently clear that the type of ship could not be derived from its ship class (with the appropriate relationships). Have you not actually worked with the data? -- ( ) Although I am fairly new to Wikidata I have worked with ship articles often in the past. I do agree that in general most ships classes are evident but there are also a number of cases, particularly with older vessels, where this is not evident. At the end of the day I really don't feel that strongly about it but it doesn't seem like an ideal solution to be to get rid of this property. ( ) Although I am fairly new to Wikidata I have worked with ship articles often in the past. I do agree that in general most ships classes are evident but there are also a number of cases, particularly with older vessels, where this is not evident. At the end of the day I really don't feel that strongly about it but it doesn't seem like an ideal solution to be to get rid of this property. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1119_(P1119): consensus to replace both (tennis single ranking) and (tennis doubles ranking) with in combination with . See how it is used in . consensus to replace both (tennis single ranking) and (tennis doubles ranking) with in combination with . See how it is used in . In tennis, most players have two rankings simultaneously, one for single play, and one for double play. As far as I'm aware, for mixed-double there is no ranking, therefor that property has not been requested. I would support the creation of a new property ""sports ranking"" that might be useful in other sports, but for tennis we would need these two anyways. ( ) There is probably as many ranking that there is sport organisations. I would propose to use a generic ranking properties with a qualifier to precise of which ranking we are referring to. @ : You don't need two special properties for singles and doubles tennis. Just have Ranking (P????) with 2 values. One with qualifier = Singles tennis and the other = doubles tennis . ( ) Can we still show these two distinct values separately in an infobox? As this is not stored just for fun, but to be used in a tennis infobox. ( ) There is probably as many ranking that there is sport organisations. I would propose to use a generic ranking properties with a qualifier to precise of which ranking we are referring to. @ : You don't need two special properties for singles and doubles tennis. Just have Ranking (P????) with 2 values. One with qualifier = Singles tennis and the other = doubles tennis . ( ) Can we still show these two distinct values separately in an infobox? As this is not stored just for fun, but to be used in a tennis infobox. ( ) Can we still show these two distinct values separately in an infobox? As this is not stored just for fun, but to be used in a tennis infobox. ( ) Question I agree 100% with this deletion request, . . however ... as I understand it, Wikidata Client cant access qualifiers at the moment, so there is no way for infoboxes to differentiate between two values for the same property. .? If so, I think Wikidata's duty to be useful for infoboxes means this deletion should be put on hold until Wikidata Client allows properly structured data. ( ) Wikidata Client can access qualifiers, but it require support from Lua-modules. -- ( ) (The user previously known as Lavallen) Wikidata Client can access qualifiers, but it require support from Lua-modules. -- ( ) (The user previously known as Lavallen) Question As ranks change, how would the history of both rankings be mixed in one property? --- : Use = and as qualifiers to note when a singles ranking was first achieved and when it changed. Similarly for doubles. This means a tennis player might have twenty values for this property, each with three qualifiers. Mark both the current values (singles and doubles) as 'preferred' ( ) Though ""singles tennis/doubles"" is not a ""sport or discipline"" (btw those words means almost the same in Finnish), but ""tennis"" alone is. -- ( ) : Use = and as qualifiers to note when a singles ranking was first achieved and when it changed. Similarly for doubles. This means a tennis player might have twenty values for this property, each with three qualifiers. Mark both the current values (singles and doubles) as 'preferred' ( ) Though ""singles tennis/doubles"" is not a ""sport or discipline"" (btw those words means almost the same in Finnish), but ""tennis"" alone is. -- ( ) Though ""singles tennis/doubles"" is not a ""sport or discipline"" (btw those words means almost the same in Finnish), but ""tennis"" alone is. -- ( ) Delete I started already for the generic property 'ranking' because in dewiki there's the wish that the rankings of table tennis players get stored in WD. -- ( ) I see 's proposal has now been approved as so we should delete both and . ( ) I see 's proposal has now been approved as so we should delete both and . ( ) Delete As a simpler solution is available. ( ) Delete We have a more generic property: . Look at for an example. And yes, we should delete also -- ( ) But in the item you linked, there's ""sport: table tennis"", then in tennis player items it would be ""sport: singles tennis""? Also table tennis can be played as doubles (though I don't know if they have a ranking for doubles). Anyway, then we should create items for singles tennis and doubles tennis, if they don't exist yet. -- ( ) @ : Already created: and . Example in -- ( ) Nice, though still, singles tennis is not in (as is), but meh, I think I'm alone with my opinions here :-) -- ( ) But in the item you linked, there's ""sport: table tennis"", then in tennis player items it would be ""sport: singles tennis""? Also table tennis can be played as doubles (though I don't know if they have a ranking for doubles). Anyway, then we should create items for singles tennis and doubles tennis, if they don't exist yet. -- ( ) @ : Already created: and . Example in -- ( ) Nice, though still, singles tennis is not in (as is), but meh, I think I'm alone with my opinions here :-) -- ( ) @ : Already created: and . Example in -- ( ) Nice, though still, singles tennis is not in (as is), but meh, I think I'm alone with my opinions here :-) -- ( ) Nice, though still, singles tennis is not in (as is), but meh, I think I'm alone with my opinions here :-) -- ( ) Delete Use instead. -- ( ) I tried to test it at , but it doesn't look very good. Then, do we create items also (in addition of and ) to wheelchair tennis singles, wheelchair tennis doubles, ITF tennis juniors and ITF beach tennis? -- ( ) I can't see any decent way to substitute this property at the moment, so I'd vote to [MASK] for now . ( ) I tried to test it at , but it doesn't look very good. Then, do we create items also (in addition of and ) to wheelchair tennis singles, wheelchair tennis doubles, ITF tennis juniors and ITF beach tennis? -- ( ) I can't see any decent way to substitute this property at the moment, so I'd vote to [MASK] for now . ( ) I can't see any decent way to substitute this property at the moment, so I'd vote to [MASK] for now . ( ) Comment I haven't followed tennis for many years, but I think it used to be two ranking-systems for double. One for each player and one for each combination of players. Each player could then have several double-rankings. One for him/her alone and one for every partner (s)he had. -- ( ) Comment Is there any ranking for mixed tennis and is there any property for it? -- ( ) @ : No. There is no official ranking for mixed tennis AFAIK. -- You're correct. I would be very happy if someone (who didn't take part in this discussion) could already close this as this has been open for over one year and so making us stuck to make updates :( -- ( ) I am closing the thread now! I know, I have discussed in the the thread above, but I think anybody who has been involved in the discussion can see a clear consensus. Technical solutions are now available that makes it easy to replace the properties. -- ( ) @ : No. There is no official ranking for mixed tennis AFAIK. -- You're correct. I would be very happy if someone (who didn't take part in this discussion) could already close this as this has been open for over one year and so making us stuck to make updates :( -- ( ) I am closing the thread now! I know, I have discussed in the the thread above, but I think anybody who has been involved in the discussion can see a clear consensus. Technical solutions are now available that makes it easy to replace the properties. -- ( ) You're correct. I would be very happy if someone (who didn't take part in this discussion) could already close this as this has been open for over one year and so making us stuck to make updates :( -- ( ) I am closing the thread now! I know, I have discussed in the the thread above, but I think anybody who has been involved in the discussion can see a clear consensus. Technical solutions are now available that makes it easy to replace the properties. -- ( ) I am closing the thread now! I know, I have discussed in the the thread above, but I think anybody who has been involved in the discussion can see a clear consensus. Technical solutions are now available that makes it easy to replace the properties. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: beats_per_minute_(P1725): no consensus to delete for now. Can be reconsidered when the 'number with units' datatype is available. -- ( ) no consensus to delete for now. Can be reconsidered when the 'number with units' datatype is available. -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) [MASK] until the new datatype is here where it can be smoothly converted to a ""tempo"" property. I know this cannot influence the result of this discussion but I worked hard the other day adding this property to items. -- [MASK] the suggested replacement datatype is not available. --- [MASK] BPM has no units, by definition. It is a number. Wrong, the unit is min-1 like frequency. You can count per minute or per second so you should be able to distinguish between different types of measure. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . No, it is not wrong, You would be talking about ""Beats per minute, per minute"". I think you are mssing each others point Beats per minute is the unit therefore you only give the value as number. So its not strictly speaking a property the property would be tempo or frequency which than would need a unit which we don't have at the moment. also see below. -- ( ) Wrong, the unit is min-1 like frequency. You can count per minute or per second so you should be able to distinguish between different types of measure. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . No, it is not wrong, You would be talking about ""Beats per minute, per minute"". I think you are mssing each others point Beats per minute is the unit therefore you only give the value as number. So its not strictly speaking a property the property would be tempo or frequency which than would need a unit which we don't have at the moment. also see below. -- ( ) No, it is not wrong, You would be talking about ""Beats per minute, per minute"". I think you are mssing each others point Beats per minute is the unit therefore you only give the value as number. So its not strictly speaking a property the property would be tempo or frequency which than would need a unit which we don't have at the moment. also see below.-- ( ) I think you are mssing each others point Beats per minute is the unit therefore you only give the value as number. So its not strictly speaking a property the property would be tempo or frequency which than would need a unit which we don't have at the moment. also see below. -- ( ) Delete We have to create a general property for all frequency measurements (revolution per minute in case of motor, oscillation for wavelength,...) so the best is to create one frequency property as numeric datatype and to use it in music field like in other fields. ( ) I actually don't agree with the comment regarding a general property, but that's not a discussion for here (primarily that revolutions for example are not dimensionless). -- ( ) Please give arguments: it is always easier to understand the position of each contributor with some argumentation. Then take the definition of frequency: ""Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time"" see . In mechanics we speak about rpm (revolution per minute) and in music about bpm (beats per minute) but at the end this is the same kind of measurement: beat and revolution are not units, there are events. The question is then if we need to create different properties for each way to use a measurement. My question is then what is the problem to use frequency for music ? Just a small comment in the project music and on the property page saying that this property is used in music to describe the tempo. Using this system we give once the opportunity to musicians to understand what is bpm in term of scientific and standard definition. Then if we use WP to understand a little more about bpm, you will find that bpm is a unit of tempo (see ). So the minimal thing is to create a property tempo as numeric data type if you don't want to use a frequency property. ( ) I actually don't agree with the comment regarding a general property, but that's not a discussion for here (primarily that revolutions for example are not dimensionless). -- ( ) Please give arguments: it is always easier to understand the position of each contributor with some argumentation. Then take the definition of frequency: ""Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time"" see . In mechanics we speak about rpm (revolution per minute) and in music about bpm (beats per minute) but at the end this is the same kind of measurement: beat and revolution are not units, there are events. The question is then if we need to create different properties for each way to use a measurement. My question is then what is the problem to use frequency for music ? Just a small comment in the project music and on the property page saying that this property is used in music to describe the tempo. Using this system we give once the opportunity to musicians to understand what is bpm in term of scientific and standard definition. Then if we use WP to understand a little more about bpm, you will find that bpm is a unit of tempo (see ). So the minimal thing is to create a property tempo as numeric data type if you don't want to use a frequency property. ( ) Please give arguments: it is always easier to understand the position of each contributor with some argumentation. Then take the definition of frequency: ""Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time"" see . In mechanics we speak about rpm (revolution per minute) and in music about bpm (beats per minute) but at the end this is the same kind of measurement: beat and revolution are not units, there are events. The question is then if we need to create different properties for each way to use a measurement. My question is then what is the problem to use frequency for music ? Just a small comment in the project music and on the property page saying that this property is used in music to describe the tempo. Using this system we give once the opportunity to musicians to understand what is bpm in term of scientific and standard definition. Then if we use WP to understand a little more about bpm, you will find that bpm is a unit of tempo (see ). So the minimal thing is to create a property tempo as numeric data type if you don't want to use a frequency property. ( ) I think there should be a property name than some way to define which physical quantity this represents and then the unit like its now already with time but this only having specific hardcoded units. But in any case deleting this requires the datatype number with unit, because it does not help to delete this property now but all the frequency properties should be merge once this is possible. - ( ) @ : We don't need the datatype number with unit to DECIDE the deletion of the property, we need the datatype number with unit to REPLACE and DELETE. -- ( ) @ : We don't need the datatype number with unit to DECIDE the deletion of the property, we need the datatype number with unit to REPLACE and DELETE. -- ( ) [MASK] for now. Reconsider when the 'number with units' datatype is available and we can see if we can have a 'bpm' unit or if we have to use Hz. ( ) [MASK] Also, in music, there is very rarely a situation where you would use a unit other than this one. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1698_(P1698): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Comment Oh thanks Filceolaire proposing this. I don't oppose this, but please wait. Even if we delete this, I think it is better to delete after the discussion settled and bot did work (e.g. coping the data to other section). Now we are discussing about ""in what format we should save these data"" from technical point of view (at and ). -- ( ) Not a problem. These deletion discussions can take months and even after a decision to delete is taken the property is not [MASK] until all the statements using it are [MASK] first - we just change the property name to add ""(deprecated)"". ( ) Not a problem. These deletion discussions can take months and even after a decision to delete is taken the property is not [MASK] until all the statements using it are [MASK] first - we just change the property name to add ""(deprecated)"". ( ) Delete After data transfer according to discussion. ( ) Data transfer finished ( ). Now, no page uses this property. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1904: Done by Matěj Suchánek. ( ) Done by Matěj Suchánek. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1131_and_Property:P1130: Done -- Done -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Properties_for_events_and_their_dates_and_locations: Consensus to [MASK] these properties. to do it, and in addition the requesters was indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets. -- ( ) Consensus to [MASK] these properties. to do it, and in addition the requesters was indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets.-- ( ) and the replacement of domain-specific type properties with and increasing the ability to describe items, facilitating data access and presentation, increasing the availability of information in multiple languages reduce cultural bias. date of earliest written record floruit start date end date point in time I added P1317 floruit to those that could be [MASK]. ( ) P65 P189 site of astronomical discovery discovery place Good point, I hoped there would be a solution and maybe there is: At , a woman, has several significant events with item ""childbirth (Q34581)"". So the event as seen from the child could use ""birth"", or an extra item is created for that. Alternatively one could use ""role=mother"" on the mother page and ""role=child"" on the child page, then there is also no more need for defining the natural mother in another property. ( ) Your first proposal implies having two items to describe a single event. It is strictly impractical. The second one would work provided we are able to query qualifiers, which would not be the case before a long time. ( ) The first proposal is already in use. Mothers don't use ""birth"". One can use ""birth"" on the child item and the date would be, when the item is born. If ""birth"" is used on the mother site, then in her role as a child. ( ) @ :I was making the assumption that would be used to link items to instances of events, as it is suggested in the property's label, rather than to classes of events. With the current practice, you have to enter twice the information (date, location) about the birth and if there is an error, you have to correct the two statements, which are not directly linked. And it is worse with events with more participants such as a rugby union international match, which may be the first international match of some players, the last for some others and the largest victory of the winning team. ( ) Your first proposal implies having two items to describe a single event. It is strictly impractical. The second one would work provided we are able to query qualifiers, which would not be the case before a long time. ( ) The first proposal is already in use. Mothers don't use ""birth"". One can use ""birth"" on the child item and the date would be, when the item is born. If ""birth"" is used on the mother site, then in her role as a child. ( ) @ :I was making the assumption that would be used to link items to instances of events, as it is suggested in the property's label, rather than to classes of events. With the current practice, you have to enter twice the information (date, location) about the birth and if there is an error, you have to correct the two statements, which are not directly linked. And it is worse with events with more participants such as a rugby union international match, which may be the first international match of some players, the last for some others and the largest victory of the winning team. ( ) The first proposal is already in use. Mothers don't use ""birth"". One can use ""birth"" on the child item and the date would be, when the item is born. If ""birth"" is used on the mother site, then in her role as a child. ( ) @ :I was making the assumption that would be used to link items to instances of events, as it is suggested in the property's label, rather than to classes of events. With the current practice, you have to enter twice the information (date, location) about the birth and if there is an error, you have to correct the two statements, which are not directly linked. And it is worse with events with more participants such as a rugby union international match, which may be the first international match of some players, the last for some others and the largest victory of the winning team. ( ) @ :I was making the assumption that would be used to link items to instances of events, as it is suggested in the property's label, rather than to classes of events. With the current practice, you have to enter twice the information (date, location) about the birth and if there is an error, you have to correct the two statements, which are not directly linked. And it is worse with events with more participants such as a rugby union international match, which may be the first international match of some players, the last for some others and the largest victory of the winning team. ( ) [MASK] : now that we can added statements to properties, the mapping can be added there and the above properties kept. Besides, qualifiers can't be queried in the near and distant future. Thus the way to go should be make specific properties rather than to attempt to use a single property for everything. --- You seem to ignore the translation issue that with keeping some event-type-specific properties, and at the same time keeping ""significant event"" there are two systems, by adopting the proposal there would only be one the maintenance issue, creating an unknown number of event specific properties, each as date and as location. the expressiveness issue and cultural bias issue - normal users cannot create designated properties and if they don't think that something like ""significant event"" exists, because on many pages the specific properties are used, then they may feel uncomfortable. If qualifiers ""can't be queried"" then it would not be possible they are displayed. Maybe you mean via API. Then this should be fixed ASAP. ( ) @ : Developer said . I don't know the reason (technical feasibility or resource). -- ( ) For the other points mentioned by Andrea, it seems that I might as well ignore them as they can apply also to the solution proposed by Andrea. An exception might be a ""Translation issue"", as I don't understand what that may be in this context. --- @ValterVB. Qualifies can be queried in the current API: we can use the qualifiers to filter data. So for the step 2 of wikidata developement, for the infoboxes or text query, there is no problem. The problem of the development is to define a tool for the query of lists. So if it is possible to query for one person its birth date stored with , it is not forseen to do the same to extract a list of all persons born in 1980 for example. There is no technical difficulty but only a two steps process to develop because filtering with qualifiers implies first to get a list of items corresponding to a certain parameter (all person item with a birth date value) and then to filter again that list with a second parameter (all person item with a birth date equals to 1980). ( ) Of course, I was referring to the creation of lists. For single item no problem, we already use on it.wiki with Lua. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for the explanation -- ( ) You seem to ignore the translation issue that with keeping some event-type-specific properties, and at the same time keeping ""significant event"" there are two systems, by adopting the proposal there would only be one the maintenance issue, creating an unknown number of event specific properties, each as date and as location. the expressiveness issue and cultural bias issue - normal users cannot create designated properties and if they don't think that something like ""significant event"" exists, because on many pages the specific properties are used, then they may feel uncomfortable. the translation issue that with keeping some event-type-specific properties, and at the same time keeping ""significant event"" there are two systems, by adopting the proposal there would only be one the maintenance issue, creating an unknown number of event specific properties, each as date and as location. the expressiveness issue and cultural bias issue - normal users cannot create designated properties and if they don't think that something like ""significant event"" exists, because on many pages the specific properties are used, then they may feel uncomfortable. If qualifiers ""can't be queried"" then it would not be possible they are displayed. Maybe you mean via API. Then this should be fixed ASAP. ( ) @ : Developer said . I don't know the reason (technical feasibility or resource). -- ( ) For the other points mentioned by Andrea, it seems that I might as well ignore them as they can apply also to the solution proposed by Andrea. An exception might be a ""Translation issue"", as I don't understand what that may be in this context. --- @ValterVB. Qualifies can be queried in the current API: we can use the qualifiers to filter data. So for the step 2 of wikidata developement, for the infoboxes or text query, there is no problem. The problem of the development is to define a tool for the query of lists. So if it is possible to query for one person its birth date stored with , it is not forseen to do the same to extract a list of all persons born in 1980 for example. There is no technical difficulty but only a two steps process to develop because filtering with qualifiers implies first to get a list of items corresponding to a certain parameter (all person item with a birth date value) and then to filter again that list with a second parameter (all person item with a birth date equals to 1980). ( ) Of course, I was referring to the creation of lists. For single item no problem, we already use on it.wiki with Lua. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for the explanation -- ( ) @ : Developer said . I don't know the reason (technical feasibility or resource). -- ( ) For the other points mentioned by Andrea, it seems that I might as well ignore them as they can apply also to the solution proposed by Andrea. An exception might be a ""Translation issue"", as I don't understand what that may be in this context. --- @ValterVB. Qualifies can be queried in the current API: we can use the qualifiers to filter data. So for the step 2 of wikidata developement, for the infoboxes or text query, there is no problem. The problem of the development is to define a tool for the query of lists. So if it is possible to query for one person its birth date stored with , it is not forseen to do the same to extract a list of all persons born in 1980 for example. There is no technical difficulty but only a two steps process to develop because filtering with qualifiers implies first to get a list of items corresponding to a certain parameter (all person item with a birth date value) and then to filter again that list with a second parameter (all person item with a birth date equals to 1980). ( ) Of course, I was referring to the creation of lists. For single item no problem, we already use on it.wiki with Lua. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for the explanation -- ( ) @ValterVB. Qualifies can be queried in the current API: we can use the qualifiers to filter data. So for the step 2 of wikidata developement, for the infoboxes or text query, there is no problem. The problem of the development is to define a tool for the query of lists. So if it is possible to query for one person its birth date stored with , it is not forseen to do the same to extract a list of all persons born in 1980 for example. There is no technical difficulty but only a two steps process to develop because filtering with qualifiers implies first to get a list of items corresponding to a certain parameter (all person item with a birth date value) and then to filter again that list with a second parameter (all person item with a birth date equals to 1980). ( ) Of course, I was referring to the creation of lists. For single item no problem, we already use on it.wiki with Lua. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for the explanation -- ( ) Of course, I was referring to the creation of lists. For single item no problem, we already use on it.wiki with Lua. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for the explanation -- ( ) Comment We can't add source to qualifier. So if I have a source for ""date of birth"" and a different source for ""place of birth"", how we can manage? Another example is ""start date"" and ""end date"" for ""marriage"". -- ( ) That means all statements in qualifiers are without source? Could that be a severe shortcoming of the software? One could create two claims for birth, the first with a date and the related sources, the second with the place and the related sources. Currently if there are differing claims for time (T1, T2) and location (L1, L2) the claims are spread and hard to connect. Maybe in reality all sources either claim T1+L2 or T2+L1 are correct. Either he died at 9:05 in the entrance of the building or 9:15 in his room. Aren't there also different kinds of death, clinical death ( ), brain death ( ), legal death? So, would one create date of clinical death, date of brain death, date of legal death and location of clinical death, location of brain death, location of legal death? And another set for ""cause"" ... cause of clinical death, cause of ... It seems specialized time of/date of properties simply don't scale. ( ) Yes, you can add source to the claim but you can't add source to the qualifier. I don't think is possible to change. @ : -- ( ) That means all statements in qualifiers are without source? Could that be a severe shortcoming of the software? One could create two claims for birth, the first with a date and the related sources, the second with the place and the related sources. Currently if there are differing claims for time (T1, T2) and location (L1, L2) the claims are spread and hard to connect. Maybe in reality all sources either claim T1+L2 or T2+L1 are correct. Either he died at 9:05 in the entrance of the building or 9:15 in his room. Aren't there also different kinds of death, clinical death ( ), brain death ( ), legal death? So, would one create date of clinical death, date of brain death, date of legal death and location of clinical death, location of brain death, location of legal death? And another set for ""cause"" ... cause of clinical death, cause of ... It seems specialized time of/date of properties simply don't scale. ( ) Yes, you can add source to the claim but you can't add source to the qualifier. I don't think is possible to change. @ : -- ( ) Yes, you can add source to the claim but you can't add source to the qualifier. I don't think is possible to change. @ : -- ( ) claims about Ulm claims about Princeton @ , , : The new query tool integrates qualifiers in the search. See the documentation . This is available in the last weekly . ( ) This isn't for the same functions. --- Sorry I don't understand your remark: we don't need the same function, who was asking that ? The only question is can we query value using qualifiers and the answer is yes. We don't have the same functions for time or coordinates values and this is not a problem.. ( ) This isn't for the same functions. --- Sorry I don't understand your remark: we don't need the same function, who was asking that ? The only question is can we query value using qualifiers and the answer is yes. We don't have the same functions for time or coordinates values and this is not a problem. . ( ) Sorry I don't understand your remark: we don't need the same function, who was asking that ? The only question is can we query value using qualifiers and the answer is yes. We don't have the same functions for time or coordinates values and this is not a problem. . ( ) [MASK] I can change my opinion when we will can add source to qualifiers. -- ( ) You don't need to be able to add sources to qualifiers: you can add several statements for the same event like birth with each time a different qualifier and the corresponding source. ( ) By the way how can you describe several marriages with the current system (2 marriages with two different persons at different dates and different locations) ? Only the qualifiers system can solve this problem. ( ) @ : Like in . See at I can add a source for every spouse. -- ( ) @ : So why can't you do the same with significant event property ? The spouse property is similar to significant event and use qualifiers to provide more information and sources. And how do you specifiy the marriage locations for all these marriages ? ( ) @ : You suggest something ? (on test.wikidata). -- ( ) @ : More like . ( ) You don't need to be able to add sources to qualifiers: you can add several statements for the same event like birth with each time a different qualifier and the corresponding source. ( ) By the way how can you describe several marriages with the current system (2 marriages with two different persons at different dates and different locations) ? Only the qualifiers system can solve this problem. ( ) @ : Like in . See at I can add a source for every spouse. -- ( ) @ : So why can't you do the same with significant event property ? The spouse property is similar to significant event and use qualifiers to provide more information and sources. And how do you specifiy the marriage locations for all these marriages ? ( ) @ : You suggest something ? (on test.wikidata). -- ( ) @ : More like . ( ) @ : Like in . See at I can add a source for every spouse. -- ( ) @ : So why can't you do the same with significant event property ? The spouse property is similar to significant event and use qualifiers to provide more information and sources. And how do you specifiy the marriage locations for all these marriages ? ( ) @ : You suggest something ? (on test.wikidata). -- ( ) @ : More like . ( ) @ : So why can't you do the same with significant event property ? The spouse property is similar to significant event and use qualifiers to provide more information and sources. And how do you specifiy the marriage locations for all these marriages ? ( ) @ : You suggest something ? (on test.wikidata). -- ( ) @ : More like . ( ) @ : You suggest something ? (on test.wikidata). -- ( ) @ : More like . ( ) @ : More like . ( ) Comment In that radical generality of the proposal Wikidata does need almost no properties at all: Just one for each datatype and compounds of it (like (time interval X place one X place two) for ""events""), anything else is dealt with by qualifiers derived from Q-items. Also part of the discussion here is about the feasibility (and desirability) of a dedicated event data type: It would [MASK] places and dates closer together for the price of loosing the ability to hold qualifiers for the ""atomic"" constituents (like source statements). For many existing properties then it is open to discussion whether they are two singular events involved at the start rsp. end of an interval (like birth/death, vernissage/finissage) or rather one event (life, exhibition): Seems to depend on the point of view but for the sake of the data model one should stick to one of the possibilities... -- ( ) you don't understand the problem of the event items: event can be defined by time, location, persons, actions,... All these characteristics have to be linked together. So if this can be done by the event name like for birth which occurs only once, in case of marriage this system can't work. You can have different marriages with different marriage locations. Only statements with qualifiers can handle these cases so we have to focus on this system. Then can we work with two systems one using qualifiers and the second using several properties ? No so best is to work with only the qualfier system. ( ) Sure I see the limits of single, unqualified properties for non-unique events. However it is the question whether a ""married-to"" property qualified by a point of time (or an interval) and whatever one deems important (location, ...) is more desirable or an ""significant event"" property qualified by a generic ""type of event"" with Q-item ""marriage"": The proposal taken to the extreme ends up with a version of wikidata with very few generic properties in alignment with datatypes plus a handful generic properties for use as qualifiers and the ""semantic flesh"" is shifted from properties to q-items as objects of generic properties. This definitely would be even more flexible but I think very different from the original design of wikidata. -- ( ) It is not a question of small amount of properties or big amount of properties. It is a question of structuring data which are together using a way to connect them together. If you create two single properties for birth date and birth location, how do you connect these two properties which are elements of the same event ? You will have to specify somewhere in your system that these two properties are related. The problem is the connection bewteen data related to the same topic. And the only way to solve this is the qualifier system. It is not a choice, this is currently the only way to link data about the same event. And if the case of the birth or the death is simple, the case of the marriage shows the limits of the all properties system: if a event can occur several times you have to multiply the properties. Just a pratical example: one person is getting married 2 times, one event occuring several times. I don't want to discuss about what should be wikidata or was the original design of wikidata. I just want from you your explanations about how to model these data: Q item: John Doe statement 1: marriage with Calamity Janes in Paris the 2. February 2004. Divorced the 23. March 2007 statement 2: marriage with Mini Mouse in London the 15. June 2009. ( ) There are many possibilities and I do not have a preference there: a marriage-as-punctual-event property with the spouse as value and qualifiers for date and place plus an annotation for the ""corresponding"" divorce a marriage-as-period-of-time property with a time interval and corresponding points in space for the temporal endpoints and a qualifier for the type of termination the foregoing marriage properties qualified by values of a compound point-in-space-time or path-in-space-time datatype (taking values of eg. (London; 15. June 2009) or ((Paris; 2. February 2004) . . (unknown; 23. March 2007)) a generic ""significant-event"" property with one or several properties as above for the corresponding space-time coordinates and a qualifier for ""marriage"" as the type of event. In natural language this would correspond to reducing the number of verbs in favor of adverbial or passivic constructions (attributes of bureaucratic language) similar to exhibitions as ""institutionalized events"" a q-item for any single marriage carrying ""ordinary"" properties for start and end points, locations and the persons involved (this may be the only solution which can be extended to polyamourous group marriages?). This is not as absurd a construction as it might first seem, cf. , an ""event"" which coupled the person Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government or the United States for a certain interval in time. We might borrow the notion of ""reification"" for this approach. I still think we are dealing with two rather distinct questions here: How to cope with non-atomic data types (like the coupling of place and date with the additional difficulty of recording individual sources or annotations for each of the atoms) and about specific properties vs. very generic ones ""typed"" by q-items (you can express anything you want without introducing new properties but successful querying might more than before depend on rigorous and exhaustive subclass-relations on the space of q-items). -- ( ) you don't understand the problem of the event items: event can be defined by time, location, persons, actions,... All these characteristics have to be linked together. So if this can be done by the event name like for birth which occurs only once, in case of marriage this system can't work. You can have different marriages with different marriage locations. Only statements with qualifiers can handle these cases so we have to focus on this system. Then can we work with two systems one using qualifiers and the second using several properties ? No so best is to work with only the qualfier system. ( ) Sure I see the limits of single, unqualified properties for non-unique events. However it is the question whether a ""married-to"" property qualified by a point of time (or an interval) and whatever one deems important (location, ...) is more desirable or an ""significant event"" property qualified by a generic ""type of event"" with Q-item ""marriage"": The proposal taken to the extreme ends up with a version of wikidata with very few generic properties in alignment with datatypes plus a handful generic properties for use as qualifiers and the ""semantic flesh"" is shifted from properties to q-items as objects of generic properties. This definitely would be even more flexible but I think very different from the original design of wikidata. -- ( ) It is not a question of small amount of properties or big amount of properties. It is a question of structuring data which are together using a way to connect them together. If you create two single properties for birth date and birth location, how do you connect these two properties which are elements of the same event ? You will have to specify somewhere in your system that these two properties are related. The problem is the connection bewteen data related to the same topic. And the only way to solve this is the qualifier system. It is not a choice, this is currently the only way to link data about the same event. And if the case of the birth or the death is simple, the case of the marriage shows the limits of the all properties system: if a event can occur several times you have to multiply the properties. Just a pratical example: one person is getting married 2 times, one event occuring several times. I don't want to discuss about what should be wikidata or was the original design of wikidata. I just want from you your explanations about how to model these data: Q item: John Doe statement 1: marriage with Calamity Janes in Paris the 2. February 2004. Divorced the 23. March 2007 statement 2: marriage with Mini Mouse in London the 15. June 2009. ( ) There are many possibilities and I do not have a preference there: a marriage-as-punctual-event property with the spouse as value and qualifiers for date and place plus an annotation for the ""corresponding"" divorce a marriage-as-period-of-time property with a time interval and corresponding points in space for the temporal endpoints and a qualifier for the type of termination the foregoing marriage properties qualified by values of a compound point-in-space-time or path-in-space-time datatype (taking values of eg. (London; 15. June 2009) or ((Paris; 2. February 2004) . . (unknown; 23. March 2007)) a generic ""significant-event"" property with one or several properties as above for the corresponding space-time coordinates and a qualifier for ""marriage"" as the type of event. In natural language this would correspond to reducing the number of verbs in favor of adverbial or passivic constructions (attributes of bureaucratic language) similar to exhibitions as ""institutionalized events"" a q-item for any single marriage carrying ""ordinary"" properties for start and end points, locations and the persons involved (this may be the only solution which can be extended to polyamourous group marriages?). This is not as absurd a construction as it might first seem, cf. , an ""event"" which coupled the person Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government or the United States for a certain interval in time. We might borrow the notion of ""reification"" for this approach. I still think we are dealing with two rather distinct questions here: How to cope with non-atomic data types (like the coupling of place and date with the additional difficulty of recording individual sources or annotations for each of the atoms) and about specific properties vs. very generic ones ""typed"" by q-items (you can express anything you want without introducing new properties but successful querying might more than before depend on rigorous and exhaustive subclass-relations on the space of q-items). -- ( ) Sure I see the limits of single, unqualified properties for non-unique events. However it is the question whether a ""married-to"" property qualified by a point of time (or an interval) and whatever one deems important (location, ...) is more desirable or an ""significant event"" property qualified by a generic ""type of event"" with Q-item ""marriage"": The proposal taken to the extreme ends up with a version of wikidata with very few generic properties in alignment with datatypes plus a handful generic properties for use as qualifiers and the ""semantic flesh"" is shifted from properties to q-items as objects of generic properties. This definitely would be even more flexible but I think very different from the original design of wikidata. -- ( ) It is not a question of small amount of properties or big amount of properties. It is a question of structuring data which are together using a way to connect them together. If you create two single properties for birth date and birth location, how do you connect these two properties which are elements of the same event ? You will have to specify somewhere in your system that these two properties are related. The problem is the connection bewteen data related to the same topic. And the only way to solve this is the qualifier system. It is not a choice, this is currently the only way to link data about the same event. And if the case of the birth or the death is simple, the case of the marriage shows the limits of the all properties system: if a event can occur several times you have to multiply the properties. Just a pratical example: one person is getting married 2 times, one event occuring several times. I don't want to discuss about what should be wikidata or was the original design of wikidata. I just want from you your explanations about how to model these data: Q item: John Doe statement 1: marriage with Calamity Janes in Paris the 2. February 2004. Divorced the 23. March 2007 statement 2: marriage with Mini Mouse in London the 15. June 2009. ( ) There are many possibilities and I do not have a preference there: a marriage-as-punctual-event property with the spouse as value and qualifiers for date and place plus an annotation for the ""corresponding"" divorce a marriage-as-period-of-time property with a time interval and corresponding points in space for the temporal endpoints and a qualifier for the type of termination the foregoing marriage properties qualified by values of a compound point-in-space-time or path-in-space-time datatype (taking values of eg. (London; 15. June 2009) or ((Paris; 2. February 2004) . . (unknown; 23. March 2007)) a generic ""significant-event"" property with one or several properties as above for the corresponding space-time coordinates and a qualifier for ""marriage"" as the type of event. In natural language this would correspond to reducing the number of verbs in favor of adverbial or passivic constructions (attributes of bureaucratic language) similar to exhibitions as ""institutionalized events"" a q-item for any single marriage carrying ""ordinary"" properties for start and end points, locations and the persons involved (this may be the only solution which can be extended to polyamourous group marriages?). This is not as absurd a construction as it might first seem, cf. , an ""event"" which coupled the person Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government or the United States for a certain interval in time. We might borrow the notion of ""reification"" for this approach. I still think we are dealing with two rather distinct questions here: How to cope with non-atomic data types (like the coupling of place and date with the additional difficulty of recording individual sources or annotations for each of the atoms) and about specific properties vs. very generic ones ""typed"" by q-items (you can express anything you want without introducing new properties but successful querying might more than before depend on rigorous and exhaustive subclass-relations on the space of q-items). -- ( ) It is not a question of small amount of properties or big amount of properties. It is a question of structuring data which are together using a way to connect them together. If you create two single properties for birth date and birth location, how do you connect these two properties which are elements of the same event ? You will have to specify somewhere in your system that these two properties are related. The problem is the connection bewteen data related to the same topic. And the only way to solve this is the qualifier system. It is not a choice, this is currently the only way to link data about the same event. And if the case of the birth or the death is simple, the case of the marriage shows the limits of the all properties system: if a event can occur several times you have to multiply the properties. Just a pratical example: one person is getting married 2 times, one event occuring several times. I don't want to discuss about what should be wikidata or was the original design of wikidata. I just want from you your explanations about how to model these data: Q item: John Doe statement 1: marriage with Calamity Janes in Paris the 2. February 2004. Divorced the 23. March 2007 statement 2: marriage with Mini Mouse in London the 15. June 2009. Q item: John Doe statement 1: marriage with Calamity Janes in Paris the 2. February 2004. Divorced the 23. March 2007 statement 2: marriage with Mini Mouse in London the 15. June 2009. ( ) There are many possibilities and I do not have a preference there: a marriage-as-punctual-event property with the spouse as value and qualifiers for date and place plus an annotation for the ""corresponding"" divorce a marriage-as-period-of-time property with a time interval and corresponding points in space for the temporal endpoints and a qualifier for the type of termination the foregoing marriage properties qualified by values of a compound point-in-space-time or path-in-space-time datatype (taking values of eg. (London; 15. June 2009) or ((Paris; 2. February 2004) . . (unknown; 23. March 2007)) a generic ""significant-event"" property with one or several properties as above for the corresponding space-time coordinates and a qualifier for ""marriage"" as the type of event. In natural language this would correspond to reducing the number of verbs in favor of adverbial or passivic constructions (attributes of bureaucratic language) similar to exhibitions as ""institutionalized events"" a q-item for any single marriage carrying ""ordinary"" properties for start and end points, locations and the persons involved (this may be the only solution which can be extended to polyamourous group marriages?). This is not as absurd a construction as it might first seem, cf. , an ""event"" which coupled the person Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government or the United States for a certain interval in time. We might borrow the notion of ""reification"" for this approach. I still think we are dealing with two rather distinct questions here: How to cope with non-atomic data types (like the coupling of place and date with the additional difficulty of recording individual sources or annotations for each of the atoms) and about specific properties vs. very generic ones ""typed"" by q-items (you can express anything you want without introducing new properties but successful querying might more than before depend on rigorous and exhaustive subclass-relations on the space of q-items). -- ( ) There are many possibilities and I do not have a preference there: a marriage-as-punctual-event property with the spouse as value and qualifiers for date and place plus an annotation for the ""corresponding"" divorce a marriage-as-period-of-time property with a time interval and corresponding points in space for the temporal endpoints and a qualifier for the type of termination the foregoing marriage properties qualified by values of a compound point-in-space-time or path-in-space-time datatype (taking values of eg. (London; 15. June 2009) or ((Paris; 2. February 2004) . . (unknown; 23. March 2007)) a generic ""significant-event"" property with one or several properties as above for the corresponding space-time coordinates and a qualifier for ""marriage"" as the type of event. In natural language this would correspond to reducing the number of verbs in favor of adverbial or passivic constructions (attributes of bureaucratic language) similar to exhibitions as ""institutionalized events"" a q-item for any single marriage carrying ""ordinary"" properties for start and end points, locations and the persons involved (this may be the only solution which can be extended to polyamourous group marriages?). This is not as absurd a construction as it might first seem, cf. , an ""event"" which coupled the person Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government or the United States for a certain interval in time. We might borrow the notion of ""reification"" for this approach. a marriage-as-punctual-event property with the spouse as value and qualifiers for date and place plus an annotation for the ""corresponding"" divorce a marriage-as-period-of-time property with a time interval and corresponding points in space for the temporal endpoints and a qualifier for the type of termination the foregoing marriage properties qualified by values of a compound point-in-space-time or path-in-space-time datatype (taking values of eg. (London; 15. June 2009) or ((Paris; 2. February 2004) . . (unknown; 23. March 2007)) a generic ""significant-event"" property with one or several properties as above for the corresponding space-time coordinates and a qualifier for ""marriage"" as the type of event. In natural language this would correspond to reducing the number of verbs in favor of adverbial or passivic constructions (attributes of bureaucratic language) similar to exhibitions as ""institutionalized events"" a q-item for any single marriage carrying ""ordinary"" properties for start and end points, locations and the persons involved (this may be the only solution which can be extended to polyamourous group marriages?). This is not as absurd a construction as it might first seem, cf. , an ""event"" which coupled the person Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government or the United States for a certain interval in time. We might borrow the notion of ""reification"" for this approach. I still think we are dealing with two rather distinct questions here: How to cope with non-atomic data types (like the coupling of place and date with the additional difficulty of recording individual sources or annotations for each of the atoms) and about specific properties vs. very generic ones ""typed"" by q-items (you can express anything you want without introducing new properties but successful querying might more than before depend on rigorous and exhaustive subclass-relations on the space of q-items). -- ( ) Delete per data related: 1) 13:28, 25 December 2014 2) 20:21, 25 December 2014 the marriage example - significant-event is the only way to connect properties (location, time, participants) of events of a type that can occur several times. tool related: 1) 17:00, 22 December 2014 - new query tool data related: 1) 13:28, 25 December 2014 2) 20:21, 25 December 2014 the marriage example - significant-event is the only way to connect properties (location, time, participants) of events of a type that can occur several times. tool related: 1) 17:00, 22 December 2014 - new query tool ( ) different source statements for different aspects of the same event (blank node) statements about different authors and dates of handwriting on the same page of a manuscript (if it's significant they're on the same page) RDF export of qualified claims is much more complicated. ""Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web"" fig3 shows the complex (read ""ugly"") way in which qualifiers are reified. We're currently using the ""simple export"" that doesn't export qualified claims, and not yet considering the full export. Validation gets more complex, eg ""birth should be before death"" or ""floruit is applicable only to Human"". @ : And how do you connect several properties about the same event ? The typical case: two mariages with two different partners at two different locations. You can use twice the marriage date property, twice the partner property and twice the marriage location property. And to be able to know which was the husband of the first marriage and its location you have to perform complex analysis of date to find all informations about one event. The conclusion is simple: when two properties or more are necessary to describe one event we should use only the property. And before saying thing like ""deleting "", just try to write a solution for cases like this . ( ) Current structure mixes two different entities: marriage as event (1-3 days long, with concrete location) and marriage as process (many years relation, without specific location). Another variant: . — ( ) If your solution presents some pratical interest, it is completely illogical: how can you associate dates and location to a person ? Spouse property is a person property and this solution will be a mess later when we will develop automatic tools to validate and to check data consistency. We are speaking about an event (mariage) so the minimum is to create an event property. ( ) Current structure mixes two different entities: marriage as event (1-3 days long, with concrete location) and marriage as process (many years relation, without specific location). Another variant: . — ( ) If your solution presents some pratical interest, it is completely illogical: how can you associate dates and location to a person ? Spouse property is a person property and this solution will be a mess later when we will develop automatic tools to validate and to check data consistency. We are speaking about an event (mariage) so the minimum is to create an event property. ( ) If your solution presents some pratical interest, it is completely illogical: how can you associate dates and location to a person ? Spouse property is a person property and this solution will be a mess later when we will develop automatic tools to validate and to check data consistency. We are speaking about an event (mariage) so the minimum is to create an event property. ( ) Delete . We will never be able to foresee all the specific properties for all fields of the knowledge. Therefore offers great flexibility to use existing elements ( ; ), with the possibility to use and or just , and at the condition to be a subclass of . So we should stop creating scores of specific properties whose the future querries will struggle to find the meaning. Also, the content of is now included in some prototypes of Lua infoboxes in WP:fr and it is working well. ( ) [MASK] Now that we can make statements about properties we can label all properties related to significant events as "" : "" so you can get all these events by searching on P793 plus subproperties. This means that having rather obscure properties will be less of a problem once we can do this kind of search. P793 also has a big problem in that it is used to link to generic items like marriage, topping out, ship launching (each a class of event) and it is also used to items for specific events like the various battles that make up a war. For generic events the date, location etc. is stored as qualifiers in the 'significant event' statement but for specific event items these are stored in the item linked to. It is hard to be consistent when we have these two very different use cases. ( ) [MASK] : We would have the same effect that we have with where have everything and anything. Because is not specific enough to have a real meaning. So at the end, this property can't be used. [MASK] . mark these properties as : . One day, when we have a 'Search (including subproperties)' function I will be proposing that P793 should only be used to link to specific event items (each battle in a campaign, each eruption of a volcano etc.) and that all links to generic class of events be replaced with specific properties. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: docking_port_(P546): defines clearly the notion, and indicates this is an infobox field. The main goal is to note the docking port of spaceships. The example given during the discussion were first docking port is the Zvedza ISS module. . A similar property is the home port. So we can describe regular traject from home port to docking port with these two properties. -- ( ) See also , which is more used. So we have the date and the location. -- ( ) See also , which is more used. So we have the date and the location. -- ( ) Delete ""docking port"" ( ): @ : unless there are at least 5 uses, I'd delete this. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Nova_Scotia_Register_of_Historic_Places_ID_(P909): Closed as no consensus (so [MASK]). Closed as no consensus (so [MASK]). [MASK] that something disappears is not a reason to delete it from Wikidata. E.g. there is . ( ) Delete , better to delete disappeared databases because they are not useful but misleading. -- ( ) Comment personally I'd tend to [MASK] it, but it seems only rarely used and its proposer thinks it should be [MASK]. --- Comment I think it could be [MASK] but only if we know for sure that t won't reappear. WK7489 misses the point we don't delete what disappeared but the references to it(like you would throw away a note which says ""ask "". -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: MTR_station_code_(P1377): no consensus -- ( ) no consensus -- ( ) See . Same for , -- ( ) Comment At the same time, other people are specific properties from the more generic; not least so that we can use . We need to agree a project-wide policy on this. [MASK] ID sets can overlap, e.g. there are several ID systems to identify countries (three from ISO, ) and many for people. Merging them makes them less accessible. But if you want to do that: Merge all into ""identifier"" and use qualifier to point to the item describing the ID, e.g. . ( ) The argument was that we should have one property so all station infoboxes could import info from that property with some lua code to import the ""catalog"" info from the qualifier. Has that changed now that the various specialised ""station code"" properties can be marked as "" : ? ( ) The argument was that we should have one property so all station infoboxes could import info from that property with some lua code to import the ""catalog"" info from the qualifier. Has that changed now that the various specialised ""station code"" properties can be marked as "" : ? ( ) [MASK] Current quality of values is very low. Adding one more code to this garbage place will make situation worse. — ( ) And speedily [MASK] by formal reason: steps described on this page header were not executed. — ( ) Delete Imo it is better to have lesser but more general properties because this makes finding the correct property easier and allows broader usage of few properties. This makes clear that the general idea behind the property is the same. More information can be added using qualifiers or are clear because of the context of the item. For a station code for a station in Hong Kong it is already clear that it is an MTR station code. -- - one station can have several IDs, like English on has a dozen of IDs. Merging into one general language code property would be loss of information. ( ) Wtf? The item you linked is a language, not a station. How can a station have multiple station codes? -- @ : Perhaps you are confusing a ""station code"" with the general identifier datatype. A datatype is not a property. Having only one ""station code"" property would still allow other properties with the datatype ""identifier"" to exist. -- - ""How can a station have multiple station codes?"" - Can you answer the question how a language can have multiple identifiers? ( ) The ""station code"" property is about stations, not languages. The discussion about languages is offtopic and does not belong into this RFD. -- The answer for languages could have been an answer for your stations question. It was meant for general education to avoid have this discussion about each class of objects (stations, roads, languages, stars, humans). ( ) - one station can have several IDs, like English on has a dozen of IDs. Merging into one general language code property would be loss of information. ( ) Wtf? The item you linked is a language, not a station. How can a station have multiple station codes? -- @ : Perhaps you are confusing a ""station code"" with the general identifier datatype. A datatype is not a property. Having only one ""station code"" property would still allow other properties with the datatype ""identifier"" to exist. -- - ""How can a station have multiple station codes?"" - Can you answer the question how a language can have multiple identifiers? ( ) The ""station code"" property is about stations, not languages. The discussion about languages is offtopic and does not belong into this RFD. -- The answer for languages could have been an answer for your stations question. It was meant for general education to avoid have this discussion about each class of objects (stations, roads, languages, stars, humans). ( ) Wtf? The item you linked is a language, not a station. How can a station have multiple station codes? -- @ : Perhaps you are confusing a ""station code"" with the general identifier datatype. A datatype is not a property. Having only one ""station code"" property would still allow other properties with the datatype ""identifier"" to exist. -- - ""How can a station have multiple station codes?"" - Can you answer the question how a language can have multiple identifiers? ( ) The ""station code"" property is about stations, not languages. The discussion about languages is offtopic and does not belong into this RFD. -- The answer for languages could have been an answer for your stations question. It was meant for general education to avoid have this discussion about each class of objects (stations, roads, languages, stars, humans). ( ) - ""How can a station have multiple station codes?"" - Can you answer the question how a language can have multiple identifiers? ( ) The ""station code"" property is about stations, not languages. The discussion about languages is offtopic and does not belong into this RFD. -- The answer for languages could have been an answer for your stations question. It was meant for general education to avoid have this discussion about each class of objects (stations, roads, languages, stars, humans). ( ) The ""station code"" property is about stations, not languages. The discussion about languages is offtopic and does not belong into this RFD. -- The answer for languages could have been an answer for your stations question. It was meant for general education to avoid have this discussion about each class of objects (stations, roads, languages, stars, humans). ( ) The answer for languages could have been an answer for your stations question. It was meant for general education to avoid have this discussion about each class of objects (stations, roads, languages, stars, humans). ( ) Again, [MASK] , unless if we can cancel the ""Single value"" & ""Unique value"" limits of P296. -- ( ) [MASK] , ... and also the formal constraints check would have to be dropped, since IMHO there is no universal authority prescribing the format of station codes... illustrates the confusion, nobody knows what that property really stands for. If we had an identifier datatype of necessary complexity (at least a triple containing of Q-item for the identifier system, formatter URL and identifier value, currently we model things of such complexity as properties where the ""constant"" attributes are elegantly dealt with as properties-for-properties), then the deletion request would make sense. For the time being we should abandon (or turn it into a class) to avoid deletion requests for properties one can work with. -- ( ) @ : Can you provide an example where a station has more than one station code? If I understand that correctly, this property should be used for the official code used for a particular station. Therefore, I think there will be only one official station code per instance. Am I wrong here? -- : DB: RM, SBB: MAN, IBNR: 8000244, UIC: (unknown, but exists), IFOPT: de:8222:2417:1, Express-3: 8068585. Have I missed any? -- ( ) Ok, I see that point. So either we need a property for each of these databases or use the same property in every place. I don't see which option should be preferred as both ones are not ideal.  :-/ -- @ : Can you provide an example where a station has more than one station code? If I understand that correctly, this property should be used for the official code used for a particular station. Therefore, I think there will be only one official station code per instance. Am I wrong here? -- : DB: RM, SBB: MAN, IBNR: 8000244, UIC: (unknown, but exists), IFOPT: de:8222:2417:1, Express-3: 8068585. Have I missed any? -- ( ) Ok, I see that point. So either we need a property for each of these databases or use the same property in every place. I don't see which option should be preferred as both ones are not ideal.  :-/ -- : DB: RM, SBB: MAN, IBNR: 8000244, UIC: (unknown, but exists), IFOPT: de:8222:2417:1, Express-3: 8068585. Have I missed any? -- ( ) Ok, I see that point. So either we need a property for each of these databases or use the same property in every place. I don't see which option should be preferred as both ones are not ideal.  :-/ -- Ok, I see that point. So either we need a property for each of these databases or use the same property in every place. I don't see which option should be preferred as both ones are not ideal.  :-/ -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: courtesy_name_(P1782): Closed as [MASK] as no user but the requestor who was blocked as sockpuppet supported. -- ( ) Closed as [MASK] as no user but the requestor who was blocked as sockpuppet supported.-- ( ) @ : inform the property proposer -- ( ) Question There is a note about the datatype of this property on its talk page: . Has this been resolved? --- Actually, I do not think it can really be resolved, it's just telling that using monolingual text does not appear to work well, as discussed in . What language is ? Chinese ? But Chinese as we know it did not exist at the time ? So classical Chinese ? That sounds better, but most people, both English or Chinese would pronounce it based on the contemporary Chinese pronunciation. Given that the monoligual property does not provide much benefit beside providing a pronunciation, that is a real issue. And for many people we cannot really tell if this is classical / literary / contemporary Chinese, the person may well have used all those languages, and did not change name in-between, and sometimes Japanese/Vietnamese people use Chinese characters, with may be confusing. There are similar issues with other properties as well. Can we really say that the string "" "" is specific to one language ? I would rather turn to string than to monolingual-text Note that we sometimes have similar issues with text-related properties like ""title"", and we chose monolingual text, but for names the issue is more systemic. -- ( ) Actually, I do not think it can really be resolved, it's just telling that using monolingual text does not appear to work well, as discussed in . What language is ? Chinese ? But Chinese as we know it did not exist at the time ? So classical Chinese ? That sounds better, but most people, both English or Chinese would pronounce it based on the contemporary Chinese pronunciation. Given that the monoligual property does not provide much benefit beside providing a pronunciation, that is a real issue. And for many people we cannot really tell if this is classical / literary / contemporary Chinese, the person may well have used all those languages, and did not change name in-between, and sometimes Japanese/Vietnamese people use Chinese characters, with may be confusing. There are similar issues with other properties as well. Can we really say that the string "" "" is specific to one language ? I would rather turn to string than to monolingual-text Note that we sometimes have similar issues with text-related properties like ""title"", and we chose monolingual text, but for names the issue is more systemic. -- ( ) User was blocked, so I suppose we can close this. Same for the other ones. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: temple_name_(P1785): Closed as [MASK] as no user but the requestor who was blocked as sockpuppet supported. -- ( ) Closed as [MASK] as no user but the requestor who was blocked as sockpuppet supported.-- ( ) @ : inform the property proposer -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: eligible_voters_(P1867): Oppose no, it isn't. -- ( ) Please give the difference because there is no huge difference in the descriptions, at least in English. ( ) Well, shouldn't we start with arguments about similarity first then, before asking for contra? Anyway, P1831 is about place, P1867 is about election. While P1831 is used for statistical reasons, and regularry updated field (updated with year qualificators), P1867 is fixed-value field, with additional restrictions like ""single value only"". -- ( ) : number of eligible voters for a particular election : number of registered voters for the place As I explained but perhaps you didn't read: there is no huge differences in the descriptions. So as you have enough knowledge to say there are not the same, just finish your comment. And no in some countries there is no difference between registered and eligible electors. ( ) I agree with , I don't see the difference as the only usage of is the election . So if if must be only linked to a (or perhaps more precisely to a ) and not to an it must be specified in the . -- ( ) I don't see the difference between the number of voters in a constituency and the number of voters in an election in that constituency. I think the values above could be indicated with the same property with a point in time qualifier. . ( ) Please give the difference because there is no huge difference in the descriptions, at least in English. ( ) Well, shouldn't we start with arguments about similarity first then, before asking for contra? Anyway, P1831 is about place, P1867 is about election. While P1831 is used for statistical reasons, and regularry updated field (updated with year qualificators), P1867 is fixed-value field, with additional restrictions like ""single value only"". -- ( ) : number of eligible voters for a particular election : number of registered voters for the place As I explained but perhaps you didn't read: there is no huge differences in the descriptions. So as you have enough knowledge to say there are not the same, just finish your comment. And no in some countries there is no difference between registered and eligible electors. ( ) I agree with , I don't see the difference as the only usage of is the election . So if if must be only linked to a (or perhaps more precisely to a ) and not to an it must be specified in the . -- ( ) I don't see the difference between the number of voters in a constituency and the number of voters in an election in that constituency. I think the values above could be indicated with the same property with a point in time qualifier. . ( ) Well, shouldn't we start with arguments about similarity first then, before asking for contra? Anyway, P1831 is about place, P1867 is about election. While P1831 is used for statistical reasons, and regularry updated field (updated with year qualificators), P1867 is fixed-value field, with additional restrictions like ""single value only"". -- ( ) : number of eligible voters for a particular election : number of registered voters for the place As I explained but perhaps you didn't read: there is no huge differences in the descriptions. So as you have enough knowledge to say there are not the same, just finish your comment. And no in some countries there is no difference between registered and eligible electors. ( ) I agree with , I don't see the difference as the only usage of is the election . So if if must be only linked to a (or perhaps more precisely to a ) and not to an it must be specified in the . -- ( ) I don't see the difference between the number of voters in a constituency and the number of voters in an election in that constituency. I think the values above could be indicated with the same property with a point in time qualifier. . ( ) : number of eligible voters for a particular election : number of registered voters for the place As I explained but perhaps you didn't read: there is no huge differences in the descriptions. So as you have enough knowledge to say there are not the same, just finish your comment. And no in some countries there is no difference between registered and eligible electors. ( ) I agree with , I don't see the difference as the only usage of is the election . So if if must be only linked to a (or perhaps more precisely to a ) and not to an it must be specified in the . -- ( ) I don't see the difference between the number of voters in a constituency and the number of voters in an election in that constituency. I think the values above could be indicated with the same property with a point in time qualifier.. ( ) I agree with , I don't see the difference as the only usage of is the election . So if if must be only linked to a (or perhaps more precisely to a ) and not to an it must be specified in the . -- ( ) I don't see the difference between the number of voters in a constituency and the number of voters in an election in that constituency. I think the values above could be indicated with the same property with a point in time qualifier. . ( ) I don't see the difference between the number of voters in a constituency and the number of voters in an election in that constituency. I think the values above could be indicated with the same property with a point in time qualifier. . ( ) The following scenario should show the difference between the two properties: Election is about to take place at Wikitopia on June 20. Unregistered citizens must register on or before June 1 in order to vote in the upcoming election. On June 2, there are 1000 confirmed registered voters. However this doesn't deter others from registering to become voters. On June 5, 100 more citizens registered to become voters. After that, no more citizens registered. If the government publishes a report on the election on June 20, the would be 1000 (referring to the election) and the would be 1100 (referring to Wikitopia). — ( ) @ : Which is the number who tells the numbers of potential voters and which is the number of registred voters and which is the number of those who actually voted ? And to which election are you reffering here? Is it the municipal board of Wikisburg or the national election of Wikitopia? Where I live, different elections have different rules. In my county 193,777 had the right to vote for the regional parliament and 189,842 had the right to vote in the national parliament. These two elections took place at the same day, and we used the same voting-card for both of these elections, together with the municipal election, which I do not know the numbers of voters in, but it should be the same as the regional election. -- ( ) @ : To model votes, we currently have , , , and . All of those properties should only be included on items about an election only, except for , which should be included in the constituency item (or item of a certain administrative area). As to your first few questions, shows the potential number of voters. As to the number of registered voters, we have . Not all elections require voter registration, so there might be cases where is higher than . shows the total actual ballots inserted into ballot boxes for a particular election, or in other words, the actual number of voters voted. @ : Which is the number who tells the numbers of potential voters and which is the number of registred voters and which is the number of those who actually voted ? And to which election are you reffering here? Is it the municipal board of Wikisburg or the national election of Wikitopia? Where I live, different elections have different rules. In my county 193,777 had the right to vote for the regional parliament and 189,842 had the right to vote in the national parliament. These two elections took place at the same day, and we used the same voting-card for both of these elections, together with the municipal election, which I do not know the numbers of voters in, but it should be the same as the regional election. -- ( ) @ : To model votes, we currently have , , , and . All of those properties should only be included on items about an election only, except for , which should be included in the constituency item (or item of a certain administrative area). As to your first few questions, shows the potential number of voters. As to the number of registered voters, we have . Not all elections require voter registration, so there might be cases where is higher than . shows the total actual ballots inserted into ballot boxes for a particular election, or in other words, the actual number of voters voted. @ : To model votes, we currently have , , , and . All of those properties should only be included on items about an election only, except for , which should be included in the constituency item (or item of a certain administrative area). As to your first few questions, shows the potential number of voters. As to the number of registered voters, we have . Not all elections require voter registration, so there might be cases where is higher than . shows the total actual ballots inserted into ballot boxes for a particular election, or in other words, the actual number of voters voted. The problem you've raised concerning the discrepancy between municipal and national elections only lies in , as it is the only property that is not election-specific, but area-specific. I'm not sure what the consensus is, but I would have the municipal and national elections as two items, since they are fundamentally different in nature (different electorate, different candidates and the different jobs carried out by successful candidates). Each election item would have their own . — ( ) Thank you! You do not have to register here where I live, it's done automaticly. But the lists of voters can be wrong, so the lists of voters are made public during some weeks. If your name by some reason is missing, you can ""register"" as voter, but such changes in the lists are rare and I have never seen any such number published. In the 2015 election of (the 2014 election was disqualified since those who counted the votes made some severe mistakes) We had : 11,874 : 7,552. (Båstad Municipality is not divided in constituencies, but larger municipalities are.) 7,494. 11 out of 13 registred political parties got . 4 non-registred political parties got a total amount of 8 votes. The 41 seats in the local parliament was divided between 7 different political parties. -- ( ) The problem you've raised concerning the discrepancy between municipal and national elections only lies in , as it is the only property that is not election-specific, but area-specific. I'm not sure what the consensus is, but I would have the municipal and national elections as two items, since they are fundamentally different in nature (different electorate, different candidates and the different jobs carried out by successful candidates). Each election item would have their own . — ( ) Thank you! You do not have to register here where I live, it's done automaticly. But the lists of voters can be wrong, so the lists of voters are made public during some weeks. If your name by some reason is missing, you can ""register"" as voter, but such changes in the lists are rare and I have never seen any such number published. In the 2015 election of (the 2014 election was disqualified since those who counted the votes made some severe mistakes) We had : 11,874 : 7,552. (Båstad Municipality is not divided in constituencies, but larger municipalities are.) 7,494. 11 out of 13 registred political parties got . 4 non-registred political parties got a total amount of 8 votes. The 41 seats in the local parliament was divided between 7 different political parties. -- ( ) The problem you've raised concerning the discrepancy between municipal and national elections only lies in , as it is the only property that is not election-specific, but area-specific. I'm not sure what the consensus is, but I would have the municipal and national elections as two items, since they are fundamentally different in nature (different electorate, different candidates and the different jobs carried out by successful candidates). Each election item would have their own . — ( ) Thank you! You do not have to register here where I live, it's done automaticly. But the lists of voters can be wrong, so the lists of voters are made public during some weeks. If your name by some reason is missing, you can ""register"" as voter, but such changes in the lists are rare and I have never seen any such number published. In the 2015 election of (the 2014 election was disqualified since those who counted the votes made some severe mistakes) We had : 11,874 : 7,552. (Båstad Municipality is not divided in constituencies, but larger municipalities are.) 7,494. 11 out of 13 registred political parties got . 4 non-registred political parties got a total amount of 8 votes. The 41 seats in the local parliament was divided between 7 different political parties. -- ( ) Thank you! You do not have to register here where I live, it's done automaticly. But the lists of voters can be wrong, so the lists of voters are made public during some weeks. If your name by some reason is missing, you can ""register"" as voter, but such changes in the lists are rare and I have never seen any such number published. In the 2015 election of (the 2014 election was disqualified since those who counted the votes made some severe mistakes) We had : 11,874 : 7,552. (Båstad Municipality is not divided in constituencies, but larger municipalities are.) 7,494. 11 out of 13 registred political parties got . 4 non-registred political parties got a total amount of 8 votes. The 41 seats in the local parliament was divided between 7 different political parties. -- ( ) [MASK] From the discussion, it makes sense to have two properties here, and it's obvious that we need more properties for votes. But I think the labels and description of them could be better. I had to change the Swedish labels here, since they did not fit the description in this discussion. -- ( ) Delete I agree that we must have more properties for elections (as it can be seen on the ), but these two ones don't seems to be very diffrent. -- ( ) Delete . I can't see a need for 'number of voters in a constituency' and 'number of voters in an election in that constituency' to be different properties and I have read the examples above carefully. ( ) [MASK] . The properties describe two distinct relationships between entities. Here are my reasons for keeping the property: Not all elections are constituency-based. Keeping this property would allow non-geographical elections, such as notable board elections of a company or party leadership elections. Not all elections require registration of voters. Therefore, could not be assigned to any constituency/geographical area item. The value of could not be inferred from that of , as demonstrated in the example above. — ( ) Not all elections are constituency-based. Keeping this property would allow non-geographical elections, such as notable board elections of a company or party leadership elections. Not all elections require registration of voters. Therefore, could not be assigned to any constituency/geographical area item. The value of could not be inferred from that of , as demonstrated in the example above. — ( ) [MASK] . The property descriptions are sufficiently clear: it's eligible voters per election , versus registered voters per geographical area . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: seal_image_(P158): Strong consensus to [MASK]. The property should be cleaned of it coat of arms to avoid confusion. -- ( ) Strong consensus to [MASK]. The property should be cleaned of it coat of arms to avoid confusion. -- ( ) Question What is exactly the problem with this property ? Bad use of a property is not a reason to delete the property. ( ) [MASK] . The mess should not be a reason to delete. What could be, though, would be someone interested in seals starting to create numerous items that describe them and link them to places, people, etc. The usual property for images would then, maybe, become sufficient. For the moment [MASK]. ( ) Comment people using the property currently don't get what they should (images of seals). If there are users who actually get what they want they shouldn't be using it. For both, a new property with the correct data is better. What is the current error rate? 50% or 90%? --- [MASK] . The proposal makes no argument as to why it is supposed that this alleged problem would not recur. If a ""few useful"" examples have indeed been identified, a bot can, subject to community consensus, remove all examples but them. This is correct, no such argument has been made, but otherwise we wouldn't be editing statements here, wouldn't we? --- This is correct, no such argument has been made, but otherwise we wouldn't be editing statements here, wouldn't we? --- [MASK] and clean up existing usage. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1964_(P1964): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) What I mean is that for the moment and are much more used than so it might be better to use those to sort biographical articles till we get a new sorting property that works. ( ) Delete I was skeptic about this If we replace this with a property that has 'monolingual text' datatype (so we can specify the sortkey to be used for each language/script combination would that fix the problem? ( ) I guess it would make it acceptable. stated that this would still be a problem for Swedish-speaking users though. ( ) It would be better, but not perfect, since sv.Wikisource and sv.Wikipedia do not use the same alphabet. I fully support a change to a monolingual datatype. -- ( ) I guess it would make it acceptable. stated that this would still be a problem for Swedish-speaking users though. ( ) It would be better, but not perfect, since sv.Wikisource and sv.Wikipedia do not use the same alphabet. I fully support a change to a monolingual datatype. -- ( ) It would be better, but not perfect, since sv.Wikisource and sv.Wikipedia do not use the same alphabet. I fully support a change to a monolingual datatype. -- ( ) Delete Qualifier on the property would probably make it easier to select the correct sortkey than monolingual string-datatype, but as this is about the only formatted field various wikis have, I'd rather leave it with them for now. --- Delete or change to a monolingual string-datatype ( ) Per my extensive comments at the creation discussion, delete . This property had no business ever being created. Sortkey should maybe be a badge of some sort. -- ( ) Delete Delete The defautsort key is language-dependent. It should be handled the same way as aliases. ( ) Delete I agree totally with , as I explained on the Project Chat recently, and before that on the creation discussion. It should be handled with labels, not as a property. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: maximum_number_of_players_(P1873): Withdrawn by proposer. Withdrawn by proposer. Question How would you handle cases where only a minimum or a maximum number is provided? ( ) [MASK] Some games have minimum numbers of players but no maximum. +/- is not adequate for expressing this. ( ) [MASK] . +/- is for uncertainty. It should never be used for a range. ( ) [MASK] per Filceolaire. -- Withdrawn Ok -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2246_(P2246): [MASK] by . [MASK] by . ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: name_in_native_language_(P1559): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Note: ruwiki use this property in various templates. I added links to this discussion from their talk pages. ( ) Person name is not ""local"", in general it is very hard to define what ""place"" is person belongs to. But it is very simple to define what native person language is. P1559 is not about person name in local language, but in person native language. It may be similar, but it is different by definition. -- ( ) [MASK] , many strongly defined and accurate named properties are better than single property with several meanings, domain everything and name something1 / something2 / something3 . — ( ) [MASK] as Ivan. ( ) [MASK] per Ivan: very useful to have a specific property only for persons. — ( ) Delete , but not for the reasons given. This is redundant to the actual label and the property. -- ( ) People are not necessarily named in their own first language, as people can grow up in a different cultural environment than the one that is used for naming them. In some cases people can get a name in a language they don't even master themselves. so their native tongue (P103) won't be the one for their name (P1559). - - ( • • ) I am confused. The labels of P1559 and P103 are ""name in native language"" and ""native language"" (in English, at least). Are you considering ""first language"", ""native language"" and ""native tongue"" to mean different things? -- ( ) I understand your confusion, but think about whose native language we are talking about. P103 is the one the person him- or herself has as native language, but P1559 is given before one learns to speak, usually by (one of the) parents. People who are, for instance, adopted and raised raised a different environment, may very well develop another native language than their name-giver has, so the native language for P103 may differ from the one for P1559. - - ( • • ) Cycn: Good point. Comment 1: what would be a better way to deal with this problem? Passport name instead of native tongue? Comment 2: we can of course set multiple “original names” of different languages to deal with this problem. — ( ) I think that the original lable was 'Name at birth', but that was a previous property. ""Birth name in name-giver's language"" or something like that would cover this, I suppose. I don't know if people can have birth names in different languages. This could happen if the parents have different languages and they decide to give their child the same in those two languages. I think this property is for the official name, versions of this name in different languages may be used, but lots of people are called by different names than their official one(s). - - ( • • ) The idea of this property is not to [MASK] track of name changes due to marriage or similar things. It is more about having an origin for any transcription into other languages, because basically all representations of a name in other languages have the same origin. Therefore, multipe values are a good idea after marriage (to [MASK] old and new “original name”) and in cases of multi-language persons or changed habits of the native language in their home country (example: . This also has impact on how these names are transcribed into other languages). For that reason, I’d rather avoid the term “birth” in the description. — ( ) Yair rand: The label depends on user settings and is a transcribed version of the original name of the person. In case of different alphabets (e.g. western, cyrillic, arabic, east-asian, …), the differences of the original name (as kept by this property) and the labels (in other languages) could be quite dramatic . However, since the transcription is always based on some original name, we should have a property to systematically store this original name—this is Property:P1559. (An automatic multi-language transcription tool would be nice, btw.) — ( ) People are not necessarily named in their own first language, as people can grow up in a different cultural environment than the one that is used for naming them. In some cases people can get a name in a language they don't even master themselves. so their native tongue (P103) won't be the one for their name (P1559). - - ( • • ) I am confused. The labels of P1559 and P103 are ""name in native language"" and ""native language"" (in English, at least). Are you considering ""first language"", ""native language"" and ""native tongue"" to mean different things? -- ( ) I understand your confusion, but think about whose native language we are talking about. P103 is the one the person him- or herself has as native language, but P1559 is given before one learns to speak, usually by (one of the) parents. People who are, for instance, adopted and raised raised a different environment, may very well develop another native language than their name-giver has, so the native language for P103 may differ from the one for P1559. - - ( • • ) Cycn: Good point. Comment 1: what would be a better way to deal with this problem? Passport name instead of native tongue? Comment 2: we can of course set multiple “original names” of different languages to deal with this problem. — ( ) I think that the original lable was 'Name at birth', but that was a previous property. ""Birth name in name-giver's language"" or something like that would cover this, I suppose. I don't know if people can have birth names in different languages. This could happen if the parents have different languages and they decide to give their child the same in those two languages. I think this property is for the official name, versions of this name in different languages may be used, but lots of people are called by different names than their official one(s). - - ( • • ) The idea of this property is not to [MASK] track of name changes due to marriage or similar things. It is more about having an origin for any transcription into other languages, because basically all representations of a name in other languages have the same origin. Therefore, multipe values are a good idea after marriage (to [MASK] old and new “original name”) and in cases of multi-language persons or changed habits of the native language in their home country (example: . This also has impact on how these names are transcribed into other languages). For that reason, I’d rather avoid the term “birth” in the description. — ( ) I am confused. The labels of P1559 and P103 are ""name in native language"" and ""native language"" (in English, at least). Are you considering ""first language"", ""native language"" and ""native tongue"" to mean different things? -- ( ) I understand your confusion, but think about whose native language we are talking about. P103 is the one the person him- or herself has as native language, but P1559 is given before one learns to speak, usually by (one of the) parents. People who are, for instance, adopted and raised raised a different environment, may very well develop another native language than their name-giver has, so the native language for P103 may differ from the one for P1559. - - ( • • ) I understand your confusion, but think about whose native language we are talking about. P103 is the one the person him- or herself has as native language, but P1559 is given before one learns to speak, usually by (one of the) parents. People who are, for instance, adopted and raised raised a different environment, may very well develop another native language than their name-giver has, so the native language for P103 may differ from the one for P1559. - - ( • • ) Cycn: Good point. Comment 1: what would be a better way to deal with this problem? Passport name instead of native tongue? Comment 2: we can of course set multiple “original names” of different languages to deal with this problem. — ( ) I think that the original lable was 'Name at birth', but that was a previous property. ""Birth name in name-giver's language"" or something like that would cover this, I suppose. I don't know if people can have birth names in different languages. This could happen if the parents have different languages and they decide to give their child the same in those two languages. I think this property is for the official name, versions of this name in different languages may be used, but lots of people are called by different names than their official one(s). - - ( • • ) The idea of this property is not to [MASK] track of name changes due to marriage or similar things. It is more about having an origin for any transcription into other languages, because basically all representations of a name in other languages have the same origin. Therefore, multipe values are a good idea after marriage (to [MASK] old and new “original name”) and in cases of multi-language persons or changed habits of the native language in their home country (example: . This also has impact on how these names are transcribed into other languages). For that reason, I’d rather avoid the term “birth” in the description. — ( ) I think that the original lable was 'Name at birth', but that was a previous property. ""Birth name in name-giver's language"" or something like that would cover this, I suppose. I don't know if people can have birth names in different languages. This could happen if the parents have different languages and they decide to give their child the same in those two languages. I think this property is for the official name, versions of this name in different languages may be used, but lots of people are called by different names than their official one(s). - - ( • • ) The idea of this property is not to [MASK] track of name changes due to marriage or similar things. It is more about having an origin for any transcription into other languages, because basically all representations of a name in other languages have the same origin. Therefore, multipe values are a good idea after marriage (to [MASK] old and new “original name”) and in cases of multi-language persons or changed habits of the native language in their home country (example: . This also has impact on how these names are transcribed into other languages). For that reason, I’d rather avoid the term “birth” in the description. — ( ) The idea of this property is not to [MASK] track of name changes due to marriage or similar things. It is more about having an origin for any transcription into other languages, because basically all representations of a name in other languages have the same origin. Therefore, multipe values are a good idea after marriage (to [MASK] old and new “original name”) and in cases of multi-language persons or changed habits of the native language in their home country (example: . This also has impact on how these names are transcribed into other languages). For that reason, I’d rather avoid the term “birth” in the description. — ( ) Yair rand: The label depends on user settings and is a transcribed version of the original name of the person. In case of different alphabets (e.g. western, cyrillic, arabic, east-asian, …), the differences of the original name (as kept by this property) and the labels (in other languages) could be quite dramatic . However, since the transcription is always based on some original name, we should have a property to systematically store this original name—this is Property:P1559. (An automatic multi-language transcription tool would be nice, btw.) — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2122: Done by . Done by . ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1581: no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete Redundant, there should be a qualifier for official website that allows the specification of what type of website though. ( ) @ : so, typing via a qualifier? What property would be used for qualifier? ""instance of""? The value would be something like ? ( ) @ : so, typing via a qualifier? What property would be used for qualifier? ""instance of""? The value would be something like ? ( ) Delete agree with Antrocent, here -- ( ) [MASK] I don't see what the benefit to changing it to a qualifier would be, nor is it clear to me which qualifier is even being proposed. I would rather remove the blog aliases from (the first of which, as far as I can tell, was added by you after this property had been created) and add to this one. As for it only being used 10 times, it sounds like we actually need to add/import more data ( would be a start). Also pinging @ , , , : who proposed/supported this property originally. - ( ) [MASK] per Nikki. ( ) [MASK] per Nikki. Most entities for which this could be applied have a unique official (main) website and unique official blog. This property would be quite useful to import data from Wikipedia. ( ) Comment Not sure but rather Delete . How can you tell what is a website and what is a blog? I don't see examples where this little difference matters. Constraints on should be adapt (no more unique and adding an ad hoc qualifier). @ : can you provide an example? Cdlt, ( ) Official website normally should point to a general homepage of an organization or person, while official blog points to a site where periodical posts are made. Taking some examples from the English Wikipedia templates, www.microsoft.com vs. blogs.microsoft.com for ; www.koizumix.com vs. ameblo.jp/koizumixproduction for . ( ) Official website normally should point to a general homepage of an organization or person, while official blog points to a site where periodical posts are made. Taking some examples from the English Wikipedia templates, www.microsoft.com vs. blogs.microsoft.com for ; www.koizumix.com vs. ameblo.jp/koizumixproduction for . ( ) [MASK] per Innotata. Sorry it took me so long to vote, I must not have paid attention to my ping notification. -- [MASK] per Innotata. ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P387_(P387): Please help converting to the new property. Property to be [MASK] once it's no longer in use/replacement functional. --- Please help converting to the new property. Property to be [MASK] once it's no longer in use/replacement functional. --- Property is not yet [MASK] because it is still in use in many references, see . -- ( ) I think there is also a ""unknown"" or ""undetermined"" language code missing. --- The monolingual datatype doesn't provide a list of languages with all possible languages and with an unknown language for special cases. Then the conversion from P387 to P1683 required unknown language because we can't automatically detect the language from claims using P387. ( ) I think there is also a ""unknown"" or ""undetermined"" language code missing. --- The monolingual datatype doesn't provide a list of languages with all possible languages and with an unknown language for special cases. Then the conversion from P387 to P1683 required unknown language because we can't automatically detect the language from claims using P387. ( ) The monolingual datatype doesn't provide a list of languages with all possible languages and with an unknown language for special cases. Then the conversion from P387 to P1683 required unknown language because we can't automatically detect the language from claims using P387. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1655_(P1655): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) I must say: [MASK] , except if the Single value and Unique value limits of can be cancelled . -- ( ) Indeed it looks like they are not quite duplicated. Indeed it looks like they are not quite duplicated. They seem to be different, but to me it's not entirely clear which code they're supposed to be. There are several code systems for railway station (UIC, IBNR, IFOPT, german railway (DS100, including stations from other countries), swiss railway (DIDOK, including stations from other countries), austrian railway, …) out there. My guess is that is something russian, P722 is either UIC or IBNR and P1655 something korean. So we need a clarification on them and new properties for the remaining code systems. -- ( ) Indeed, codes of a station are mixable, even if that's not an . So let's restart the PFD of if no tldr. The IBNR property is . -- ( ) Indeed, codes of a station are mixable, even if that's not an . So let's restart the PFD of if no tldr. The IBNR property is . -- ( ) Delete . is meant as a generic property with qualifier ' ' to specify which station code system applies. Stations can therefore have multiple codes as long as these have different values for the qualifier. This means , , , are redundant and can all be [MASK]. Alternatively we need to create codes for every system of station naming (thousands?) in this case we definitely need to [MASK] and add ""subproperty of:station code"" statements to all the specific properties in the hope that at some time in the future we can query for statements using ""station code;including subproperties"" so we don't have to know what the special property is in order to get the station info. ( ) But then P296 would have to be altered accordingly. I'll list the affected properties here, feel free to add others to the list: -- ( ) (six digits) (seven digits) (seven digits) (five digits, only in China) But then P296 would have to be altered accordingly. I'll list the affected properties here, feel free to add others to the list: -- ( ) (six digits) (seven digits) (seven digits) (five digits, only in China) (six digits) (seven digits) (seven digits) (five digits, only in China) Since this is the only remaining deletion request and there's , I'm gonna list the already closed DRs in case someone's looking for the other discussions: , . -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1112_(P1112): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) @ : could be merged easily with (which has the correct datatype), as the Pokémon Browser is just a subclass of the Pokédex used in Pokémon Ranger games. ( | ) If the Pokemon Browser is a subclass of the Pokedex, wouldn't it be better to migrate the subclass into the main class and to correct ? (Additional, numbers of aren't consistent.) -- ( ) Yes, it could be done that way. My thinking was that as the Pokémon Browser number is a String and that the existant values are still valid (they all have a qualifier), we could merge the Pokédex number in P1685 and rename it to Pokédex number. That would save some work moving all values (we'll only have to do some). ( | ) If the Pokemon Browser is a subclass of the Pokedex, wouldn't it be better to migrate the subclass into the main class and to correct ? (Additional, numbers of aren't consistent.) -- ( ) Yes, it could be done that way. My thinking was that as the Pokémon Browser number is a String and that the existant values are still valid (they all have a qualifier), we could merge the Pokédex number in P1685 and rename it to Pokédex number. That would save some work moving all values (we'll only have to do some). ( | ) If the Pokemon Browser is a subclass of the Pokedex, wouldn't it be better to migrate the subclass into the main class and to correct ? (Additional, numbers of aren't consistent.) -- ( ) Yes, it could be done that way. My thinking was that as the Pokémon Browser number is a String and that the existant values are still valid (they all have a qualifier), we could merge the Pokédex number in P1685 and rename it to Pokédex number. That would save some work moving all values (we'll only have to do some). ( | ) Yes, it could be done that way. My thinking was that as the Pokémon Browser number is a String and that the existant values are still valid (they all have a qualifier), we could merge the Pokédex number in P1685 and rename it to Pokédex number. That would save some work moving all values (we'll only have to do some). ( | ) Retrospectively, I think I shouldn't have supported the creation of as it's actually more efficient to have separate properties for each numbering scheme. For this property, string would be the datatype we use for these. So yes, support deletion and re-creation with that type. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1413_(P1413): conensus to delete this property -- ( ) conensus to delete this property -- ( ) [MASK] , my bot moved all the old uses of this property to the new ones. ( ) Support let's go ahead with this. --- Delete Agree. Delete -- ( ) Delete as all above (including Jura!) ( ) Delete : is almost completely useless at it currently stands. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P659,_Property:P857_and_Property:P1152: and will be [MASK]. and will be [MASK]. has more than 50 participants and . Please post on instead. -- ( ) @ : It is too early to delete properties because too few items or no item are using them. WD is in some sleeping mode because too few WPs are using the data mainly because of some development reasons. We have to wait at least until the implementation of the arbitrary access is finished and after the development of the first infoboxes using mainly WD as data source is lauching to start the purge of properties. ( ) @ : I'm not requesting deletion because of too few items using them, otherwise I could request deletion of 271 properties (17% of all properties!). That's the current number of properties with 5 or less usages. But P659, P857 and P1152 are different, as they can't even be used and according to the talk pages nobody realized it. -- ( ) @ : I'm not requesting deletion because of too few items using them, otherwise I could request deletion of 271 properties (17% of all properties!). That's the current number of properties with 5 or less usages. But P659, P857 and P1152 are different, as they can't even be used and according to the talk pages nobody realized it. -- ( ) Support deletion: as they are not being used, can't be used and nobody (other than Pasleim) tried to use them. --- Given that P659 is now being used . . obviously, let's [MASK] that. --- Given that P659 is now being used .. obviously, let's [MASK] that. --- Recreate with correct data types, then delete. Oppose for : This property is used quite heavily by in qualifiers for and . (That may not have been the case when this proposal was suggested several months ago, but it is true now...) Best, ( ) Thanks Andrew Su to demonstrate how to use this property. I updated the documentation. -- ( ) Thanks Andrew Su to demonstrate how to use this property. I updated the documentation. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: CWGC_burial_ground_ID_(P1920): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] This is overkill. Jura agreed that the property should be created. I misread his comment about one detail, and now we have a disagreement about how it should be used, which can be resolved - as I requested them to do; see their talk page - in a talk page discussion. I don't think the datatype is a minor detail. To avoid disrupting our downstream users, let's delete this until the proposal discussion comes to a conclusion. Otherwise we end up with more unresolved problems as with the ones you created for , this despite people providing feedback. --- The data type will be ""string"", whether we record the full identifier or just the numeric part. The linked, archived, discussion to which you link is immaterial to this matter. It's no big deal to delete this. I'm sure we will be able to sort it out eventually. --- It's no big deal to [MASK] this. I don't think the datatype is a minor detail. To avoid disrupting our downstream users, let's delete this until the proposal discussion comes to a conclusion. Otherwise we end up with more unresolved problems as with the ones you created for , this despite people providing feedback. --- The data type will be ""string"", whether we record the full identifier or just the numeric part. The linked, archived, discussion to which you link is immaterial to this matter. It's no big deal to delete this. I'm sure we will be able to sort it out eventually. --- It's no big deal to [MASK] this. The data type will be ""string"", whether we record the full identifier or just the numeric part. The linked, archived, discussion to which you link is immaterial to this matter. It's no big deal to delete this. I'm sure we will be able to sort it out eventually. --- It's no big deal to [MASK] this. It's no big deal to delete this. I'm sure we will be able to sort it out eventually. --- It's no big deal to [MASK] this. It's no big deal to [MASK] this. [MASK] It's not an ideal situation, but the property exists now and I don't see what deleting it would achieve. It's not clear that the property is wrong as it is. The property does seem to be wanted in some form. Deleting it does not help us store the data. Deleting it does not help to define how it should be used. Deleting and later recreating it (potentially unnecessarily) does not prevent disruption to downstream data users. In fact, I would say the best way to avoid disruption to downstream users would be to focus on determining the best way to store the data so that any changes that are needed can be made as soon as possible, not to get sidetracked by trying to delete it before it's clear that deleting it is even necessary. - ( ) It's a data type and content format issue. I guess we could just create properties and then discuss them. That could be a new approach, apparently already practiced at . --- Now you're just making things up. Why? It's a data type and content format issue. I guess we could just create properties and then discuss them. That could be a new approach, apparently already practiced at . --- Now you're just making things up. Why? Now you're just making things up. Why? Calm down the pair of you. you shouldn't be creating properties you proposed yourself. Please don't do that again. this is an issue which could have been handled better and with less drama by some direct communication on another forum. ( ) I am, and have been throughout, perfectly calm. When whether I should create properties I proposed myself, on the ""Project chat"" page there were zero objections. Indeed, one editor thanked me for doing so: Jura. However, I from doing so where there are objections. As I have already stated on Jura's talk page, with an apology, I misread Jura's latter comment on the proposal in this case. As you can see there, I also invited Jura to raise his concerns on talk page. He has not done so. Here is the explanation given to Andy: . --- And here is . So, are you going to do the right thing? --- there is no consensus to delete this property so it would be improper for to do that. The creation discussion is archived at . You have links to various other conversations none of which, are clear (to me) as to what the problem is. The discussion above indicates there is some problem as to how much of the url should be used as the identifier. If this is the problem then it doesn't justify deletion. It's a practical implementation detail which (in my opinion) should be discussed on the property talk page (not in user talk pages - it's important later users of this property can see the discussion). [MASK] . ( ) I am, and have been throughout, perfectly calm. When whether I should create properties I proposed myself, on the ""Project chat"" page there were zero objections. Indeed, one editor thanked me for doing so: Jura. However, I from doing so where there are objections. As I have already stated on Jura's talk page, with an apology, I misread Jura's latter comment on the proposal in this case. As you can see there, I also invited Jura to raise his concerns on talk page. He has not done so. Here is the explanation given to Andy: . --- And here is . So, are you going to do the right thing? --- there is no consensus to delete this property so it would be improper for to do that. The creation discussion is archived at . You have links to various other conversations none of which, are clear (to me) as to what the problem is. The discussion above indicates there is some problem as to how much of the url should be used as the identifier. If this is the problem then it doesn't justify deletion. It's a practical implementation detail which (in my opinion) should be discussed on the property talk page (not in user talk pages - it's important later users of this property can see the discussion). [MASK] . ( ) Here is the explanation given to Andy: . --- And here is . So, are you going to do the right thing? --- there is no consensus to delete this property so it would be improper for to do that. The creation discussion is archived at . You have links to various other conversations none of which, are clear (to me) as to what the problem is. The discussion above indicates there is some problem as to how much of the url should be used as the identifier. If this is the problem then it doesn't justify deletion. It's a practical implementation detail which (in my opinion) should be discussed on the property talk page (not in user talk pages - it's important later users of this property can see the discussion). [MASK] . ( ) And here is . So, are you going to do the right thing? --- there is no consensus to delete this property so it would be improper for to do that. The creation discussion is archived at . You have links to various other conversations none of which, are clear (to me) as to what the problem is. The discussion above indicates there is some problem as to how much of the url should be used as the identifier. If this is the problem then it doesn't justify deletion. It's a practical implementation detail which (in my opinion) should be discussed on the property talk page (not in user talk pages - it's important later users of this property can see the discussion). [MASK] . ( ) So, are you going to do the right thing? --- there is no consensus to delete this property so it would be improper for to do that. The creation discussion is archived at . You have links to various other conversations none of which, are clear (to me) as to what the problem is. The discussion above indicates there is some problem as to how much of the url should be used as the identifier. If this is the problem then it doesn't justify deletion. It's a practical implementation detail which (in my opinion) should be discussed on the property talk page (not in user talk pages - it's important later users of this property can see the discussion). [MASK] . ( ) there is no consensus to delete this property so it would be improper for to do that. The creation discussion is archived at . You have links to various other conversations none of which, are clear (to me) as to what the problem is. The discussion above indicates there is some problem as to how much of the url should be used as the identifier. If this is the problem then it doesn't justify deletion. It's a practical implementation detail which (in my opinion) should be discussed on the property talk page (not in user talk pages - it's important later users of this property can see the discussion). [MASK] . ( ) The property is still ill defined => Delete (wrong datatype or definition) --- As you're the person who opened this section (which was already long-overdue for closure), this constitutes a second ""!vote"". What is a ""!vote""? Not sure if you can even count. Anyways, even simple cases here take forever . . etc. --- As you're the person who opened this section (which was already long-overdue for closure), this constitutes a second ""!vote"". What is a ""!vote""? Not sure if you can even count. Anyways, even simple cases here take forever . . etc. --- What is a ""!vote""? Not sure if you can even count. Anyways, even simple cases here take forever .. etc. --- [MASK] If the CWGC actually have identifiers and they use them. Delete if they do not. If there is disagreement over an aspect, fix that aspect and seek assistance of some party to mediate, not haggle over a deletion based on prematurity of creation. Noting that six months later it has 6 uses.   — It probably only has six uses because it's had a deletion ""sword of Damolcles"" hanging over it for six months. Nonetheless, those six cases prove that the CWGC both have identifiers and use them, so your condition for keeping is met. Please can this now be closed ? It probably only has six uses because it's had a deletion ""sword of Damolcles"" hanging over it for six months. Nonetheless, those six cases prove that the CWGC both have identifiers and use them, so your condition for keeping is met. Please can this now be closed ? ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: box_office_(P2142): Closed per Sjoerd. --- Closed per Sjoerd. --- Doesn't box office only refer to ticket sales in cinemas (i.e. the box office sales) and not the total revenue? - ( ) @ : please answer this question or I'll reject this. @ : please answer this question or I'll reject this. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: vice-county_(P1887): No consensus to delete. No consensus to delete. [MASK] There's a clear description of what this property relates to at . Given that even the primary designations are so far only very poorly populated for places in the UK, it seems premature to delete this solely because the data hasn't yet been filled out. One question, though, for @ : what is the scope ultimately intended for this property? Is it anticipated that it will be applied only to nature reserves, sites of particular biological interest etc? Or, is it intended that it should be filled out for every , and relevant places in a biological vice-county will be identified via their civil parish? Or, would it ultimately be envisaged to roll it out to all locations in the UK and Ireland? ( ) Certainly for nature reserves; for other places if deemed useful. Certainly for nature reserves; for other places if deemed useful. [MASK] - This is not unused . And thank you for the ping, . It's troubling that properties may be nominated for deletion, without their proponents being notified. I can only see the sample given with the proposal was added when it was created 5 months ago, but there is no practical use. Where do you see any? As for the nomination, I used the script. If you failed to get the notification, would you file a bug report? --- No: if you're using a script and it's not working as it should, then you should raise a bug; being in a far better position than I am to describe the circumstances. But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not un used. ""But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not used."" at least you agree on something. As for the script, it's the standard one. From my side, it worked fine. Maybe what appears as a bug to you is a feature, the property being unused. --- Typo fixed. Have you reported the bug, yet, with the ""standard"" script that failed when you used it? It also failed when you used it, I presume, since it doesn't seem to have ever worked for anyone (I first saw it pointed out months ago in ). In I removed the misleading parameters. If someone wants to re-add them and make it all work properly, they can, but at least for now it will stop people from being led to believe that the template will cause people to be pinged when it won't. - ( ) Your presumption is incorrect. I can only see the sample given with the proposal was added when it was created 5 months ago, but there is no practical use. Where do you see any? As for the nomination, I used the script. If you failed to get the notification, would you file a bug report? --- No: if you're using a script and it's not working as it should, then you should raise a bug; being in a far better position than I am to describe the circumstances. But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not un used. ""But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not used."" at least you agree on something. As for the script, it's the standard one. From my side, it worked fine. Maybe what appears as a bug to you is a feature, the property being unused. --- Typo fixed. Have you reported the bug, yet, with the ""standard"" script that failed when you used it? It also failed when you used it, I presume, since it doesn't seem to have ever worked for anyone (I first saw it pointed out months ago in ). In I removed the misleading parameters. If someone wants to re-add them and make it all work properly, they can, but at least for now it will stop people from being led to believe that the template will cause people to be pinged when it won't. - ( ) Your presumption is incorrect. No: if you're using a script and it's not working as it should, then you should raise a bug; being in a far better position than I am to describe the circumstances. But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not un used. ""But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not used."" at least you agree on something. As for the script, it's the standard one. From my side, it worked fine. Maybe what appears as a bug to you is a feature, the property being unused. --- Typo fixed. Have you reported the bug, yet, with the ""standard"" script that failed when you used it? It also failed when you used it, I presume, since it doesn't seem to have ever worked for anyone (I first saw it pointed out months ago in ). In I removed the misleading parameters. If someone wants to re-add them and make it all work properly, they can, but at least for now it will stop people from being led to believe that the template will cause people to be pinged when it won't. - ( ) Your presumption is incorrect. ""But thank you for acknowledging that the property is not used."" at least you agree on something. As for the script, it's the standard one. From my side, it worked fine. Maybe what appears as a bug to you is a feature, the property being unused. --- Typo fixed. Have you reported the bug, yet, with the ""standard"" script that failed when you used it? It also failed when you used it, I presume, since it doesn't seem to have ever worked for anyone (I first saw it pointed out months ago in ). In I removed the misleading parameters. If someone wants to re-add them and make it all work properly, they can, but at least for now it will stop people from being led to believe that the template will cause people to be pinged when it won't. - ( ) Your presumption is incorrect. Typo fixed. Have you reported the bug, yet, with the ""standard"" script that failed when you used it? It also failed when you used it, I presume, since it doesn't seem to have ever worked for anyone (I first saw it pointed out months ago in ). In I removed the misleading parameters. If someone wants to re-add them and make it all work properly, they can, but at least for now it will stop people from being led to believe that the template will cause people to be pinged when it won't. - ( ) Your presumption is incorrect. It also failed when you used it, I presume, since it doesn't seem to have ever worked for anyone (I first saw it pointed out months ago in ). In I removed the misleading parameters. If someone wants to re-add them and make it all work properly, they can, but at least for now it will stop people from being led to believe that the template will cause people to be pinged when it won't. - ( ) Your presumption is incorrect. Your presumption is incorrect. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2569: Property [MASK]. ( ) Property [MASK]. ( ) Delete - Unused and won't be usable anytime soon. (Relies on precision = 13, which isn't accepted by GUI nor by API). ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2616_(P2616): [MASK] by -- ( ) [MASK] by -- ( ) Done, as a revert of my own creation. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: opposite_of_(P461): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Any examples? Well, I pretty much see this used as in black/white for example, which is not really a good example of meaning, but nobody would say that yellow FFFF00 is the opposite of blue 0000FF as 000000 (black) is the opposite of FFFFFF (white). Is ""love"" the ""opposite"" of ""hate"" ? We actually also speaks of ""love""/""hate"" relationships. We should take some example and study if there is anything to so with them at all. "" "" is about having two opposite emotions for the same object. Things like ""war"" or ""indifference"" are sometimes said to be opposite to specific cases of ""love"" in specific expressions, but is about the most generic ""love"". -- ( ) Well, I pretty much see this used as in black/white for example, which is not really a good example of meaning, but nobody would say that yellow FFFF00 is the opposite of blue 0000FF as 000000 (black) is the opposite of FFFFFF (white). Is ""love"" the ""opposite"" of ""hate"" ? We actually also speaks of ""love""/""hate"" relationships. We should take some example and study if there is anything to so with them at all. "" "" is about having two opposite emotions for the same object. Things like ""war"" or ""indifference"" are sometimes said to be opposite to specific cases of ""love"" in specific expressions, but is about the most generic ""love"". -- ( ) "" "" is about having two opposite emotions for the same object. Things like ""war"" or ""indifference"" are sometimes said to be opposite to specific cases of ""love"" in specific expressions, but is about the most generic ""love"". -- ( ) I agree this does not make sense in a huge majority of cases. A really better definition would be based on the ""complement"" notion of the set theory. If we can divide (lets take a bad example) the human action set into good actions and evil actions, and that an action is either good or bad, but nether both, then the ""good action"" class is the complement of the ""bad action"" class in the ""human action"" class. In the same spirit I proposed strongly defined ""union of"" and ""disjoint union of"" properties (see ). Some example taken from Man / woman : the opposite, really ? Big Bang, Big Crunch ? Internet / extranet ? What's true is that if we take all human, then remove all women, we get all men, and conversely. In math we say that men complements women in the set of human. This has a meaning, and is a proposed property we could work with, for example, but I would not know how an intranet is the opposite of internet. Except the complement of all women is all men + all intersex. -- ( ) @ : Yes, it's good to find good and accurate examples :) Actually it's the proposed Under discussion Description Data type Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 disjoint union of (partitioned into?) that would fit here : . It's not approved yet thought, although there is a lot of example of use cases here. Except the complement of all women is all men + all intersex. -- ( ) @ : Yes, it's good to find good and accurate examples :) Actually it's the proposed Under discussion Description Data type Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 disjoint union of (partitioned into?) that would fit here : . It's not approved yet thought, although there is a lot of example of use cases here. @ : Yes, it's good to find good and accurate examples :) Actually it's the proposed Under discussion Description Data type Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 disjoint union of (partitioned into?) that would fit here : . It's not approved yet thought, although there is a lot of example of use cases here. Delete. I agree with the proposer's rationale. -- ( ) Not sure if the property is terribly useful, but that can be said about a few others as well. For some of the pairs, it might be worth adding a qualifier to indicate what differentiates/opposes them. --- Comment The creation discussion ( ) was less than fulsome, though indicated that there use cases for articles without giving examples. @ , : in case they wish to contribute.  — Concerning colors and man/woman, there may be a property specifying the ""frame of reference"" (similar to ). I don't know about color models, but there is "" "". -- ( ) even has a French label. ""frame of reference"" could be a good start for the qualifier. --- even has a French label. ""frame of reference"" could be a good start for the qualifier. --- I think that the ""opposite"" could be interesting for a property, but it has been used weirdly. Perhaps the scope is too broad. I like the suggestion by Jura1 to indicate somehow in what respect the pair of items represent opposites. I was surprised to find opposite pairs like and , which are merely antipodes on the globe. It is clarified with a as a qualifier, I'm not sure it is the right way to indicate it, but something like that should be added, by obligation IMHO. If so, I say [MASK] . ( ) There is just such a qualifier: , and I agree it should be mandatory. In your example, a better qualifying statement would be , but ""antipode"" might be sensibly proposed as a subproperty of ( ) There is just such a qualifier: , and I agree it should be mandatory. In your example, a better qualifying statement would be , but ""antipode"" might be sensibly proposed as a subproperty of ( ) [MASK] . Add documentation, clean up where necessary, create better properties where possible, relist if still not satisfied. -- ( ) I suggest reading . Opposite can mean different things. Probably this property could be made more exact using qualifiers to state what kind of oposition it means in each statement, or it could be split in more precise properties. Anyway, in its present state it isn't machine-readable (as Wikidata should be) because it's need a human decide it's meaning in each item. It's more a trivial section than a fact statement - it doesn't harm but I don't see it very useful as of now. -- ( ) @ : Everything is in the ""Word"" in the ""pair of words"". Wikidata do not speak of words at this point, this is for Wiktionary. For some cases here, we use opposite for the ""complement"" notion (I simplify for the example : (for simplification I just ignore the LGBT and co. cases at first) : ""every human is either a man or a woman"". To express this, at this point, some people on Wikidata would use ""man : opposite : woman"". In the proposition "" Under discussion Description Data type Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 "" we have the possibility to say that the set of all men and the set of all women are disjoint, and that when taken together (the union of the set of all man and all woman is the set of all human. This can be said in maths language ""the set of men is the complement of the set of women in the set of human"". If we add the set of all ""transgender"" or others as needed, we kind express this as ""Human is the disjoint union of men, women, transgender, ..."" @ : Everything is in the ""Word"" in the ""pair of words"". Wikidata do not speak of words at this point, this is for Wiktionary. For some cases here, we use opposite for the ""complement"" notion (I simplify for the example : (for simplification I just ignore the LGBT and co. cases at first) : ""every human is either a man or a woman"". To express this, at this point, some people on Wikidata would use ""man : opposite : woman"". In the proposition "" Under discussion Description Data type Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 "" we have the possibility to say that the set of all men and the set of all women are disjoint, and that when taken together (the union of the set of all man and all woman is the set of all human. This can be said in maths language ""the set of men is the complement of the set of women in the set of human"". If we add the set of all ""transgender"" or others as needed, we kind express this as ""Human is the disjoint union of men, women, transgender, ..."" [MASK] But I have encountered plenty of claims which don't make sense to me. For example, has been claimed to be the opposite of . Perhaps something has been lost in translation? ( ) [MASK] , but require qualifier ; create subproperties like as warranted. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1569_(P1569): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete per nominator's rationale. ( ) Delete per rationale. Both properties are used only 10 times each. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1887: Property [MASK]. ( ) Property [MASK]. ( ) [MASK] and procedural close ASAP. was on this page, also nominated by Jura1, with no support whatsoever. The discussion was closed as ""[MASK]"" as recently as 17 December 2015. The claim that the property ""doesn't seem to have any practical use"" is utterly bogus, as is the claim that the property is ""unused"", and both are contradicted in that previous discussion, in comments to which Jura1 posted responses. Once again, I was not notified of this nomination. Furthermore, this renomination, when there are another 255 properties with fewer than 3 uses, appears . The property was created in May 2015‎ and it's used . I'm sure that if this is a useful property that it can be used more? I'll check back in a couple of weeks. If it's still barely used it will probably be [MASK], if it's usage is better we can [MASK] it. Also @ : ( ) In the meantime, Pigsonthewing had another 8 weeks to find uses for this property, but apparently this wasn't possible, just as much as during the 8 weeks of the previous nomination. This despite posting 5-10 comments about the property. In the previous discussion, it wasn't even clear if the only other [MASK] vote was supporting the property as they had another use in mind. --- I wasn't aware that we were up against a deadline (nor indeed that it was my personal responsibility to ensure that the deadline was met). Please can someone point out where it is documented? Deletion requests are closed after 7 days minimum. --- Quite. The discussion was closed as ""[MASK]"" as recently as 17 December 2015. The property was created in May 2015‎ and it's used . I'm sure that if this is a useful property that it can be used more? I'll check back in a couple of weeks. If it's still barely used it will probably be [MASK], if it's usage is better we can [MASK] it. Also @ : ( ) In the meantime, Pigsonthewing had another 8 weeks to find uses for this property, but apparently this wasn't possible, just as much as during the 8 weeks of the previous nomination. This despite posting 5-10 comments about the property. In the previous discussion, it wasn't even clear if the only other [MASK] vote was supporting the property as they had another use in mind. --- I wasn't aware that we were up against a deadline (nor indeed that it was my personal responsibility to ensure that the deadline was met). Please can someone point out where it is documented? Deletion requests are closed after 7 days minimum. --- Quite. The discussion was closed as ""[MASK]"" as recently as 17 December 2015. I wasn't aware that we were up against a deadline (nor indeed that it was my personal responsibility to ensure that the deadline was met). Please can someone point out where it is documented? Deletion requests are closed after 7 days minimum. --- Quite. The discussion was closed as ""[MASK]"" as recently as 17 December 2015. Deletion requests are closed after 7 days minimum. --- Quite. The discussion was closed as ""[MASK]"" as recently as 17 December 2015. Quite. The discussion was closed as ""[MASK]"" as recently as 17 December 2015. [MASK] per the lack of reason presented to do otherwise. Jura1 appears to be on some sort of mission against this property, but the same arguments were rejected in December and nothing has changed since. (talk: | | ) Yeah, I tend to clean up my stuff myself. --- I don't understand how that comment makes any sense as a reply to mine. (talk: | | ) It's almost a month ago I left a comment here and this property is , it's currently on the path to the waste bin. ( ) Despite asking in multiple places, nobody has ever explained why properties that are not presently used by many items (but which can be used by many) are actually a problem that needs solving. Until that question is answered satisfactorily I stand by my firm opposition to deletion. (talk: | | ) . Please help with the cleanup of the list mentioned there if you proposed or supported the creation of any properties listed there. Personally, I think I should be doing this type of cleanup if it was me. If properties are actually needed, they could be re-created. --- You will note that I am marked as doing work on the one property on that list I proposed, but this still does not answer the question. (talk: | | ) I didn't say I expect you to clean up P1887. I'm doing that already. As for the unused properties mentioned on project chat, please help us assess them on . --- What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) Yeah, I tend to clean up my stuff myself. --- I don't understand how that comment makes any sense as a reply to mine. (talk: | | ) I don't understand how that comment makes any sense as a reply to mine. (talk: | | ) It's almost a month ago I left a comment here and this property is , it's currently on the path to the waste bin. ( ) Despite asking in multiple places, nobody has ever explained why properties that are not presently used by many items (but which can be used by many) are actually a problem that needs solving. Until that question is answered satisfactorily I stand by my firm opposition to deletion. (talk: | | ) . Please help with the cleanup of the list mentioned there if you proposed or supported the creation of any properties listed there. Personally, I think I should be doing this type of cleanup if it was me. If properties are actually needed, they could be re-created. --- You will note that I am marked as doing work on the one property on that list I proposed, but this still does not answer the question. (talk: | | ) I didn't say I expect you to clean up P1887. I'm doing that already. As for the unused properties mentioned on project chat, please help us assess them on . --- What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) Despite asking in multiple places, nobody has ever explained why properties that are not presently used by many items (but which can be used by many) are actually a problem that needs solving. Until that question is answered satisfactorily I stand by my firm opposition to deletion. (talk: | | ) . Please help with the cleanup of the list mentioned there if you proposed or supported the creation of any properties listed there. Personally, I think I should be doing this type of cleanup if it was me. If properties are actually needed, they could be re-created. --- You will note that I am marked as doing work on the one property on that list I proposed, but this still does not answer the question. (talk: | | ) I didn't say I expect you to clean up P1887. I'm doing that already. As for the unused properties mentioned on project chat, please help us assess them on . --- What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) . Please help with the cleanup of the list mentioned there if you proposed or supported the creation of any properties listed there. Personally, I think I should be doing this type of cleanup if it was me. If properties are actually needed, they could be re-created. --- You will note that I am marked as doing work on the one property on that list I proposed, but this still does not answer the question. (talk: | | ) I didn't say I expect you to clean up P1887. I'm doing that already. As for the unused properties mentioned on project chat, please help us assess them on . --- What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) You will note that I am marked as doing work on the one property on that list I proposed, but this still does not answer the question. (talk: | | ) I didn't say I expect you to clean up P1887. I'm doing that already. As for the unused properties mentioned on project chat, please help us assess them on . --- What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) I didn't say I expect you to clean up P1887. I'm doing that already. As for the unused properties mentioned on project chat, please help us assess them on . --- What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) What question do you think Thryduulf is asking? ( ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) How can they can help to not make unused problems an issue? --- No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) No, the question I am asking is ""Why are unused properties an issue?"". (talk: | | ) Delete @ : Personally, I don't like dormant properties because they cause work but don't help anybody. Labels and descriptions have to be translated, property constraints have to be defined and the violation reports should be watched. I don't know how often is misused, but there are certainly dormant properties which are wrongly used on a regular basis (my favorite is ). That is work which ends in smoke. In addition, if I don't understand the documentation of a property (and I don't understand the documentation of P1887), I first look at items which are using the property. But this is not possible if it is a dormant property. -- ( ) Thank you for the answer, but I don't understand why a property being dormant or not has any impact on whether it will be misused or not? If the documentation is unclear then surely the answer is to improve the documentation rather than delete the property? If something is frequently misused then this and the property that should be used need to be looked at to see if the documentation or label could be improved, regardless of how well used the property is. Labels and descriptions translated now mean they don't have to be done again later - unless the property is [MASK], in which case the work needs to be done again when it is recreated. If a property is not being used, then there should not be any constraint violations for it - unless it is being misused (in which case see my previous comments). In short, none of those seem like good reasons to delete a property. (talk: | | ) If property is dormant or not doesn't have an impact on whether it will be misused. But undoing the wrong edits, improving the documentation to prevent wrong edits, adding translations, that's all work for nothing if the property stays dormant forever. And in case of I have to assume that it will stay dormant forever as after nine months not even the property proposer could add a second example. -- ( ) There is no deadline. Why should someone have to fill a property on some arbitrary timescale? If it cannot be used or is duplicated that is very different to not presently used. It is clear from the original proposal and from the two deletion discussions that this property can be used and is not duplicative of anything, so I see absolutely no value to be gained by the deletion - particularly as nobody has presented any evidence of this actually being misused rather than just having the potential to be misused. (talk: | | ) Thank you for the answer, but I don't understand why a property being dormant or not has any impact on whether it will be misused or not? If the documentation is unclear then surely the answer is to improve the documentation rather than delete the property? If something is frequently misused then this and the property that should be used need to be looked at to see if the documentation or label could be improved, regardless of how well used the property is. Labels and descriptions translated now mean they don't have to be done again later - unless the property is [MASK], in which case the work needs to be done again when it is recreated. If a property is not being used, then there should not be any constraint violations for it - unless it is being misused (in which case see my previous comments). In short, none of those seem like good reasons to delete a property. (talk: | | ) If property is dormant or not doesn't have an impact on whether it will be misused. But undoing the wrong edits, improving the documentation to prevent wrong edits, adding translations, that's all work for nothing if the property stays dormant forever. And in case of I have to assume that it will stay dormant forever as after nine months not even the property proposer could add a second example. -- ( ) There is no deadline. Why should someone have to fill a property on some arbitrary timescale? If it cannot be used or is duplicated that is very different to not presently used. It is clear from the original proposal and from the two deletion discussions that this property can be used and is not duplicative of anything, so I see absolutely no value to be gained by the deletion - particularly as nobody has presented any evidence of this actually being misused rather than just having the potential to be misused. (talk: | | ) If property is dormant or not doesn't have an impact on whether it will be misused. But undoing the wrong edits, improving the documentation to prevent wrong edits, adding translations, that's all work for nothing if the property stays dormant forever. And in case of I have to assume that it will stay dormant forever as after nine months not even the property proposer could add a second example. -- ( ) There is no deadline. Why should someone have to fill a property on some arbitrary timescale? If it cannot be used or is duplicated that is very different to not presently used. It is clear from the original proposal and from the two deletion discussions that this property can be used and is not duplicative of anything, so I see absolutely no value to be gained by the deletion - particularly as nobody has presented any evidence of this actually being misused rather than just having the potential to be misused. (talk: | | ) There is no deadline. Why should someone have to fill a property on some arbitrary timescale? If it cannot be used or is duplicated that is very different to not presently used. It is clear from the original proposal and from the two deletion discussions that this property can be used and is not duplicative of anything, so I see absolutely no value to be gained by the deletion - particularly as nobody has presented any evidence of this actually being misused rather than just having the potential to be misused. (talk: | | ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Wikidata_example_properties: consensus to delete these properties -- ( ) consensus to delete these properties -- ( ) I prefer keeping them. Your other approach introduces uses as qualifiers for exisiting properties. And, no, it's not appropriate to change all uses before the end of this discussion. Please undo your edits where this hasn't been done yet. --- @ : What's wrong with ""introducing uses as qualifiers for existing properties"" ? We have already done this in a big way with -- see the results of eg this query tinyurl.com/qekm959 for qualifiers used on P360 statements. ( ) @ : What's wrong with ""introducing uses as qualifiers for existing properties"" ? We have already done this in a big way with -- see the results of eg this query tinyurl.com/qekm959 for qualifiers used on P360 statements. ( ) [MASK] , seems useful in sandboxes or in docs to have properties with some sample datatypes we can use without messing around with properties actually used for real datas, at least. @ : There are also sandbox properties , , , , , , , -- ( ) OK, then if they are useless after all, don't see don't see a good reason to oppose deletion. Actually, the problem mentioned remains (samples messing around with properties used for real data), especially since we can now use properties on properties. --- @ : In that case, please strike your ""[MASK]"", above, to avoid confusion. @ : There are also sandbox properties , , , , , , , -- ( ) OK, then if they are useless after all, don't see don't see a good reason to oppose deletion. Actually, the problem mentioned remains (samples messing around with properties used for real data), especially since we can now use properties on properties. --- @ : In that case, please strike your ""[MASK]"", above, to avoid confusion. OK, then if they are useless after all, don't see don't see a good reason to oppose deletion. Actually, the problem mentioned remains (samples messing around with properties used for real data), especially since we can now use properties on properties. --- @ : In that case, please strike your ""[MASK]"", above, to avoid confusion. Actually, the problem mentioned remains (samples messing around with properties used for real data), especially since we can now use properties on properties. --- @ : In that case, please strike your ""[MASK]"", above, to avoid confusion. Delete . Reusing the property itself in the example is much clearer than using those properties. ( ) Delete per andy. ( ) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC) It looks like we will need these as placeholder properties for defining rules for transitive; reflexive; etc properties. See . : note that we will need a sandbox property for each datatype so that is pretty much all of these. ( ) @ : Does satisfy this, for you? @ : Does satisfy this, for you? Redefine as a sandbox property, delete the rest-- ( ) @ : have you checked how they are being used? --- @ : Their current usage should be cleared once the discussion is closed.-- ( ) @ : I created as sandbox property with datatype property. -- ( ) @ : Does satisfy this, for you? @ : have you checked how they are being used? --- @ : Their current usage should be cleared once the discussion is closed. -- ( ) @ : I created as sandbox property with datatype property. -- ( ) @ : Does satisfy this, for you? @ : Their current usage should be cleared once the discussion is closed. -- ( ) @ : I created as sandbox property with datatype property. -- ( ) @ : Does satisfy this, for you? @ : I created as sandbox property with datatype property. -- ( ) @ : Does satisfy this, for you? @ : Does satisfy this, for you? So what is the actual outcome of this discussion, if any? Should we stop using them? Should we replace them all? Will they be [MASK]? (Sorry for the noise.) ( ) I had closed this as no consensus to delete, considering it had been open for a long time with little to no discussion. I have, however, reopened it, per request, to see if any further discussion takes place. Delete Reusing the existing properties in examples is clearer and causes less confusion than the use of those properties. Already the discussion above shows that many users are confused and mistake those example properties with sandbox properties. -- ( ) Delete I agree that using the properties themselves in examples is clearer. - ( ) [MASK] use these for test/sample/sandbox data on property items. Entering samples with actual properties mixes test/sample/sandbox data into production dataset. Samples on property documentation look the same with these properties than they do with actual properties, so the clarity is the same. Using these properties makes users focus on actually defining samples, making sure they are ready to define samples. --- @ : I'm not sure I agree. If you look at the example Andy gave ( ), it seems to me that it doesn't ""mix test/sample/sandbox data into production dataset"". The value 18049321 doesn't become a value of the property wt:P2011 , it becomes a value of the qualifer pq:P2011 , attached in the specific context of the exemplar property -- something which should be straightforward enough to filter out, even in the rare occasion that one were to be specifically querying for the property used in a qualifier context. In my view this is something well worthwhile, for the clear benefit of using the immediately apparent to show how P2011 is used, rather than the much less clear syntax. ( ) @ : please don't before this deletion debate is over. ( ) The two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, I merely reverted a which itself was made while this deletion proposal was taking place. This duplicates Jura1's comment of 30 July 2015. Double-counting should be avoided. @ : I'm not sure I agree. If you look at the example Andy gave ( ), it seems to me that it doesn't ""mix test/sample/sandbox data into production dataset"". The value 18049321 doesn't become a value of the property wt:P2011 , it becomes a value of the qualifer pq:P2011 , attached in the specific context of the exemplar property -- something which should be straightforward enough to filter out, even in the rare occasion that one were to be specifically querying for the property used in a qualifier context. In my view this is something well worthwhile, for the clear benefit of using the immediately apparent to show how P2011 is used, rather than the much less clear syntax. ( ) @ : please don't before this deletion debate is over. ( ) The two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, I merely reverted a which itself was made while this deletion proposal was taking place. @ : please don't before this deletion debate is over. ( ) The two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, I merely reverted a which itself was made while this deletion proposal was taking place. The two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, I merely reverted a which itself was made while this deletion proposal was taking place. This duplicates Jura1's comment of 30 July 2015. Double-counting should be avoided. Delete as a new property creator I was confused by this for a week or two - using the actual property as a qualifier in the example is actually a good test that things are working as well as demonstrating use. I would be happy to help replacing old uses of these if there's a consensus to do that before deleting. ( ) Comment Months ago I wrote a which should move some property metadata from talk pages to statements, including those examples. This discussion has however been blocking me since then. Is there any chance on closing this soon? Advantage of using the property itself is that the value can automatically get formatted by the gadget (in the future by the software). ( ) @ : Apparently not, despite there being only a single individual still opposing. It's farcical.  :-( @ : Apparently not, despite there being only a single individual still opposing. It's farcical.  :-( Delete Per all of the above, the continuing existence of these property leads to people using them. -- ( ) Delete These properties are just confusing. -- ( ) Comment If that move happens, also and similar templates/modules need to be updated I imagine. ( ) Comment None of those properties are in use anymore. I removed the last two usages. -- ( ) 23:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) The query did not look for qualifiers. -- ( ) Of course, while trying to clean this up, my changes get reverted by . Kindergarten behaviour. -- ( ) Of course, while trying to clean this up, my changes get reverted by . Kindergarten behaviour. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1790_(P1790): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) [MASK] . Firstly there is a notice on the BioStor home page: ""Heads up! BioStor is evolving, so things will look different and some things may be missing."", so this may be temporary; and secondly, we shouldn't delete properties and data even if the original source disappears. (There is also still data to be imported from Wikipedia). I don't see any indication that this ID would return somehow, but see that ""... some things may be missing"". Keeping a property with an identifier for a website that does not use the identifier anymore, and a property that is used in no more than 8 items, IMHO is fairly useless. ( ) Created without clear consensus, but we can ask ... -- ( ) No, there was clear consensus. , and no-one objected. I don't see any indication that this ID would return somehow, but see that ""... some things may be missing"". Keeping a property with an identifier for a website that does not use the identifier anymore, and a property that is used in no more than 8 items, IMHO is fairly useless. ( ) Created without clear consensus, but we can ask ... -- ( ) No, there was clear consensus. , and no-one objected. No, there was clear consensus. , and no-one objected. Speedy delete : There is no clear consensus as the proposer and creator suggests. BioStor is an experimental website created by . If the proposer and creator of this property had informed I had objected earlier. -- ( ) 07:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC) has more than 50 participants and . Please post on instead. -- ( ) Poppyocck. Two for, and no opposes. How is that anything other than ""clear consensus""? Nor is this a taxonomic property. [Note: My reply is to Succu's comment, not his separately signed , outdented ping-project. The reason it is here, improperly indented, and not underneath that comment is because Succu has moved it] BioStor is not an authority control for people. -- ( ) Poppyocck. Two for, and no opposes. How is that anything other than ""clear consensus""? Nor is this a taxonomic property. [Note: My reply is to Succu's comment, not his separately signed , outdented ping-project. The reason it is here, improperly indented, and not underneath that comment is because Succu has moved it] BioStor is not an authority control for people. -- ( ) [Note: My reply is to Succu's comment, not his separately signed , outdented ping-project. The reason it is here, improperly indented, and not underneath that comment is because Succu has moved it] BioStor is not an authority control for people. -- ( ) BioStor is not an authority control for people. -- ( ) Delete If it's dead, convert the few uses to ""described at URL"" (P973) and delete it. Interested parties are already not doing the necessary maintenance on it. --- As noted below, it's not dead. As noted above, there is still data to be imported from Wikipedia. As noted below, it's not dead. As noted above, there is still data to be imported from Wikipedia. A Note from Roderic Page „ ”. -- ( ) At which point, we can update, or remove, the formatter URL. Until and after that ""one day"", these IDs remain useful data. New BioStor works with . We won't switch to that. ( ) Your comment does not contradict, much less refute, mine. According to addresses the question „does this article exist in the BHL archive? “ and is not intended to be an authority control for authors. Your template is used . I see no reason to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Congratulation on managing to cram so many straw men into one post. Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) At which point, we can update, or remove, the formatter URL. Until and after that ""one day"", these IDs remain useful data. New BioStor works with . We won't switch to that. ( ) Your comment does not contradict, much less refute, mine. According to addresses the question „does this article exist in the BHL archive? “ and is not intended to be an authority control for authors. Your template is used . I see no reason to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Congratulation on managing to cram so many straw men into one post. Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) New BioStor works with . We won't switch to that. ( ) Your comment does not contradict, much less refute, mine. According to addresses the question „does this article exist in the BHL archive? “ and is not intended to be an authority control for authors. Your template is used . I see no reason to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Congratulation on managing to cram so many straw men into one post. Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) Your comment does not contradict, much less refute, mine. According to addresses the question „does this article exist in the BHL archive? “ and is not intended to be an authority control for authors. Your template is used . I see no reason to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Congratulation on managing to cram so many straw men into one post. Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) According to addresses the question „does this article exist in the BHL archive? “ and is not intended to be an authority control for authors. Your template is used . I see no reason to [MASK] this property. -- ( ) Congratulation on managing to cram so many straw men into one post. Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) Congratulation on managing to cram so many straw men into one post. Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) Yes, this answer rocks. But only by ignoring the intention of the websites creator. -- ( ) Delete this page is too experimental to be included to a serious project like Wikidata. -- ( ) Delete BioStor is an interface to BHL, with no added functionality, but just another way to access it. And indeed, this ""BioStor author"" is very incomplete. - ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2617_(P2617): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) I'm getting a little bit uncomfortable with Pigsonthewing closing his own requests. You think someone else would have reached a different conclusion? The discussion was open for more than a week, as required. There was one pro vote and no contra votes. Creating this property seems fine to me. -- ( ) You think someone else would have reached a different conclusion? The discussion was open for more than a week, as required. There was one pro vote and no contra votes. Creating this property seems fine to me. -- ( ) The discussion was open for more than a week, as required. There was one pro vote and no contra votes. Creating this property seems fine to me. -- ( ) Speedy [MASK] This was created with support, and no objections , after a lengthy period (double the requirement!) at Property proposal/Property metadata, which occurred after a separate discussion identified the need for such a property. Note discussion at . I'll reverse my ! vote if consensus there is that this is not the right approach. Note discussion at . I'll reverse my ! vote if consensus there is that this is not the right approach. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): I close this deletion proposal as undecided , because of change of basis of the proposal. Its basis changed since was created earlier this year. Both properties are kept for now, but new deletion proposals may be started accounting the the existance of . ( ) I close this deletion proposal as undecided , because of change of basis of the proposal. Its basis changed since was created earlier this year. Both properties are kept for now, but new deletion proposals may be started accounting the the existance of . ( ) @ , , , : What's FRBR? --- . In simple words, work, translations and edition are described in different items. ( ) . In simple words, work, translations and edition are described in different items. ( ) What is the other property that you are talking about? ( ) vs. . ( ) So you want ot merge and . Since is more specific than , and since you wrote ""we don't need anymore two properties to describe language of a work [...] The original language of the work can be retrieved from the language property of the work item"", then I suggest to delete instead of/and not . ( ) I am pragmatic: use of : 95129, use of : 7588. See ( ) vs. . ( ) So you want ot merge and . Since is more specific than , and since you wrote ""we don't need anymore two properties to describe language of a work [...] The original language of the work can be retrieved from the language property of the work item"", then I suggest to delete instead of/and not . ( ) I am pragmatic: use of : 95129, use of : 7588. See ( ) So you want ot merge and . Since is more specific than , and since you wrote ""we don't need anymore two properties to describe language of a work [...] The original language of the work can be retrieved from the language property of the work item"", then I suggest to delete instead of/and not . ( ) I am pragmatic: use of : 95129, use of : 7588. See ( ) I am pragmatic: use of : 95129, use of : 7588. See ( ) What would happen with films in FRBR? --- Same as translations for book: a new items for each translated version in order to put the name of the ""voices"". ( ) Same as translations for book: a new items for each translated version in order to put the name of the ""voices"". ( ) I see there is a lot of good arguments, but the two properties can´t be merged easily. In cases where p 364 is uses as it should be, it must be [MASK] and secured that p 364 is added to the corresponding work item. In many (thousands) of other cases p364 is used not the way as it is intended instead of p407. So p364 is messed up much more than p 407. I find the concept of p407 is easier to understand, so I suggest to change the RFD round to delete p364 instead, no matter how often the property is used. Once it is done properly, a bot can change the number within hours. -- ( ) I suppose that is used also for other types of entities, for example, in names. Which is not easily convertible to . -- ( ) I have used a lot on WikiNews items. Several of them had multiple languages attached. I would therefor [MASK] it. ( ) @ : What is the problem if we merge both properties into ""language"" ? ( ) @ : Can you provide an example please ? And if the new property is called ""language"", is it still a problem ? ( ) @ :, find an example here: . In case ""language of work"" will be cancelled completely, yes, then ""language"" would be a replacement. ( ) About 60 of the 8000+ occurences are now on WikiNews articles. But I found more weird occurences, like given names with this property. ( ) @ : How can you use a language property for a wikinews article ? As I see there is a French corresponding article so why English and not French ? ( ) Because English *and* French. I'm Dutch, so for me the English and the French go perfectly together on the same property without any issue ;-) ( ) A wikinews can be in language ""A"" about some public speech which was performed in another language ""B"". I suppose we can point both languages with different properties ( for A, for B). -- ( ) @ , : You mix different concept: the language of the wikinews and the language of the object of the wikinews article. For the first language, this is redundant with the sitelink information. If you want a French article you filter the sitelinks and select the ones which are in French. The example you gave was an typical example of the problem of redundancy: the language properties were not updated according to the sitelinks. And this organization is not applied in the others items: the language property is never used to describe the language of the WPs connected to the item. Look at : 153 sitelinks and around the same number of different languages. But no use of or . So why do we have to have another practice for wikinews articles ? Then about the language of the object of the article. Here we have a problem of definition: Is the item about the wikinews article or about the object of the article ? The classification of the item is clear in your example: instance of Wikinews article . So the language of the object in not part of this item. You should use to define the language of the object of the article, and how can an election have a language property ? Here we have a confusion based on the relation ""the election is in Israel"", ""Hebrew is speaking in Israel"" so ""language of election is Hebrew"". ( ) @ : What is the problem if we merge both properties into ""language"" ? ( ) @ : Can you provide an example please ? And if the new property is called ""language"", is it still a problem ? ( ) @ :, find an example here: . In case ""language of work"" will be cancelled completely, yes, then ""language"" would be a replacement. ( ) About 60 of the 8000+ occurences are now on WikiNews articles. But I found more weird occurences, like given names with this property. ( ) About 60 of the 8000+ occurences are now on WikiNews articles. But I found more weird occurences, like given names with this property. ( ) @ : How can you use a language property for a wikinews article ? As I see there is a French corresponding article so why English and not French ? ( ) Because English *and* French. I'm Dutch, so for me the English and the French go perfectly together on the same property without any issue ;-) ( ) A wikinews can be in language ""A"" about some public speech which was performed in another language ""B"". I suppose we can point both languages with different properties ( for A, for B). -- ( ) @ , : You mix different concept: the language of the wikinews and the language of the object of the wikinews article. For the first language, this is redundant with the sitelink information. If you want a French article you filter the sitelinks and select the ones which are in French. The example you gave was an typical example of the problem of redundancy: the language properties were not updated according to the sitelinks. And this organization is not applied in the others items: the language property is never used to describe the language of the WPs connected to the item. Look at : 153 sitelinks and around the same number of different languages. But no use of or . So why do we have to have another practice for wikinews articles ? Then about the language of the object of the article. Here we have a problem of definition: Is the item about the wikinews article or about the object of the article ? The classification of the item is clear in your example: instance of Wikinews article . So the language of the object in not part of this item. You should use to define the language of the object of the article, and how can an election have a language property ? Here we have a confusion based on the relation ""the election is in Israel"", ""Hebrew is speaking in Israel"" so ""language of election is Hebrew"". ( ) @ : How can you use a language property for a wikinews article ? As I see there is a French corresponding article so why English and not French ? ( ) Because English *and* French. I'm Dutch, so for me the English and the French go perfectly together on the same property without any issue ;-) ( ) A wikinews can be in language ""A"" about some public speech which was performed in another language ""B"". I suppose we can point both languages with different properties ( for A, for B). -- ( ) @ , : You mix different concept: the language of the wikinews and the language of the object of the wikinews article. For the first language, this is redundant with the sitelink information. If you want a French article you filter the sitelinks and select the ones which are in French. The example you gave was an typical example of the problem of redundancy: the language properties were not updated according to the sitelinks. And this organization is not applied in the others items: the language property is never used to describe the language of the WPs connected to the item. Look at : 153 sitelinks and around the same number of different languages. But no use of or . So why do we have to have another practice for wikinews articles ? Then about the language of the object of the article. Here we have a problem of definition: Is the item about the wikinews article or about the object of the article ? The classification of the item is clear in your example: instance of Wikinews article . So the language of the object in not part of this item. You should use to define the language of the object of the article, and how can an election have a language property ? Here we have a confusion based on the relation ""the election is in Israel"", ""Hebrew is speaking in Israel"" so ""language of election is Hebrew"". ( ) @ : How can you use a language property for a wikinews article ? As I see there is a French corresponding article so why English and not French ? ( ) Because English *and* French. I'm Dutch, so for me the English and the French go perfectly together on the same property without any issue ;-) ( ) A wikinews can be in language ""A"" about some public speech which was performed in another language ""B"". I suppose we can point both languages with different properties ( for A, for B). -- ( ) @ , : You mix different concept: the language of the wikinews and the language of the object of the wikinews article. For the first language, this is redundant with the sitelink information. If you want a French article you filter the sitelinks and select the ones which are in French. The example you gave was an typical example of the problem of redundancy: the language properties were not updated according to the sitelinks. And this organization is not applied in the others items: the language property is never used to describe the language of the WPs connected to the item. Look at : 153 sitelinks and around the same number of different languages. But no use of or . So why do we have to have another practice for wikinews articles ? Then about the language of the object of the article. Here we have a problem of definition: Is the item about the wikinews article or about the object of the article ? The classification of the item is clear in your example: instance of Wikinews article . So the language of the object in not part of this item. You should use to define the language of the object of the article, and how can an election have a language property ? Here we have a confusion based on the relation ""the election is in Israel"", ""Hebrew is speaking in Israel"" so ""language of election is Hebrew"". ( ) Because English *and* French. I'm Dutch, so for me the English and the French go perfectly together on the same property without any issue ;-) ( ) A wikinews can be in language ""A"" about some public speech which was performed in another language ""B"". I suppose we can point both languages with different properties ( for A, for B). -- ( ) @ , : You mix different concept: the language of the wikinews and the language of the object of the wikinews article. For the first language, this is redundant with the sitelink information. If you want a French article you filter the sitelinks and select the ones which are in French. The example you gave was an typical example of the problem of redundancy: the language properties were not updated according to the sitelinks. And this organization is not applied in the others items: the language property is never used to describe the language of the WPs connected to the item. Look at : 153 sitelinks and around the same number of different languages. But no use of or . So why do we have to have another practice for wikinews articles ? Then about the language of the object of the article. Here we have a problem of definition: Is the item about the wikinews article or about the object of the article ? The classification of the item is clear in your example: instance of Wikinews article . So the language of the object in not part of this item. You should use to define the language of the object of the article, and how can an election have a language property ? Here we have a confusion based on the relation ""the election is in Israel"", ""Hebrew is speaking in Israel"" so ""language of election is Hebrew"". ( ) @ , : You mix different concept: the language of the wikinews and the language of the object of the wikinews article. For the first language, this is redundant with the sitelink information. If you want a French article you filter the sitelinks and select the ones which are in French. The example you gave was an typical example of the problem of redundancy: the language properties were not updated according to the sitelinks. And this organization is not applied in the others items: the language property is never used to describe the language of the WPs connected to the item. Look at : 153 sitelinks and around the same number of different languages. But no use of or . So why do we have to have another practice for wikinews articles ? Then about the language of the object of the article. Here we have a problem of definition: Is the item about the wikinews article or about the object of the article ? The classification of the item is clear in your example: instance of Wikinews article . So the language of the object in not part of this item. You should use to define the language of the object of the article, and how can an election have a language property ? Here we have a confusion based on the relation ""the election is in Israel"", ""Hebrew is speaking in Israel"" so ""language of election is Hebrew"". ( ) @ : Which ""language property of the work item"" are you referring to? As far as I can tell, it's possible to create an item without any language property except for unless someone uses and signifies the language. There are occasionally works that have titles in more than one language, despite the text only being in one, so going by the title language doesn't make sense to me. The way the descriptions are written, I've always used as the language of the first edition, not necessarily the current translation. To me, that's been . ( ) The idea is to have one language property called ""Language"" and to use this property for work AND editions items. The use of the merged property ""Language"" can be used to retrieve all works in a defined language as well to define the language of the editions in the original language or the language of the translated editions. No need any more of a original language property for work and another property for the editions items. We can't use the language of the title because the language of the title can be different from the language of the work/edition. -- ( ) The idea is to have one language property called ""Language"" and to use this property for work AND editions items. The use of the merged property ""Language"" can be used to retrieve all works in a defined language as well to define the language of the editions in the original language or the language of the translated editions. No need any more of a original language property for work and another property for the editions items. We can't use the language of the title because the language of the title can be different from the language of the work/edition. -- ( ) Understood. Thank you, ( ) Understood. Thank you, ( ) Understood. Thank you, ( ) Support merging two properties ( and ) into one. Target name shall be ""Language"". -- ( ) @ , , , , : and @ , , , : I modified a little the description text of the proposed action: The proposed action is to merge and in one property ""Language"" which can be used for all cases where an item or a statement has to be defined according to its language. This can be for work, but for name or other kind of items. Please provide your support or opposition to this request in order to progress to a decision. If you are not convinced better vote {{oppose}} but this wiil help at least to close the discussion. Thank you. ( ) If and will be merged, then how to handle in a case when the original text is unknown, but we know the original language? -- ( ) @ : Please provide an example. I don't understand the problem. ( ) The example: — we know the translator — , the author — and the original language — , but we don't known the original text. -- ( ) @ : What you say about this example? -- ( ) @ : The rule is for translation to have a different item. So in your case you should create an item for the original text and a second one for the translation. We don't care about the original text because we use concept in WD. So in the item of the original text we use ""language"": german and in the second ""language"": russian. ( ) The way, which you recommend, is very unnatural. In fact you suggest to describe in wikidata the hypothetical, irreal things. -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? If you have proof that a translation was made (like a reference) so you can't say that the text was hypothetical or non real. In summary if you have enough sources to say that the author was and that the original language was German to put that information (all information should normally have sources in WD) in the item of the translated text, you have enough proofs to be able to create an item for the original text. ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного ��втора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- может быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) Sorry I wasn't accurate when I was asking if the original text. WD like WP don't need to have a proof of existence to create an item or an article, they just need to have a document with some authority saying that was true (or not) and then you create your item based on that source and you cite the source in the different statements. If you have a document X saying that text Y is a translation of text Z and that the original language was OL with the author AA and the translation was done by TT in language TL, you can create three items: item about document X All details about document X according to item about text Z author: AA, source: item about document X language: OL, source: item about document X item about text Y translation of : item about text Y translator: TT, source: item about document X language: TL, source: item about document X ( ) You have a mistake: Y and Z is muddled.  ;-) But this is not impotant in a case of unknown original text ( ). -- ( ) Thanks. ( ) @ : Please provide an example. I don't understand the problem. ( ) The example: — we know the translator — , the author — and the original language — , but we don't known the original text. -- ( ) @ : What you say about this example? -- ( ) @ : The rule is for translation to have a different item. So in your case you should create an item for the original text and a second one for the translation. We don't care about the original text because we use concept in WD. So in the item of the original text we use ""language"": german and in the second ""language"": russian. ( ) The way, which you recommend, is very unnatural. In fact you suggest to describe in wikidata the hypothetical, irreal things. -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? If you have proof that a translation was made (like a reference) so you can't say that the text was hypothetical or non real. In summary if you have enough sources to say that the author was and that the original language was German to put that information (all information should normally have sources in WD) in the item of the translated text, you have enough proofs to be able to create an item for the original text. ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного автора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- может быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) The example: — we know the translator — , the author — and the original language — , but we don't known the original text. -- ( ) @ : What you say about this example? -- ( ) @ : The rule is for translation to have a different item. So in your case you should create an item for the original text and a second one for the translation. We don't care about the original text because we use concept in WD. So in the item of the original text we use ""language"": german and in the second ""language"": russian. ( ) The way, which you recommend, is very unnatural. In fact you suggest to describe in wikidata the hypothetical, irreal things. -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? If you have proof that a translation was made (like a reference) so you can't say that the text was hypothetical or non real. In summary if you have enough sources to say that the author was and that the original language was German to put that information (all information should normally have sources in WD) in the item of the translated text, you have enough proofs to be able to create an item for the original text. ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного автора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- может быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) @ : The rule is for translation to have a different item. So in your case you should create an item for the original text and a second one for the translation. We don't care about the original text because we use concept in WD. So in the item of the original text we use ""language"": german and in the second ""language"": russian. ( ) The way, which you recommend, is very unnatural. In fact you suggest to describe in wikidata the hypothetical, irreal things. -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? If you have proof that a translation was made (like a reference) so you can't say that the text was hypothetical or non real. In summary if you have enough sources to say that the author was and that the original language was German to put that information (all information should normally have sources in WD) in the item of the translated text, you have enough proofs to be able to create an item for the original text. ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного автора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- может быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) The way, which you recommend, is very unnatural. In fact you suggest to describe in wikidata the hypothetical, irreal things. -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? If you have proof that a translation was made (like a reference) so you can't say that the text was hypothetical or non real. In summary if you have enough sources to say that the author was and that the original language was German to put that information (all information should normally have sources in WD) in the item of the translated text, you have enough proofs to be able to create an item for the original text. ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного автора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- может быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? If you have proof that a translation was made (like a reference) so you can't say that the text was hypothetical or non real. In summary if you have enough sources to say that the author was and that the original language was German to put that information (all information should normally have sources in WD) in the item of the translated text, you have enough proofs to be able to create an item for the original text. ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного автора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- ��ожет быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) Does your original exist or not ? — we don't know this until the original will be found. The text in the books has a subttle ""From Heine"", but not say which exactly. The subtitle may be true or false — we don't know. E.g. by has a subttle ""Изъ T. Мура."" (""From T. Moore"" in English). In fact this isn't a translation from , but the original poem! Minaev put this subttle to easyly pass the censura barriers in the Russia: В русской переводческой практике 60-х годов случаи публикации ""переводов"" без оригиналов были нередкими и даже до известной стег пени оправданными: оригинальное стихотворение с вольнолюбивым содержанием легче прорывалось в печать сквозь цензурные рогатки, если оно объявлялось переводом какого-либо известного иностранного автора; именем чужеземного поэта прикрывались также первые робкие попытки начинающих литераторов, пытавшихся ускользнуть от критических упреков, всегда звучавших строже по отношению к еще безвестным в литературе новичкам. Имя Мура в этом смысле также служило порой щитом для неофитов: известны, например, стихотворения Д. Д. Минаева, выдававшиеся за переводы из Мура, но в действительности ими не являвшиеся. 431 Таково, например, стих. Д. Д. Минаева ""Просьба"", в качестве перевода из Мура вошедшее в хрестоматию Н. В. Гербеля ""Английские поэты в биографиях и образцах"", с. 250: Не молись за меня! -- может быть, это грех, Но в мольбу я не верю, не верю судьбе! Помолись, моя милая, лучше за тех, Кто еще не измучен в борьбе... Оно впервые напечатано в качестве оригинального стихотворения без всякого указания на Мура в кн. : Д. Д. Минаев. На перепутьи. Новые стихотворения. СПб. , 1871, с. 172. — , . The article above is written by a expert in literature, not dilettante. In this case we believe the expert (see in ru-ws). -- ( ) Sorry I wasn't accurate when I was asking if the original text. WD like WP don't need to have a proof of existence to create an item or an article, they just need to have a document with some authority saying that was true (or not) and then you create your item based on that source and you cite the source in the different statements. If you have a document X saying that text Y is a translation of text Z and that the original language was OL with the author AA and the translation was done by TT in language TL, you can create three items: item about document X All details about document X according to item about text Z author: AA, source: item about document X language: OL, source: item about document X item about text Y translation of : item about text Y translator: TT, source: item about document X language: TL, source: item about document X item about document X All details about document X according to All details about document X according to item about text Z author: AA, source: item about document X language: OL, source: item about document X author: AA, source: item about document X language: OL, source: item about document X item about text Y translation of : item about text Y translator: TT, source: item about document X language: TL, source: item about document X translation of : item about text Y translator: TT, source: item about document X language: TL, source: item about document X ( ) You have a mistake: Y and Z is muddled.  ;-) But this is not impotant in a case of unknown original text ( ). -- ( ) Thanks. ( ) You have a mistake: Y and Z is muddled.  ;-) But this is not impotant in a case of unknown original text ( ). -- ( ) Thanks. ( ) Thanks. ( ) Oppose There can be situations when 1 property can be not enough. I can not find convincing example, but here is another one. A film (for example, animated) can be in language A originally ( ), but can provide different backgroud languages (so can be used as qualifier for them). -- ( ) Already treated: in the data structure of WD your scenario is described by two items: one for the original movie with the main voices and then a second item for the second language with another set of voices. You can't mix now all voices for different languages in one item. The only open question is about subtitled versions. But you can perhaps show the problem using this item . ( ) Already treated: in the data structure of WD your scenario is described by two items: one for the original movie with the main voices and then a second item for the second language with another set of voices. You can't mix now all voices for different languages in one item. The only open question is about subtitled versions. But you can perhaps show the problem using this item . ( ) [MASK] the both properties. Instead of deleting, we should impose the rule about and : either only (for the original works) or both (for the translated/dubbed works). -- ( ) Delete Merge the two properties. Per Snipre. -- ( ) Delete . Merge the two properties. Name the merged property ""Language of Work"". Create a new property named ""Language"" for names and other things that aren't creative works. ( ) [MASK] both properties. It's easier to have a separate property than a property plus a qualifier for the main use case. --- @ : Sorry but I don't see where you find the mention of a qualifier: we don't need a qualifier because according to the general structure for works in WD you create different items for the different versions of a work. And when you need the language of the original version you use the data of the item of the work and not the items of the versions. ( ) I don't see people creating items for each synchronized version of a film. Original language is sufficient as a property for these (P364). Add additional languages with the other property if you must. It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series. --- @ : You don't see people creating items for synchronized versions because they aren't trained to do it. But now the question it to now for which purpose you want to add in an item of a movie ? Just to say that a movie exists in a certain language ? What's about the publication or release date of the synchronized versions ? What's about the name of the voices in the translated versions ? Just think about anime movies where for each language and for each character you have a different person. ""It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series."" That's what we are doing for books and this was never a problem. ( ) @ : Sorry but I don't see where you find the mention of a qualifier: we don't need a qualifier because according to the general structure for works in WD you create different items for the different versions of a work. And when you need the language of the original version you use the data of the item of the work and not the items of the versions. ( ) I don't see people creating items for each synchronized version of a film. Original language is sufficient as a property for these (P364). Add additional languages with the other property if you must. It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series. --- @ : You don't see people creating items for synchronized versions because they aren't trained to do it. But now the question it to now for which purpose you want to add in an item of a movie ? Just to say that a movie exists in a certain language ? What's about the publication or release date of the synchronized versions ? What's about the name of the voices in the translated versions ? Just think about anime movies where for each language and for each character you have a different person. ""It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series."" That's what we are doing for books and this was never a problem. ( ) I don't see people creating items for each synchronized version of a film. Original language is sufficient as a property for these (P364). Add additional languages with the other property if you must. It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series. --- @ : You don't see people creating items for synchronized versions because they aren't trained to do it. But now the question it to now for which purpose you want to add in an item of a movie ? Just to say that a movie exists in a certain language ? What's about the publication or release date of the synchronized versions ? What's about the name of the voices in the translated versions ? Just think about anime movies where for each language and for each character you have a different person. ""It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series."" That's what we are doing for books and this was never a problem. ( ) @ : You don't see people creating items for synchronized versions because they aren't trained to do it. But now the question it to now for which purpose you want to add in an item of a movie ? Just to say that a movie exists in a certain language ? What's about the publication or release date of the synchronized versions ? What's about the name of the voices in the translated versions ? Just think about anime movies where for each language and for each character you have a different person. ""It would be a horrible mess if we would create multiple items for the same film or tv series."" That's what we are doing for books and this was never a problem. ( ) @ : It's not as simple as training people to create multiple items for a film. The size of that task is very large, there are nowhere near enough contributors. Consider Star Wars, for example: [ ], see how complicated it gets? If we are to have an item for each release/edition of a film, this work will have to be automated. So, the automation part needs to be solved before these properties can be merged. I would support merging after seeing a proper plan on exactly how all of this will be done. ( ) @ : It's not as simple as training people to create multiple items for a film. The size of that task is very large, there are nowhere near enough contributors. Consider Star Wars, for example: [ ], see how complicated it gets? If we are to have an item for each release/edition of a film, this work will have to be automated. So, the automation part needs to be solved before these properties can be merged. I would support merging after seeing a proper plan on exactly how all of this will be done. ( ) @ : It's not as simple as training people to create multiple items for a film. The size of that task is very large, there are nowhere near enough contributors. Consider Star Wars, for example: [ ], see how complicated it gets? If we are to have an item for each release/edition of a film, this work will have to be automated. So, the automation part needs to be solved before these properties can be merged. I would support merging after seeing a proper plan on exactly how all of this will be done. ( ) @ : It's not as simple as training people to create multiple items for a film. The size of that task is very large, there are nowhere near enough contributors. Consider Star Wars, for example: [ ], see how complicated it gets? If we are to have an item for each release/edition of a film, this work will have to be automated. So, the automation part needs to be solved before these properties can be merged. I would support merging after seeing a proper plan on exactly how all of this will be done. ( ) Delete Merge the two properties. - The use of the 2 different properties is a mess while treating articles in periodicals. One Language property is enough. -- ( ) Just add P364 and you are fine. --- Just add P364 and you are fine. --- A book can be a translation in a specific language from a specific original language. If we remove the original language, then we must always have an item for the original work. We get away with one less property, but must add a whole bunch of new items for the works themselves. But then, translations should be a directed graph… The language is a property of the original work, and the translation is done from a previous work and into a new one, implying the new work should have its own language likewise the old work. Will there always be an item for the old work? If not then we need an original language . ( ) @ : The creation of a specific item for each edition/translation is already a ""rule"" in WD (see ) because each translation has dedicated properties which have to be distinguished from the original edition. How can you specify the , , , , , and all others identifiers which are different for each edition/translation if you mix several editions/translations into the same item ? The question is not the deletion of one property, the question is to have one system so if you want to [MASK] original language you have to create ""original place of publication"", ""original publisher"", ""original ISBN"",... We have to be coherent. Try just once to provide some specific data of one edition/translation and you will understand why you need each time one item per edition/translation. ( ) That is a help page and not a policy. Try to create items for news articles with a bunch of reprints, when you only have an approximate idea who is the first publisher. We need to be both accurate for important works and to provide something usable in the simpler cases. ( ) @ : There are no simple cases: what is the benefit to know that an article is translated in Japanese if you have no way to find it ? And nobody asks you to create items for all editions/translation of a document, only one for the document you want to use. Who asks you to look for the data of the first publication ? Nobody. If you have a reprint, just create the item for your reprint and create an empty item for the work in order to link later all reprints. If you don't want to do that better avoid to add data: useless data stay useless even when mix with good data. The data in WD have to be read by people and machines, I really want to know how machines will understand your concept of simple cases and important works. What is an important work ? What is not ? ( ) Take a deep breath, other people disagree with you, it will happen in life. ( ) @ : The creation of a specific item for each edition/translation is already a ""rule"" in WD (see ) because each translation has dedicated properties which have to be distinguished from the original edition. How can you specify the , , , , , and all others identifiers which are different for each edition/translation if you mix several editions/translations into the same item ? The question is not the deletion of one property, the question is to have one system so if you want to [MASK] original language you have to create ""original place of publication"", ""original publisher"", ""original ISBN"",... We have to be coherent. Try just once to provide some specific data of one edition/translation and you will understand why you need each time one item per edition/translation. ( ) That is a help page and not a policy. Try to create items for news articles with a bunch of reprints, when you only have an approximate idea who is the first publisher. We need to be both accurate for important works and to provide something usable in the simpler cases. ( ) @ : There are no simple cases: what is the benefit to know that an article is translated in Japanese if you have no way to find it ? And nobody asks you to create items for all editions/translation of a document, only one for the document you want to use. Who asks you to look for the data of the first publication ? Nobody. If you have a reprint, just create the item for your reprint and create an empty item for the work in order to link later all reprints. If you don't want to do that better avoid to add data: useless data stay useless even when mix with good data. The data in WD have to be read by people and machines, I really want to know how machines will understand your concept of simple cases and important works. What is an important work ? What is not ? ( ) Take a deep breath, other people disagree with you, it will happen in life. ( ) That is a help page and not a policy. Try to create items for news articles with a bunch of reprints, when you only have an approximate idea who is the first publisher. We need to be both accurate for important works and to provide something usable in the simpler cases. ( ) @ : There are no simple cases: what is the benefit to know that an article is translated in Japanese if you have no way to find it ? And nobody asks you to create items for all editions/translation of a document, only one for the document you want to use. Who asks you to look for the data of the first publication ? Nobody. If you have a reprint, just create the item for your reprint and create an empty item for the work in order to link later all reprints. If you don't want to do that better avoid to add data: useless data stay useless even when mix with good data. The data in WD have to be read by people and machines, I really want to know how machines will understand your concept of simple cases and important works. What is an important work ? What is not ? ( ) Take a deep breath, other people disagree with you, it will happen in life. ( ) @ : There are no simple cases: what is the benefit to know that an article is translated in Japanese if you have no way to find it ? And nobody asks you to create items for all editions/translation of a document, only one for the document you want to use. Who asks you to look for the data of the first publication ? Nobody. If you have a reprint, just create the item for your reprint and create an empty item for the work in order to link later all reprints. If you don't want to do that better avoid to add data: useless data stay useless even when mix with good data. The data in WD have to be read by people and machines, I really want to know how machines will understand your concept of simple cases and important works. What is an important work ? What is not ? ( ) Take a deep breath, other people disagree with you, it will happen in life. ( ) Take a deep breath, other people disagree with you, it will happen in life. ( ) @ : Thank you to admit that your opposition is based on nothing. And by the way, is not a simple help page because it is the result of a : there was a choice behind that RfC, and the community agreed about one solution. ( ) @ : Thank you to admit that your opposition is based on nothing. And by the way, is not a simple help page because it is the result of a : there was a choice behind that RfC, and the community agreed about one solution. ( ) @ : Thank you to admit that your opposition is based on nothing. And by the way, is not a simple help page because it is the result of a : there was a choice behind that RfC, and the community agreed about one solution. ( ) @ : Thank you to admit that your opposition is based on nothing. And by the way, is not a simple help page because it is the result of a : there was a choice behind that RfC, and the community agreed about one solution. ( ) @ : Thank you to admit that your opposition is based on nothing. And by the way, is not a simple help page because it is the result of a : there was a choice behind that RfC, and the community agreed about one solution. ( ) @ : Thank you to admit that your opposition is based on nothing. And by the way, is not a simple help page because it is the result of a : there was a choice behind that RfC, and the community agreed about one solution. ( ) merge the two properties, with the FRBR system (which is already widely used on Wikidata and everywhere outside) it's very easy to understand (for both human and robot) to understand if the merged property should be understand as or . Cdlt, ( ) I think you are confusing books with works in general. About ""widely used"": do you have any samples and references for films (on Wikidata and outside)? --- Why can't « other » works use FRBR ? FRBR is « Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records » ; it's not specific to books. And even if the FRBR or a similar system isn't used for some works (which is proably not a good idea in the long run but this is completely understable), I still don't see the need for two porperties. Cdlt, ( ) I'm attempting to address your argument that this is ""widely used"", but apparently, by not responding to it, you confirm that this isn't the case. --- I think you are confusing books with works in general. About ""widely used"": do you have any samples and references for films (on Wikidata and outside)? --- Why can't « other » works use FRBR ? FRBR is « Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records » ; it's not specific to books. And even if the FRBR or a similar system isn't used for some works (which is proably not a good idea in the long run but this is completely understable), I still don't see the need for two porperties. Cdlt, ( ) I'm attempting to address your argument that this is ""widely used"", but apparently, by not responding to it, you confirm that this isn't the case. --- Why can't « other » works use FRBR ? FRBR is « Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records » ; it's not specific to books. And even if the FRBR or a similar system isn't used for some works (which is proably not a good idea in the long run but this is completely understable), I still don't see the need for two porperties. Cdlt, ( ) I'm attempting to address your argument that this is ""widely used"", but apparently, by not responding to it, you confirm that this isn't the case. --- I'm attempting to address your argument that this is ""widely used"", but apparently, by not responding to it, you confirm that this isn't the case. --- [MASK] for now. Merging these two properties without having a well thought out plan on exactly how data will be collected would be a mistake. For example, creating new items for each language release of a film is a very large and complex task. It is not a simple as one might imagine, there can be dozens of releases of a single movie across differing media, i.e. theater, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, etc. Bear in mind, in the case of Blu-ray, several languages may be encoded on to the disc. This cannot possibly be done by humans, unless we have a few thousand contributors willing to work on this. I'd suggest looking at this again in the future, when we may have more suitable automated tools available. ( ) ""we can't create items for each language"" is not an argument against single property. You are not required to create multiple entries. Would one like to describe new element such as different edition -- he can create new item. From work complexity point of view it does not matter would it be new item or existing one. In addition, single property does not prevent you from using single item to describe multiple editions. -- ( ) Can you explain how one should identify the original language for a film if you merge the two properties? --- So, what current entity is about? Is it about single translation or original movie? In first case you shall (but not required) to create new item and specify it as P629 value of translation. By next step you either specify language on new entity itself or as qualifier of P629 property. Also P629 can reference itself -- you won't need to create separate item, but self-referencing will be very confusing. Also one can set ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) and put all ""original movie"" properties as qualifier of P629 property. Back to second case -- when current element is original movie and one want to describe translation. Just add ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) to P747 property and describe language as qualifier. -- ( ) Let's take this one as a sample: . You merge the properties and we end up with ""languages: sv, de"". How do we know that the original language is sv? Assuming no new items are created. --- @ : assuming this entity is about movie, and not about translation, I moved (copied) ""de"" to edition property: . You can add additional properties here (like date of publication of de-edition or additional codes special for de-edition). Thus language of original work will be value of . This example assumes we are too lazy to create distinct entity for each translation. -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) ""we can't create items for each language"" is not an argument against single property. You are not required to create multiple entries. Would one like to describe new element such as different edition -- he can create new item. From work complexity point of view it does not matter would it be new item or existing one. In addition, single property does not prevent you from using single item to describe multiple editions. -- ( ) Can you explain how one should identify the original language for a film if you merge the two properties? --- So, what current entity is about? Is it about single translation or original movie? In first case you shall (but not required) to create new item and specify it as P629 value of translation. By next step you either specify language on new entity itself or as qualifier of P629 property. Also P629 can reference itself -- you won't need to create separate item, but self-referencing will be very confusing. Also one can set ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) and put all ""original movie"" properties as qualifier of P629 property. Back to second case -- when current element is original movie and one want to describe translation. Just add ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) to P747 property and describe language as qualifier. -- ( ) Let's take this one as a sample: . You merge the properties and we end up with ""languages: sv, de"". How do we know that the original language is sv? Assuming no new items are created. --- @ : assuming this entity is about movie, and not about translation, I moved (copied) ""de"" to edition property: . You can add additional properties here (like date of publication of de-edition or additional codes special for de-edition). Thus language of original work will be value of . This example assumes we are too lazy to create distinct entity for each translation. -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) Can you explain how one should identify the original language for a film if you merge the two properties? --- So, what current entity is about? Is it about single translation or original movie? In first case you shall (but not required) to create new item and specify it as P629 value of translation. By next step you either specify language on new entity itself or as qualifier of P629 property. Also P629 can reference itself -- you won't need to create separate item, but self-referencing will be very confusing. Also one can set ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) and put all ""original movie"" properties as qualifier of P629 property. Back to second case -- when current element is original movie and one want to describe translation. Just add ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) to P747 property and describe language as qualifier. -- ( ) Let's take this one as a sample: . You merge the properties and we end up with ""languages: sv, de"". How do we know that the original language is sv? Assuming no new items are created. --- @ : assuming this entity is about movie, and not about translation, I moved (copied) ""de"" to edition property: . You can add additional properties here (like date of publication of de-edition or additional codes special for de-edition). Thus language of original work will be value of . This example assumes we are too lazy to create distinct entity for each translation. -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) So, what current entity is about? Is it about single translation or original movie? In first case you shall (but not required) to create new item and specify it as P629 value of translation. By next step you either specify language on new entity itself or as qualifier of P629 property. Also P629 can reference itself -- you won't need to create separate item, but self-referencing will be very confusing. Also one can set ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) and put all ""original movie"" properties as qualifier of P629 property. Back to second case -- when current element is original movie and one want to describe translation. Just add ""unknown value"" (if too lazy to create separate item) to P747 property and describe language as qualifier. -- ( ) Let's take this one as a sample: . You merge the properties and we end up with ""languages: sv, de"". How do we know that the original language is sv? Assuming no new items are created. --- @ : assuming this entity is about movie, and not about translation, I moved (copied) ""de"" to edition property: . You can add additional properties here (like date of publication of de-edition or additional codes special for de-edition). Thus language of original work will be value of . This example assumes we are too lazy to create distinct entity for each translation. -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) Let's take this one as a sample: . You merge the properties and we end up with ""languages: sv, de"". How do we know that the original language is sv? Assuming no new items are created. --- @ : assuming this entity is about movie, and not about translation, I moved (copied) ""de"" to edition property: . You can add additional properties here (like date of publication of de-edition or additional codes special for de-edition). Thus language of original work will be value of . This example assumes we are too lazy to create distinct entity for each translation. -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) @ : assuming this entity is about movie, and not about translation, I moved (copied) ""de"" to edition property: . You can add additional properties here (like date of publication of de-edition or additional codes special for de-edition). Thus language of original work will be value of . This example assumes we are too lazy to create distinct entity for each translation. -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) Ok. I see how you'd do it, but it doesn't actually require deletion of ""original language of work ( ), doesn't it? It might as well work with the existing property. It would have the benefit that we know what the original language is -- currently we don't because both sv and de are listed as language of work ( ). --- @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) @ : 1. Well, nothing really requires to delete the property. It just makes things more complicated and confusing from model point of view. In this particular case 361 is not a original language, but language of the same element. In other cases it is duplication of property from ""parent work"" entity. 2. I kept ""de"" in P407 property just to make sure not to break any infoboxes. It could be [MASK], leaving ""sv"" as single value of 407. -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) I'm not really sure if the original language is sv or sv+de. I picked this sample as the item used it in a way that items would use if this proposal would go through. If deletion is not required and in order to close this discussion, would you oppose the deletion proposal so we can move on? --- 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) 1. Well, me neither, I just checked the infobox data in svwiki. 2. Of course not. I insist that property should be [MASK]. When I said ""nothing really requires"" i just reflected your opinion that usage of my scenario doesn't require deletion of property. But this is like trying to prove that you don't need to stop littering to hire a cleaning guy. You need both: to hire a cleaning guy to cleanup the mess AND to stop creating more mess. We need to select some scenario to reduce mess with translations (incl. movie translations) AND we need to prevent such mess from arising again in future by deleting ""original language"" property. -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) You will be needing a cleaning guy for your solution as it's not clear what people should enter in the merged ""language"" field. Currently it's clean! --- It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) It is completely clean that language field shall contain original language of entity and language of derived items should be in ""language"" property of separate item. Current solution with language+original language is a mess. It indulges people to put all data into single item for all languages and all translation, creating real mess from movie item. -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) A single item that isn't entirely accurate shouldn't be much of an issue. Clearly your fear hasn't realized. --- Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) Well it is. Clearly my fear already realized. I already see items that include both original work information and translation information, thus creating mess with structure and data even for other properties (such as date of publication or voice actors list) -- ( ) [MASK] for now. Regardless of whether other types of works should be modeled according to FRBR, I think it's apparent that at this point, they aren't . The redundancy from reciprocal properties is a much more manageable and reversible issue than the one that would arise from a hasty merge that disrupts the existing workflow for a category such as films. FRBR is not a panacea, and is not the sort of drag-and-drop solution it is being made out to be. ( ) I don't see arguments regarding merging or non-merging properties. It is not FRBR requirement to merge or [MASK] properties, it is just that FRBR model can be used as example of model where two properties are not required. You still can use single element to display information about single movie with all it's translations (if one would like to). But for sure you will need to create new element as soon as one would like to describe translation voice actors (and not mess them up in case there are 2 or more translations to single language). -- ( ) What specifically are you asking for? Not requiring two properties is not the same thing as requiring one property. Redundant properties should be a relatively manageable issue, particularly reciprocal properties such as these. Disrupting the existing workflow for film category edits by removing a property without firmly establishing a consensus, guidance, and transition for a replacement protocol is more problematic. FRBR is the justification being offered for the merge, despite the fact that the model is not being used everywhere on Wikidata. Effectively imposing that model (or whatever you want to call the particular work-edition model being proposed here) to other domains is not that simple, especially with only cursory nods to implementation, and it should not be something decided in a discussion ostensibly about the deletion of ). My other objections go more to Wikidata philosophy in general (deleting, merging, property discussions, qualifiers, redundancy, etc.) and are probably beyond the scope of this discussion. ( ) I assume you have in mind ""current"" workflow (perhaps with multiple translations in single element) and want to have some formal discussion regarding moving from one workflow to another. But sorry, there is no such distinguished ""workflow discussion pages"", and property deleting discussion page is already used for such things. -- ( ) I don't see arguments regarding merging or non-merging properties. It is not FRBR requirement to merge or [MASK] properties, it is just that FRBR model can be used as example of model where two properties are not required. You still can use single element to display information about single movie with all it's translations (if one would like to). But for sure you will need to create new element as soon as one would like to describe translation voice actors (and not mess them up in case there are 2 or more translations to single language). -- ( ) What specifically are you asking for? Not requiring two properties is not the same thing as requiring one property. Redundant properties should be a relatively manageable issue, particularly reciprocal properties such as these. Disrupting the existing workflow for film category edits by removing a property without firmly establishing a consensus, guidance, and transition for a replacement protocol is more problematic. FRBR is the justification being offered for the merge, despite the fact that the model is not being used everywhere on Wikidata. Effectively imposing that model (or whatever you want to call the particular work-edition model being proposed here) to other domains is not that simple, especially with only cursory nods to implementation, and it should not be something decided in a discussion ostensibly about the deletion of ). My other objections go more to Wikidata philosophy in general (deleting, merging, property discussions, qualifiers, redundancy, etc.) and are probably beyond the scope of this discussion. ( ) I assume you have in mind ""current"" workflow (perhaps with multiple translations in single element) and want to have some formal discussion regarding moving from one workflow to another. But sorry, there is no such distinguished ""workflow discussion pages"", and property deleting discussion page is already used for such things. -- ( ) What specifically are you asking for? Not requiring two properties is not the same thing as requiring one property. Redundant properties should be a relatively manageable issue, particularly reciprocal properties such as these. Disrupting the existing workflow for film category edits by removing a property without firmly establishing a consensus, guidance, and transition for a replacement protocol is more problematic. FRBR is the justification being offered for the merge, despite the fact that the model is not being used everywhere on Wikidata. Effectively imposing that model (or whatever you want to call the particular work-edition model being proposed here) to other domains is not that simple, especially with only cursory nods to implementation, and it should not be something decided in a discussion ostensibly about the deletion of ). My other objections go more to Wikidata philosophy in general (deleting, merging, property discussions, qualifiers, redundancy, etc.) and are probably beyond the scope of this discussion. ( ) I assume you have in mind ""current"" workflow (perhaps with multiple translations in single element) and want to have some formal discussion regarding moving from one workflow to another. But sorry, there is no such distinguished ""workflow discussion pages"", and property deleting discussion page is already used for such things. -- ( ) I assume you have in mind ""current"" workflow (perhaps with multiple translations in single element) and want to have some formal discussion regarding moving from one workflow to another. But sorry, there is no such distinguished ""workflow discussion pages"", and property deleting discussion page is already used for such things. -- ( ) Delete Let's [MASK] the language or name scheme as simple as possible. Delete Merge the two properties. Per Snipre. ( ) [MASK] , there are books in English that are translations of French editions of Dutch books. The language of the edition is thus English; the source from which it was translated in French; but the original language of the work is Dutch. I am thinking specifically here of The Waning of the Middle Ages , where the first English editions were (badly) translated from the French; the edition more recently translated directly from the Dutch has a different title. This sort of intermediate translation happens with high regularity for ancient texts (The first English translation of Hammurabi's Code was made from the German translation of the original) and so there needs to be a way to distinguish current language, source language, and original language. Eliminating the distinction without having a plan in place to accommodate this sort of data would not be a wise move. -- ( ) @ : Thanks to mention that particular case but I think just multiplying the languages properties in an item will be a problem because for most contributors there is only one language for one edition. For the mentioned case I think the relation between translated works should be made using and perhaps even create a different property to distinguish between ""edition of"" and ""translation of"". For example if I want to know the language of the edition used as source (this edition can be the original one or a already translated edition) I extract that information from the corresponding item. I completely not understand why we have to create special properties for language and not for author. If we need current language, source language, and original language why don't we do the same for translator, translator of the source and author of the original work ? The logical way is to put all relevant information in the appropriate item and to link the different items in order to be able to look for the information at the correct place. ( ) @ : Thanks for your comments. Perhaps we can agree that a merge at this time is premature? A larger discussion is probably needed to decide how to deal with the related issues. If a suitable method can be found, then a merge might be possible, but I think a merge at this time would merely result in a loss of information. -- ( ) @ : Thanks to mention that particular case but I think just multiplying the languages properties in an item will be a problem because for most contributors there is only one language for one edition. For the mentioned case I think the relation between translated works should be made using and perhaps even create a different property to distinguish between ""edition of"" and ""translation of"". For example if I want to know the language of the edition used as source (this edition can be the original one or a already translated edition) I extract that information from the corresponding item. I completely not understand why we have to create special properties for language and not for author. If we need current language, source language, and original language why don't we do the same for translator, translator of the source and author of the original work ? The logical way is to put all relevant information in the appropriate item and to link the different items in order to be able to look for the information at the correct place. ( ) @ : Thanks for your comments. Perhaps we can agree that a merge at this time is premature? A larger discussion is probably needed to decide how to deal with the related issues. If a suitable method can be found, then a merge might be possible, but I think a merge at this time would merely result in a loss of information. -- ( ) @ : Thanks for your comments. Perhaps we can agree that a merge at this time is premature? A larger discussion is probably needed to decide how to deal with the related issues. If a suitable method can be found, then a merge might be possible, but I think a merge at this time would merely result in a loss of information. -- ( ) Comment an easier solution for the library catalog problem might be to create a separate namespace/entity-type (sample: ""E"") for books. These could link back to works in the usual Q-namespace. Maybe some other thing would be better there as well. --- There was this prototype for source Wiki-database some Wikidata Weekly weeks ago. But I think another namespace will actually create more problems that it would solve. Wasn't that just a copy of something unrelated already running elsewhere? Obviously, it would need some coordination per namespace, but not necessarily more than is needed now on ""every"" item. It could also solve some of the issues with wikisource. --- The simplier solution is to apply strictly the . Using that structure we store each data in only one item and when we need to have data from other items we look for it in the other items. ( ) Maybe we could do that by simply linking to some other cat. --- There was this prototype for source Wiki-database some Wikidata Weekly weeks ago. But I think another namespace will actually create more problems that it would solve. Wasn't that just a copy of something unrelated already running elsewhere? Obviously, it would need some coordination per namespace, but not necessarily more than is needed now on ""every"" item. It could also solve some of the issues with wikisource. --- Wasn't that just a copy of something unrelated already running elsewhere? Obviously, it would need some coordination per namespace, but not necessarily more than is needed now on ""every"" item. It could also solve some of the issues with wikisource. --- The simplier solution is to apply strictly the . Using that structure we store each data in only one item and when we need to have data from other items we look for it in the other items. ( ) Maybe we could do that by simply linking to some other cat. --- Maybe we could do that by simply linking to some other cat. --- Delete I've been thinking about this issue for a while. Let me give an example: American TV-Movies that premiered on theaters in Spain, and vice-versa ( change between and ). The same for other distribution mediums, like VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray... all have different release dates, and maybe different titles. Voice actors. Sometimes re-releases have new dubbing. Different release dates for vs. ""wide/free"" television. Usually TV series premiere in pay television (codified, only subscriptors) before than wide access television (""en abierto"" in spanish). [MASK] also aka (depending on browser) I have seen hundreds of P407. ""I have seen hundreds of P407"" -- it's not a valid reason to [MASK], actually. -- ( ) ""I have seen hundreds of P407"" -- it's not a valid reason to [MASK], actually. -- ( ) [MASK] The two properties can sometimes be a mess, but, e.g., for it makes sense to me. The is while it exists in a number of other languages. Splitting the item into translated versions seems to babelfuscate language links? — ( ) You have 2 values for , 6 for (with missing qualifiers), 5 for (with missing qualifiers again!), 4 for , 4 for , 3 for ... I would say this is a very good example of one-item-for-all-languages-mess, and that's exactly why it shall be split (and properties -- merged). -- ( ) You have 2 values for , 6 for (with missing qualifiers), 5 for (with missing qualifiers again!), 4 for , 4 for , 3 for ... I would say this is a very good example of one-item-for-all-languages-mess, and that's exactly why it shall be split (and properties -- merged). -- ( ) [MASK] the both properties. I like 'language of work or name', I use it with property 'named after'. I can live with 'language of work or name' (P407) as subproperty of 'original language of work' (P364), as well. -- ( ) The question is not to know if you like one property or not but to know if having only one property 'language' is a problem for your work ? – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . The question is not to know if you like one property or not but to know if having only one property 'language' is a problem for your work ? – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . Delete in favor of , Neutral on -- ( ) And a procedural note: Since this deletion request was started, was created, which changes the basis for this discussion. I would recommend to close this discussion, keeping both properties, but create two new separate deletion requests, based on the existence of the new property. -- ( ) And a procedural note: Since this deletion request was started, was created, which changes the basis for this discussion. I would recommend to close this discussion, keeping both properties, but create two new separate deletion requests, based on the existence of the new property. -- ( ) Delete - merge these two -- ( ) @ : Can you close this RfD ? Change lead to reformulate the deletion request. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: manufacturer_(P176)_and_main_building_contractor_(P193): Not [MASK] - consensus to [MASK] . -- ( ) Not [MASK] - consensus to [MASK] . -- ( ) very weak [MASK] . I believe that these are representing separate concepts, but I'm having a hard time trying to put this feeling into words (which is why the ""very weak""). I'll [MASK] thinking though. (talk: | | ) [MASK] I don't know if this is true for other languages, but certainly in English, one doesn't usually speak of manufacturing a building. And manufacturing and construction are generally considered quite distinct domains/industries. Manufacturing usually involves creating many a large number of very similar items (e.g. a car manufacturer will produce thousands of cars of each model, all close to identical) whereas construction generally involves building unique individual items (no two buildings will be alike – that might not always be true, but very often is). I think it will be confusing to editors and readers to conflate these two concepts, even if logically one could get away with it. ( ) Weak [MASK] as well. Sub-property that implies a few things that does not imply. -- ( ) [MASK] Agree with Srittau. Technically it would work to handle as a , if construction works like any other manufacturing, but I do not think that is the case. -- ( ) I'm not sure about other countries, but in America, that is the case for residential homes. (We have a really !@#$ed up housing situation here....) -- ( ) I'm not sure about other countries, but in America, that is the case for residential homes. (We have a really !@#$ed up housing situation here....) -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1658_(number_of_faces): [MASK] - consensus to delete . -- ( ) [MASK] - consensus to delete . -- ( ) With ? Delete if so. -- ( ) yes. Example: -- ( ) yes. Example: -- ( ) Is it possible to query the qualifiers of using the sparql interface? And as usual I would like to remind everyone that Wikidata is capable of handling multiple ontologies. and other, more specific properties, can happily coexist. So currently I favour [MASK] . -- ( ) We can ""handle"" multiple ontologies, but we should not due to a shit ton of reasons . There may be some exceptions, but this should not be one of them. -- ( ) We can ""handle"" multiple ontologies, but we should not due to a shit ton of reasons . There may be some exceptions, but this should not be one of them. -- ( ) Delete definitely. (A) it looks like everything that could use this property is already using with the suggested qualifier. There are a relatively small number of named three-dimensional polyhedra that this could apply to so it really doesn't seem useful to [MASK] a custom property around for this. (B) from a mathematical standpoint, ""face"" is a 3-dimensional concept and I don't think we'd want to generalize this to the corresponding properties in each higher dimension for any special objects of mathematical interest, especially since the corresponding properties for edges and vertices have already been removed. On Tobias's question - yes, you can query for qualifiers via the wikidata SPARQL interface but it's a little more complicated as you need to use the full statements rather than the ""truthy"" ones. ( ) @ : to get the number of faces. -- ( ) @ : Thanks for sharing the query. I guess that addresses my main concerns and I can along with the deletion. -- ( ) Hi guys; has part or ? Technically there is many instances of this kind of polygons. This is a class to class relation. -- ( ) Oh yes right, I'm tired ... Hi guys; has part or ? Technically there is many instances of this kind of polygons. This is a class to class relation. -- ( ) Oh yes right, I'm tired ... This is a class to class relation. -- ( ) Oh yes right, I'm tired ... Oh yes right, I'm tired ... Agree with delete per similar changes to the handling of vertices / edges. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1244_(phone_number_(URL)): [MASK] - consensus to delete . -- ( ) [MASK] - consensus to delete . -- ( ) Oppose . In the meantime URL with tel: can be implemented. So the announced use of that should be honored. should be [MASK] instead. --- Delete seems like P1329 can be made to work better --- Delete seems like P1329 can be made to work better --- Comment For discussion see . --- Support deletion. @ , : from the PC discussion. -- ( ) Delete As per project chat discussion. - ( ) Speedy [MASK] until the linked discussion is resolved (leaning delete in the long term). Well, that discussion was basically over and showed a clear consensus, in my opinion, therefore the deletion request. -- ( ) Well, that discussion was basically over and showed a clear consensus, in my opinion, therefore the deletion request. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: phone_number_(P1329): Not [MASK] - consensus to [MASK] . -- ( ) Not [MASK] - consensus to [MASK] . -- ( ) How would using an URL fix the malformed inputs? There is nothing preventing you from entering URLs that don't conform to the format prescribed by tel:. -- ( ) Also Oppose , has clearly won the popularity contest and is the better property, since representing phone numbers as URLs adds an unnecessary level of abstraction. -- ( ) Also Oppose , has clearly won the popularity contest and is the better property, since representing phone numbers as URLs adds an unnecessary level of abstraction. -- ( ) Use of was always planned, but is currently not possible. It can now be activated and Lydia asked for community feedback before. URLs have formatting constraints built in while strings don't. --- Telephone numbers are not URLs. No need to ""activate"" an inferior property when we already have a superior one. Especially when tel: URLs are not supported yet and supporting them would require valuable developer resources. -- ( ) It's an accepted prefix. It wont make them http-urls obviously and the change needed has been identified and is fairly trivial. I noticed you didn't respond when being asked for help to find a solution to clean-up in the project chat discussion: . --- Because all violations have been fixed in the meantime. -- ( ) Thanks for doing that. I had cleaned up some entries before and was looking for a solution to prevent malformed entries. The problem is that given the few entries that use the property, the ratio of problematic entries is -IMHO- too high. If we don't want to [MASK] cleaning them up, we need to find a solution that prevents problems beforehand. P1244 is such an option. --- What formatting constraints built in do you think exist, and have you confirmed that with the tech team? I don't believe that what you are saying is true. That aside, what are your primary constraints concerns? -- ( ) Good point. Seems like anything like [ ] would work. [MASK] . Seems we have to find a different way. --- Do you have an actual response or are you simply being disruptive? -- ( ) Telephone numbers are not URLs. No need to ""activate"" an inferior property when we already have a superior one. Especially when tel: URLs are not supported yet and supporting them would require valuable developer resources. -- ( ) It's an accepted prefix. It wont make them http-urls obviously and the change needed has been identified and is fairly trivial. I noticed you didn't respond when being asked for help to find a solution to clean-up in the project chat discussion: . --- Because all violations have been fixed in the meantime. -- ( ) Thanks for doing that. I had cleaned up some entries before and was looking for a solution to prevent malformed entries. The problem is that given the few entries that use the property, the ratio of problematic entries is -IMHO- too high. If we don't want to [MASK] cleaning them up, we need to find a solution that prevents problems beforehand. P1244 is such an option. --- It's an accepted prefix. It wont make them http-urls obviously and the change needed has been identified and is fairly trivial. I noticed you didn't respond when being asked for help to find a solution to clean-up in the project chat discussion: . --- Because all violations have been fixed in the meantime. -- ( ) Thanks for doing that. I had cleaned up some entries before and was looking for a solution to prevent malformed entries. The problem is that given the few entries that use the property, the ratio of problematic entries is -IMHO- too high. If we don't want to [MASK] cleaning them up, we need to find a solution that prevents problems beforehand. P1244 is such an option. --- Because all violations have been fixed in the meantime. -- ( ) Thanks for doing that. I had cleaned up some entries before and was looking for a solution to prevent malformed entries. The problem is that given the few entries that use the property, the ratio of problematic entries is -IMHO- too high. If we don't want to [MASK] cleaning them up, we need to find a solution that prevents problems beforehand. P1244 is such an option. --- Thanks for doing that. I had cleaned up some entries before and was looking for a solution to prevent malformed entries. The problem is that given the few entries that use the property, the ratio of problematic entries is -IMHO- too high. If we don't want to [MASK] cleaning them up, we need to find a solution that prevents problems beforehand. P1244 is such an option. --- What formatting constraints built in do you think exist, and have you confirmed that with the tech team? I don't believe that what you are saying is true. That aside, what are your primary constraints concerns? -- ( ) Good point. Seems like anything like [ ] would work. [MASK] . Seems we have to find a different way. --- Do you have an actual response or are you simply being disruptive? -- ( ) Good point. Seems like anything like [ ] would work. [MASK] . Seems we have to find a different way. --- Do you have an actual response or are you simply being disruptive? -- ( ) Do you have an actual response or are you simply being disruptive? -- ( ) Oppose deletion. @ , : from the PC discussion. -- ( ) [MASK] As per project chat discussion. - ( ) What is (an example of) a malformed ? Do they not work with ? — ( ) See the property constraint report (or its history). See the property constraint report (or its history). Speedy [MASK] until the linked discussion is resolved (leaning [MASK] in the long term, too). It is disruptive to make such a nomination while the property is under active discussion on 'Project Chat', and doubly so when the inverse property is already nominated (above). ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Lake_ID_(Sweden)_(P761): Not [MASK] withdrauwn Not [MASK] withdrauwn Support -- ( ) Support - Once id's have been migrated and any templats which use the property are updated. @ , :. / ( ) Support Sure. / Support - Once id's have been migrated and any templats which use the property are updated. @ , :. / ( ) Support Sure. / Support Sure. / Stöder Visst, kör på! -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: cites_work_(P2860): Not [MASK] Consensus to [MASK] . Not [MASK] Consensus to [MASK] . [MASK] Not a test. Yes to created at conference. We have strong agreement at WikiCite 2016 ( ). -- ( ) Comment Yes, it is Wikicite 2016 participants that suggested (me), supported and boldly created it. Although one could be afraid of the large amount of data that could potentially be added to Wikidata, to me the 'cites' seems a well-defined property as compared to a possible ""mentions"" property. It would be quite useful in scientometrics of Wikidata item and in generating biographical lists (for instance). — ( ) Comment There was no opportunity given for almost everyone to comment on the proposal, to express any concerns or suggest alternatives so creation was definitely out of process. I'm not sure whether I support deletion or not, but I do object very strongly to the method of creation. (talk: | | ) I strongly oppose to the absence of a property creation process @Wikidata. Whereas it is well possible that this property might gain sufficient support, I vote for Delete at this moment. Once it has passed a proper discussion at the property proposal pages, with the usual waiting time of at least a week and sufficient support, it may be recreated. We should not slip into anarchy. ( ) [MASK] as I would Support the origional proposal. [MASK] I understand and agree with the points about sticking to progress: decisions should not be made offline. That said, it sounds equally ridiculous to delete the property now, just to make a point. I rather see a set of more detailed citation typing properties, like those in the Citation Typing Ontology, but welcome this predicate nevertheless. Citations are a key property in tracking provenance of knowledge, and 'cites' is just how the world works. It is not just WikiCite 2016 that had a strong agreement, but it's the whole world that agrees on this. ( ) We could just as easily use the inverse (""is cited by""). The ""whole world"" has yet to express an opinion about which method we should use. Comment Andy, the point about an inverse property is a good one. What's the general Wikidata policy there? I normally see the active variants, though. I am not proposing the ""whole world"" comments (I hope not, wouldn't have the time to read it all); I was referring to what the whole world is currently doing. We cite and we tell people what we cited. Some do this better than others, true, but giving attribution seems to be a world-wide habit. Or do you disagree? ( ) @ : there is no standard policy for inverses - in some cases the ""active"" property is used (e.g. ), in some the ""passive"" (e.g. ) and in others we have both (e.g. and ), it all depends on what the significant relationship is in the context where it is intended to be used. For citations, there are arguments to be made both ways about whether the active or passive is the more important, given that the cites used are an important part of a work but being cited by another work is what gives significance. That this was not considered at all during the extraordinarily brief discussion period is why it sets a very dangerous precedent. (talk: | | ) @ : Ah, thanks for the examples and info! It seems to me that everyone agrees that a clear procedural mistake was made. That just happens in enthusiasm. Deleting something just to set an example, sets an equally dangerous precedent. I was not at nor involved in WikiCite. ( ) Nobody suggests ""deleting something just to set an example"". Deletion will allow time for a proper, open, discussion of what kind of property is needed. The policy is that we discuss property proposals for seven days before we create them. We could just as easily use the inverse (""is cited by""). The ""whole world"" has yet to express an opinion about which method we should use. Comment Andy, the point about an inverse property is a good one. What's the general Wikidata policy there? I normally see the active variants, though. I am not proposing the ""whole world"" comments (I hope not, wouldn't have the time to read it all); I was referring to what the whole world is currently doing. We cite and we tell people what we cited. Some do this better than others, true, but giving attribution seems to be a world-wide habit. Or do you disagree? ( ) @ : there is no standard policy for inverses - in some cases the ""active"" property is used (e.g. ), in some the ""passive"" (e.g. ) and in others we have both (e.g. and ), it all depends on what the significant relationship is in the context where it is intended to be used. For citations, there are arguments to be made both ways about whether the active or passive is the more important, given that the cites used are an important part of a work but being cited by another work is what gives significance. That this was not considered at all during the extraordinarily brief discussion period is why it sets a very dangerous precedent. (talk: | | ) @ : Ah, thanks for the examples and info! It seems to me that everyone agrees that a clear procedural mistake was made. That just happens in enthusiasm. Deleting something just to set an example, sets an equally dangerous precedent. I was not at nor involved in WikiCite. ( ) Nobody suggests ""deleting something just to set an example"". Deletion will allow time for a proper, open, discussion of what kind of property is needed. The policy is that we discuss property proposals for seven days before we create them. Comment Andy, the point about an inverse property is a good one. What's the general Wikidata policy there? I normally see the active variants, though. I am not proposing the ""whole world"" comments (I hope not, wouldn't have the time to read it all); I was referring to what the whole world is currently doing. We cite and we tell people what we cited. Some do this better than others, true, but giving attribution seems to be a world-wide habit. Or do you disagree? ( ) @ : there is no standard policy for inverses - in some cases the ""active"" property is used (e.g. ), in some the ""passive"" (e.g. ) and in others we have both (e.g. and ), it all depends on what the significant relationship is in the context where it is intended to be used. For citations, there are arguments to be made both ways about whether the active or passive is the more important, given that the cites used are an important part of a work but being cited by another work is what gives significance. That this was not considered at all during the extraordinarily brief discussion period is why it sets a very dangerous precedent. (talk: | | ) @ : Ah, thanks for the examples and info! It seems to me that everyone agrees that a clear procedural mistake was made. That just happens in enthusiasm. Deleting something just to set an example, sets an equally dangerous precedent. I was not at nor involved in WikiCite. ( ) Nobody suggests ""deleting something just to set an example"". Deletion will allow time for a proper, open, discussion of what kind of property is needed. The policy is that we discuss property proposals for seven days before we create them. @ : there is no standard policy for inverses - in some cases the ""active"" property is used (e.g. ), in some the ""passive"" (e.g. ) and in others we have both (e.g. and ), it all depends on what the significant relationship is in the context where it is intended to be used. For citations, there are arguments to be made both ways about whether the active or passive is the more important, given that the cites used are an important part of a work but being cited by another work is what gives significance. That this was not considered at all during the extraordinarily brief discussion period is why it sets a very dangerous precedent. (talk: | | ) @ : Ah, thanks for the examples and info! It seems to me that everyone agrees that a clear procedural mistake was made. That just happens in enthusiasm. Deleting something just to set an example, sets an equally dangerous precedent. I was not at nor involved in WikiCite. ( ) Nobody suggests ""deleting something just to set an example"". Deletion will allow time for a proper, open, discussion of what kind of property is needed. @ : Ah, thanks for the examples and info! It seems to me that everyone agrees that a clear procedural mistake was made. That just happens in enthusiasm. Deleting something just to set an example, sets an equally dangerous precedent. I was not at nor involved in WikiCite. ( ) Nobody suggests ""deleting something just to set an example"". Deletion will allow time for a proper, open, discussion of what kind of property is needed. Nobody suggests ""deleting something just to set an example"". Deletion will allow time for a proper, open, discussion of what kind of property is needed. The policy is that we discuss property proposals for seven days before we create them. Delete per Lymantria. Hint to the above: When you have multiple property creators and multiple persons familiar with the creation process telling you it was created too quickly... it was probably created too quickly. . -- ( ) Speedy delete and recreate if and only if there is consensus after due discussion. Comment Yesterday, there were some discussion at the Wikicite 2016 workshop about property creation in connection with bibliography and citation. I felt that participants were somewhat disappointed because any property suggestions would not become a property for the use in the workshop due to Wikidata bureaucracy. I suggested the property this morning by myself. And while I did expect support for it, I did not expect it to be created today and indeed laughed when said he could just create it and would take any critique afterwards (if I remember correctly). Tobias1984 step was bold and in my view fine. It is a good property and immediately needed by a number of people interested in bibliographic information in Wikidata. In the discussion of the property I think we should focus on its merits rather than any Wikidata politics. If I should be political then I would say that it is usually a good idea to have a period with discussion where property merits can be discussed. I have a few times suggested properties and sometimes there had good inputs. On the other hand, I would be open to quick creations, e.g., in connections with events. In such cases property users must be prepared to have the property [MASK] if its merits are not there. I think it is silly to delete the property just on a background of politics. — ( ) [MASK] Process is important, but this property would clearly survive the proposal process and be recreated, so not really helpful to delete it. Always be bold if it improves the project! -- ( ) [MASK] while I agree the usual wikidata process was skipped here (especially given the recent RFC debate that firmed up that process) I don't see any point in deleting this now as I would have strongly supported creation of this property if it had been proposed the regular way. Every rule can have exceptions, we need to be reasonable. But if people start making a habit of this sort of thing I would be worried. ( ) The problem with this rationale is that we have some very similarly ""mass-supported"" proposed properties that were all supported inside small time scale by a group. It's an obnoxious practice. Just because some of the users in this case were from Wikidata and not a foreign wiki does not make it okay . -- ( ) Do we trust our property creators to be watchful for canvassing etc problems? There seem to be several regular users not associated with the conference who commented on the proposal. In any case, the issue of whether somebody acted inappropriately is quite a separate thing from whether the property is worth keeping or deleting. It has already been used a dozen or so times, and seems pretty useful to me; deleting it would have a negative impact and I just don't see the purpose. If you want to send a message to the property creator here, that probably belongs on the admin noticeboard as a complaint. ( ) The problem with this rationale is that we have some very similarly ""mass-supported"" proposed properties that were all supported inside small time scale by a group. It's an obnoxious practice. Just because some of the users in this case were from Wikidata and not a foreign wiki does not make it okay . -- ( ) Do we trust our property creators to be watchful for canvassing etc problems? There seem to be several regular users not associated with the conference who commented on the proposal. In any case, the issue of whether somebody acted inappropriately is quite a separate thing from whether the property is worth keeping or deleting. It has already been used a dozen or so times, and seems pretty useful to me; deleting it would have a negative impact and I just don't see the purpose. If you want to send a message to the property creator here, that probably belongs on the admin noticeboard as a complaint. ( ) Do we trust our property creators to be watchful for canvassing etc problems? There seem to be several regular users not associated with the conference who commented on the proposal. In any case, the issue of whether somebody acted inappropriately is quite a separate thing from whether the property is worth keeping or deleting. It has already been used a dozen or so times, and seems pretty useful to me; deleting it would have a negative impact and I just don't see the purpose. If you want to send a message to the property creator here, that probably belongs on the admin noticeboard as a complaint. ( ) Comment does anyone who wants to delete this property actually have a reason for wanting to delete it, other than ""process""? To me it looks like the only counter-argument to this property is ""I wasn't consulted"". And no, I'm not at the WikiCite conference. ( ) It's not ""I wasn't consulted"" but ""we weren't consulted"". The entire western hemisphere was asleep when the property was proposed and probably 97% of those people were still asleep when the property was approved, and the remaining 3% were probably in the shower. That's frankly ridiculous . If WikiCite thought they needed this property, or the users needed it, they either a) should have proposed it prior to the start of WikiCite, where they clearly would have received mass support or b) should have at least waited a day--after which they likely would have received mass support. One day is not hard to ask for in a decent property proposal. It's crap like this why we even have property creators and a proposal process in the first place, and I'm half-tempted to take APS's offer up regarding leaving a comment at regarding Tobias's fit for being a property creator due to his decision making here. -- ( ) @ : This is an unfair ad hominem you are making. Indeed I do not intend to give any reaction apart from the poor and disruptive process that has been chosen to create this property. Generally, there may be many issues with a property proposal, not only about its content, but also about the applicability of already existing properties or the datatype to be used. Therefore a reviewing time is needed. With this property I don't see many issues, but it is not only for that I care for a careful property creation process. If we forget the process for one property ""because it is fairly clear that the world wants this"", why would we apply it to others (most proposers will think their proposal is a good one)? That is the disruptive part of the creation part of this property. So the process, or joke of a process, that led to this property creation could be taken as arrogant and as a way of destroying procedures here. And evenly important: to users who patiently wait for weeks, months or sometimes even years, before a decision on their proposals is taken, it is truly offensive. And now you are hinting that the point would be that we would just feel passed by (rightfully so, by the way), like a bunch of jealous bureaucrats? ( ) Yes; per previous replies to your question, my objection is not "" I have not been consulted"" but that ""we have not yet decided what is the bast approach"". Please AGF. It's not ""I wasn't consulted"" but ""we weren't consulted"". The entire western hemisphere was asleep when the property was proposed and probably 97% of those people were still asleep when the property was approved, and the remaining 3% were probably in the shower. That's frankly ridiculous . If WikiCite thought they needed this property, or the users needed it, they either a) should have proposed it prior to the start of WikiCite, where they clearly would have received mass support or b) should have at least waited a day--after which they likely would have received mass support. One day is not hard to ask for in a decent property proposal. It's crap like this why we even have property creators and a proposal process in the first place, and I'm half-tempted to take APS's offer up regarding leaving a comment at regarding Tobias's fit for being a property creator due to his decision making here. -- ( ) @ : This is an unfair ad hominem you are making. Indeed I do not intend to give any reaction apart from the poor and disruptive process that has been chosen to create this property. Generally, there may be many issues with a property proposal, not only about its content, but also about the applicability of already existing properties or the datatype to be used. Therefore a reviewing time is needed. With this property I don't see many issues, but it is not only for that I care for a careful property creation process. If we forget the process for one property ""because it is fairly clear that the world wants this"", why would we apply it to others (most proposers will think their proposal is a good one)? That is the disruptive part of the creation part of this property. So the process, or joke of a process, that led to this property creation could be taken as arrogant and as a way of destroying procedures here. And evenly important: to users who patiently wait for weeks, months or sometimes even years, before a decision on their proposals is taken, it is truly offensive. And now you are hinting that the point would be that we would just feel passed by (rightfully so, by the way), like a bunch of jealous bureaucrats? ( ) Yes; per previous replies to your question, my objection is not "" I have not been consulted"" but that ""we have not yet decided what is the bast approach"". Please AGF. [MASK] While I agree that property creation requires a careful process to avoid duplication or inappropriate classification, here we have a clear cut case: cites is not only useful but has already a long backstory as an acknowledged and delimited category in bibliometry. Getting back to the old bold wiki way seems the most appropriate thing to me at this stage ( ) who wasn't either at wikicite [MASK] The ""cites"" property is useful and the definition looks good to me. (Any complaints about the process should IMO be discussed somewhere else.) -- ( ) [MASK] I understand that people can be mad for not being consulted but as others I don't see substantial oppose to the property. I'm not a fan of process per se , I think that there was enough consensus and need for being bold and create something that added value to Wikidata. Also, we had the chance to work together and in person about the property, and that is a chance you really don't want to miss. Please presume good faith, this was an exceptional case. ( ) @ : But as is becoming clear above you did not consider all the aspects of the property (e.g. whether the inverse should be used instead) so while you seem to have been very lucky here not to have created a mess it is wholly inappropriate to have to rely on luck. I understand the frustration the slow process causes - I have a few proposals that have been open several months, and I'm not the only one in that position - but the process is there for a reason and I do not agree that people being in the same room is a valid reason to ignore it. I know this was done in good faith, but a wrong decision made in good faith is still a wrong decision. (talk: | | ) @ : It's perfectly right to have doubts about the property. But cites is more constrained than is cited by : how many papers cites Albert Einstein's most famous article? Nobody really knows. And that number is changing. On the other end, the papers it cites are a limited, sure number. Also, uses citation too (as A cites B). ( ) @ : I'm not arguing for or agaTinst either cites or cited by (and this wouldn't be the place to do it if I was), simply that it should have been discussed before creation and time allowed for people who were independent of the setting where a possible need was identified to bring outside perspectives so that things like this do not get overlooked. (talk: | | ) Somehow I doubt that a private conference unrelated to Wikimedia is really a good sample for ""work together and in person"". --- This is definitely NOT a ""private conversation unrelated to Wikimedia"". If you want my Wikimedia resumé I'm happy to provide it, and all of the others people involved. Also, the event was organized by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland, among others. ( ) Can we have statements from WMF and WMDE about this? I read that it wasn't public, but open to invited people only. That seems really uncommon. --- As noted above, my objection is not "" I have not been consulted"" but that ""we have not yet decided what is the bast approach"". And I am not ""mad"". Please AGF, and avoid such pejorative language. It's also hard to ""assume good faith"" in the face of a statement like "" he could just create it and would take any critique afterwards "". @ : But as is becoming clear above you did not consider all the aspects of the property (e.g. whether the inverse should be used instead) so while you seem to have been very lucky here not to have created a mess it is wholly inappropriate to have to rely on luck. I understand the frustration the slow process causes - I have a few proposals that have been open several months, and I'm not the only one in that position - but the process is there for a reason and I do not agree that people being in the same room is a valid reason to ignore it. I know this was done in good faith, but a wrong decision made in good faith is still a wrong decision. (talk: | | ) @ : It's perfectly right to have doubts about the property. But cites is more constrained than is cited by : how many papers cites Albert Einstein's most famous article? Nobody really knows. And that number is changing. On the other end, the papers it cites are a limited, sure number. Also, uses citation too (as A cites B). ( ) @ : I'm not arguing for or agaTinst either cites or cited by (and this wouldn't be the place to do it if I was), simply that it should have been discussed before creation and time allowed for people who were independent of the setting where a possible need was identified to bring outside perspectives so that things like this do not get overlooked. (talk: | | ) @ : It's perfectly right to have doubts about the property. But cites is more constrained than is cited by : how many papers cites Albert Einstein's most famous article? Nobody really knows. And that number is changing. On the other end, the papers it cites are a limited, sure number. Also, uses citation too (as A cites B). ( ) @ : I'm not arguing for or agaTinst either cites or cited by (and this wouldn't be the place to do it if I was), simply that it should have been discussed before creation and time allowed for people who were independent of the setting where a possible need was identified to bring outside perspectives so that things like this do not get overlooked. (talk: | | ) @ : I'm not arguing for or agaTinst either cites or cited by (and this wouldn't be the place to do it if I was), simply that it should have been discussed before creation and time allowed for people who were independent of the setting where a possible need was identified to bring outside perspectives so that things like this do not get overlooked. (talk: | | ) Somehow I doubt that a private conference unrelated to Wikimedia is really a good sample for ""work together and in person"". --- This is definitely NOT a ""private conversation unrelated to Wikimedia"". If you want my Wikimedia resumé I'm happy to provide it, and all of the others people involved. Also, the event was organized by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland, among others. ( ) Can we have statements from WMF and WMDE about this? I read that it wasn't public, but open to invited people only. That seems really uncommon. --- This is definitely NOT a ""private conversation unrelated to Wikimedia"". If you want my Wikimedia resumé I'm happy to provide it, and all of the others people involved. Also, the event was organized by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland, among others. ( ) Can we have statements from WMF and WMDE about this? I read that it wasn't public, but open to invited people only. That seems really uncommon. --- Can we have statements from WMF and WMDE about this? I read that it wasn't public, but open to invited people only. That seems really uncommon. --- As noted above, my objection is not "" I have not been consulted"" but that ""we have not yet decided what is the bast approach"". And I am not ""mad"". Please AGF, and avoid such pejorative language. It's also hard to ""assume good faith"" in the face of a statement like "" he could just create it and would take any critique afterwards "". [MASK] ! -- ( ) @ : Why do you think it should be kept? (talk: | | ) RE: : I added some comments to my vote before, but it disappeared after several edit conflicts. I cannot see any real purpose in deleting something and recreate it 168 hours later, just because of some mistakes when it was created. That is not Common Sense! -- ( ) Thank you. (talk: | | ) Again: No one is proposing ""deleting something... just because of some mistakes when it was created"". @ : Why do you think it should be kept? (talk: | | ) RE: : I added some comments to my vote before, but it disappeared after several edit conflicts. I cannot see any real purpose in deleting something and recreate it 168 hours later, just because of some mistakes when it was created. That is not Common Sense! -- ( ) Thank you. (talk: | | ) Again: No one is proposing ""deleting something... just because of some mistakes when it was created"". RE: : I added some comments to my vote before, but it disappeared after several edit conflicts. I cannot see any real purpose in deleting something and recreate it 168 hours later, just because of some mistakes when it was created. That is not Common Sense! -- ( ) Thank you. (talk: | | ) Again: No one is proposing ""deleting something... just because of some mistakes when it was created"". Thank you. (talk: | | ) Again: No one is proposing ""deleting something... just because of some mistakes when it was created"". Comment I have started an RfC about whether we should have formal minimum time limits for property proposal discussions going forward and/or whether property creators should be independent of events/discussions that resulted in the proposal. You are invited to comment on this at , but note that while the RFC is inspired by this property creation it is not about this property and any outcome will not be retrospective. (talk: | | ) Comment Just so we can close this discussion I will add this comment. I am sorry that we had to rush this, but it was done out of poor enthusiasm to enrich Wikidata with something, that a whole conference-room full of people wanted to do. In my opinion that is the same sample size of users giving input that is otherwise gathered in a month of a normal property proposal discussions. In think we should maintain this flexibility in the future, as it cleary does not do any harm to Wikidata, or other queries (I made sure of the first two), or burdens anyone with work (I actually didn't think that there would not be a speedy deletion discussion plus one RfC: ). Having a standard workflow is an excellent idea, but having flexibility for meetings and conferences, with a large enough sample size of the community, has its benefits too. -- ( ) In this case I don't think significant harm has come to Wikidata, but the potential for it do so in slightly different circumstances is clear to me. For example, look at some of the Wikivoyage related proposals at - if there were a conference room full of enthusiastic Wikivoyage contributors we could easily end up with a messy unstructured mess to sort out later. The volume of input is there, and that's good, but there also needs to be a diversity of input - when everyone is approaching an issue from the same angle it is not uncommon to miss things that are obvious from another approach. Even if the result isn't directly wrong in isolation, it could be duplicating something from a parallel field or be created with specificity rather than being slightly more generalised. (talk: | | ) @ : I agree with Thryduulf. I had hoped you would see that this way of property creation process is not the way it should be. In stead you confront us with a comment that we have to be flexible. Sort of ""get used to it"". What are the boundaries of flexibility? I am far from happy with this. ( ) No. Firstly, you - as the one who created this property out-of-process- are the last person who should be trying to have discussion here closed. And a self-selected group of people, no mater how capable, well-meaning, numerous or enthusiastic, does not obviate the need for an open discussion in which anyone interested may comment. @ : A ""conference room full of people"" is not a good reason to ignore our policy, which mandates a discussion of at least a week. Especially considering that the group dynamics of a large gathering such as this are not really suited for a well-balanced decision. I'd like to see a statement from you that in the future you will honor Wikidata's policies for property creation. -- ( ) In this case I don't think significant harm has come to Wikidata, but the potential for it do so in slightly different circumstances is clear to me. For example, look at some of the Wikivoyage related proposals at - if there were a conference room full of enthusiastic Wikivoyage contributors we could easily end up with a messy unstructured mess to sort out later. The volume of input is there, and that's good, but there also needs to be a diversity of input - when everyone is approaching an issue from the same angle it is not uncommon to miss things that are obvious from another approach. Even if the result isn't directly wrong in isolation, it could be duplicating something from a parallel field or be created with specificity rather than being slightly more generalised. (talk: | | ) @ : I agree with Thryduulf. I had hoped you would see that this way of property creation process is not the way it should be. In stead you confront us with a comment that we have to be flexible. Sort of ""get used to it"". What are the boundaries of flexibility? I am far from happy with this. ( ) No. Firstly, you - as the one who created this property out-of-process- are the last person who should be trying to have discussion here closed. And a self-selected group of people, no mater how capable, well-meaning, numerous or enthusiastic, does not obviate the need for an open discussion in which anyone interested may comment. @ : A ""conference room full of people"" is not a good reason to ignore our policy, which mandates a discussion of at least a week. Especially considering that the group dynamics of a large gathering such as this are not really suited for a well-balanced decision. I'd like to see a statement from you that in the future you will honor Wikidata's policies for property creation. -- ( ) @ : Having the property creator rights also means that the community needs to trust me to make good decisions. The discussion was long enough that I could get a good idea if the property would be a good fit. I also argued at the conference against creating the inverse property. I wouldn't create a controversial property as quickly as this one, no matter how many people would argue for it. I also trust that the other property creators make equally good decisions. Finally I want to say that I remember quite a few properties that were fast-tracked to creation and although certainly a sporadic mistake was made we are overall making very good decisions. -- ( ) @ : Having the property creator rights also means that the community needs to trust me to make good decisions. The discussion was long enough that I could get a good idea if the property would be a good fit. I also argued at the conference against creating the inverse property. I wouldn't create a controversial property as quickly as this one, no matter how many people would argue for it. I also trust that the other property creators make equally good decisions. Finally I want to say that I remember quite a few properties that were fast-tracked to creation and although certainly a sporadic mistake was made we are overall making very good decisions. -- ( ) @ : Having the property creator rights also means that the community needs to trust me to make good decisions. The discussion was long enough that I could get a good idea if the property would be a good fit. I also argued at the conference against creating the inverse property. I wouldn't create a controversial property as quickly as this one, no matter how many people would argue for it. I also trust that the other property creators make equally good decisions. Finally I want to say that I remember quite a few properties that were fast-tracked to creation and although certainly a sporadic mistake was made we are overall making very good decisions. -- ( ) @ : Having the property creator rights also means that the community needs to trust me to make good decisions. The discussion was long enough that I could get a good idea if the property would be a good fit. I also argued at the conference against creating the inverse property. I wouldn't create a controversial property as quickly as this one, no matter how many people would argue for it. I also trust that the other property creators make equally good decisions. Finally I want to say that I remember quite a few properties that were fast-tracked to creation and although certainly a sporadic mistake was made we are overall making very good decisions. -- ( ) [MASK] I see a lot of bureacratic reasoning here (and indeed the creation was badly done) but no substantial argument against the usefulness of the property itself. As for the need of discussion, no need to delete the property for that ; I have some question myself but I'll simply use . Cdlt, ( ) Lock . I don't think this is technically enforceable (and there should be no need for it to be), but it is what needs to happen here. The property needs to be locked from use until all the issues are worked out regarding the scope, definition, constraints, etc. (which should have happened before creation). Once there is consensus on that the property can be unlocked and adjusted as required, or [MASK] and created in a new form if it cannot be amended. (talk: | | ) Issues, ? I think the scope is clear and the property is well defined. Good constraints are only a matter of time. -- ( ) See comments in this discussion by for example. (talk: | | ) There are none, . -- ( ) Look again. Andy (pigsonthewing) has commented several times in this discussion, raising points that should have be considered prior to creation (e.g. whether the inverse would be better), and other issues have been raised on the property talk page. It may be that no changes need to be made, but we cannot know that until they have been discussed. (talk: | | ) There is the question (not an issue) about the inverse property, but I don't read any argument that the inverse property is preferred by anybody. -- ( ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) Issues, ? I think the scope is clear and the property is well defined. Good constraints are only a matter of time. -- ( ) See comments in this discussion by for example. (talk: | | ) There are none, . -- ( ) Look again. Andy (pigsonthewing) has commented several times in this discussion, raising points that should have be considered prior to creation (e.g. whether the inverse would be better), and other issues have been raised on the property talk page. It may be that no changes need to be made, but we cannot know that until they have been discussed. (talk: | | ) There is the question (not an issue) about the inverse property, but I don't read any argument that the inverse property is preferred by anybody. -- ( ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) See comments in this discussion by for example. (talk: | | ) There are none, . -- ( ) Look again. Andy (pigsonthewing) has commented several times in this discussion, raising points that should have be considered prior to creation (e.g. whether the inverse would be better), and other issues have been raised on the property talk page. It may be that no changes need to be made, but we cannot know that until they have been discussed. (talk: | | ) There is the question (not an issue) about the inverse property, but I don't read any argument that the inverse property is preferred by anybody. -- ( ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) There are none, . -- ( ) Look again. Andy (pigsonthewing) has commented several times in this discussion, raising points that should have be considered prior to creation (e.g. whether the inverse would be better), and other issues have been raised on the property talk page. It may be that no changes need to be made, but we cannot know that until they have been discussed. (talk: | | ) There is the question (not an issue) about the inverse property, but I don't read any argument that the inverse property is preferred by anybody. -- ( ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) Look again. Andy (pigsonthewing) has commented several times in this discussion, raising points that should have be considered prior to creation (e.g. whether the inverse would be better), and other issues have been raised on the property talk page. It may be that no changes need to be made, but we cannot know that until they have been discussed. (talk: | | ) There is the question (not an issue) about the inverse property, but I don't read any argument that the inverse property is preferred by anybody. -- ( ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) There is the question (not an issue) about the inverse property, but I don't read any argument that the inverse property is preferred by anybody. -- ( ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) I don't know if anybody actually does prefer the inverse or not, but it is being discussed by several people which indicates again that the property was prematurely created, and it is also not the only issue raised. Together they tell me the property needs more discussion before use. Deleting it only to potentially recreate it would be pointless (and that is not what I am arguing for) I'm arguing for the discussion that should have happened before creation to happen before widespread use so that any changes brought about by that discussion don't leave a mess. (talk: | | ) [MASK] ; this may have been created out of process but it seems to be being used productively, and I don't think removing it would be a benefit to anyone. ( ) Comment As property suggestor I would like to clarify a few things, particularly wrt. . While I, Tobias and others participated in the WikiCite event that was sort-of invitation only, the property was not suggested by me as an event participant or as a process in the event. The second day of the event, I woke up early and in my hotel room by myself. During the morning session with everyone the property suggestion must have been mentioned, at least I recall that Tobias said something like that he could just create it (and the rest of us laughed). We split in rooms and in the room, where I were in, people began to write support for it. At one point we discovered that Tobias, who must have been sitting in another room, boldly created (to my surprise) the property. In reference to the scope, I would say that the scientific citation is quite well-defined in scope and clearly identifiable, - in scientific articles and in books. In patent too. In legal texts I am less sure. Google Scholar, Microsoft and Thomson-Reuter have services for such citations. But what about news articles? If a news article cites an oral statement of Obama should we then use the P2860-property on the Wikidata item for the news article with the value as Obama? Such a discussion would be relevant on the property discussion page. I do not think it is a show-stopper and a cause for deletion. Initially, the obvious use that came to my mind was the scholarly citation as we see in Google Scholar. In regard to the inverse property ""is cited by"", I would not be in favour of it. Some articles, such as ""An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series"", have tens of thousands of ingoing citations, while for 'cites', articles would typically have tens to hundreds of outgoing citations. My yet only serious problem with 'cites' is the potential magnitude of the use. We have tens of millions of scientific documents, and probably many patents potentially each making hundreds of citations. If Wikidata/Wikibase developers and devops, such as @ :, say we are crazy and the property would cause unnecessary burden on the system, or if Wikidata editors feel that too many citations would be unmanageable, then we would need to consider axing the property. Another potential problem could be copyright issue with the references (I do not believe there is). — ( ) [MASK] Process is absolutely not a reason to penalize a decision on this or any other Wikimedia sites, ever. Being antagonistic towards other users for the sake of being antagonistic completely undermines the model upon which our content is built. -- ( ) Process is a a reason to delete something when the incorrect or lack of process has damaged something or is causing problems. It hasn't and apparently isn't on this occasion, but your ""absolutely not a reason...ever"" is incorrect. Also, I am not aware that anybody here is being deliberately antagonistic towards other users - for the sake of being antagonistic or otherwise. There are people who are trying to explain why the speedy creation was wrong, why speedy creation is wrong in general terms, and what issues exist with the current property that could and should have been sorted prior to creation. Please assume good faith. (talk: | | ) No, process is not a reason to penalize something in that case either - if something has damaged something or is causing problems, then that is a reason to rectify it, not process. Ever. If you can point to damage or problems from this property, whether now or in the future, I would be interested to see it. As for ""assuming good faith""... please try practicing what you preach first. -- ( ) Please point to where I have not assumed good faith. I very strongly disagree that the way the property was created was acceptable (for reasons given multiple times), but it was clearly created in good faith. I am not aware that this property has caused or is causing damage, but there are potential issues with it explained by multiple people in multiple place that should be addressed before it gets very widespread use. These problems do not in my view necessitate deletion, at least at this time, but until they are fully resolved I am not going to speak in absolutes. As for process, I think we will just have to agree to disagree if you are unable to imagine how, in different circumstances to what happened here, not following process can be a damaging thing in and of itself. Even this creation has the potential to weaken the property proposal process if people see that not giving time for a full independent review here didn't lead to major problems they may, with similar enthusiasm, create something prematurely that does. (talk: | | ) Dear Thryduulf, you just said that the property was clearly created in good faith . I understand your point that process is important, but (for me, at least) it's not everything . Wiki principles as Presume good faith and Be bold are actually social practices that try to emphasize the role of people, community, social norms over bureaucracy. We have here kind of overwhelming support for the property, I'd like us to stop discussing here and talk about constraints and issues with the property: the inverse property has been addressed, and constraints can be better defined not here but in the property talk. Can we proceed there? ( ) I am not advocating for deletion, merely holding off using the property until all things that need discussing about it have been discussed and agreed. Where that discussion happens is up to people discussing it, not me (but I agree that this is not the best venue for that). It is also not up to me whether this discussion is closed or not - I'm not an administrator here and even if I was I have contributed to it far too much to be a neutral closer. While the discussion does remain open though I will continue to (try to) correct any misstatements or misunderstandings relevant to the discussion that I see. (talk: | | ) You have not assumed good faith in assuming instead that the creator of the property has reneged on their responsibility to competently weigh the merits of a proposal before creating it just because they haven't sat around and let the proposal linger for some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time; nor have you done so in assuming that those who reviewed it were not ""independent"", just because they were at a conference together–as if daring to collaborate productively in person on something implies some sort of conspiracy. If you have evidence of any of those things then that would be something else–but all we seem to get are vague allusions to some unspecified thing about it not being ""fully resolved"" that is preventing you from ""speaking in absolutes"". -- ( ) I'm sure the creator weighed the merits of the proposal as it stood at the time he created it, and they clearly believed they were improving Wikidata by creating it at that point. Noting that aspects of the proposal had been overlooked in the discussion at the time it was closed is not assuming bad faith on anyone, nor is disagreeing that speedy creation was better than waiting. The policies and guidelines around property creation are not ""some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time"" they are publicly written down at pages that have been linked several times already, and which property creators need to know about before they are granted the ability to create properties. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm making vague allusions to things not being fully resolved - take a look at the comments on this page and on the property talk page to see that there are aspects of this property that are still being discussed. I'm even more flabbergasted by the accusation that I'm describing anything as a conspiracy - it is not and was not a conspiracy and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary. I can see how some other people's comments may be interpreted that way but I am no more responsible for them than you are. Collaborating in person is good, but not when it is exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) as has been more eloquently expressed by below than I am able. (talk: | | ) Process is a a reason to delete something when the incorrect or lack of process has damaged something or is causing problems. It hasn't and apparently isn't on this occasion, but your ""absolutely not a reason...ever"" is incorrect. Also, I am not aware that anybody here is being deliberately antagonistic towards other users - for the sake of being antagonistic or otherwise. There are people who are trying to explain why the speedy creation was wrong, why speedy creation is wrong in general terms, and what issues exist with the current property that could and should have been sorted prior to creation. Please assume good faith. (talk: | | ) No, process is not a reason to penalize something in that case either - if something has damaged something or is causing problems, then that is a reason to rectify it, not process. Ever. If you can point to damage or problems from this property, whether now or in the future, I would be interested to see it. As for ""assuming good faith""... please try practicing what you preach first. -- ( ) Please point to where I have not assumed good faith. I very strongly disagree that the way the property was created was acceptable (for reasons given multiple times), but it was clearly created in good faith. I am not aware that this property has caused or is causing damage, but there are potential issues with it explained by multiple people in multiple place that should be addressed before it gets very widespread use. These problems do not in my view necessitate deletion, at least at this time, but until they are fully resolved I am not going to speak in absolutes. As for process, I think we will just have to agree to disagree if you are unable to imagine how, in different circumstances to what happened here, not following process can be a damaging thing in and of itself. Even this creation has the potential to weaken the property proposal process if people see that not giving time for a full independent review here didn't lead to major problems they may, with similar enthusiasm, create something prematurely that does. (talk: | | ) Dear Thryduulf, you just said that the property was clearly created in good faith . I understand your point that process is important, but (for me, at least) it's not everything . Wiki principles as Presume good faith and Be bold are actually social practices that try to emphasize the role of people, community, social norms over bureaucracy. We have here kind of overwhelming support for the property, I'd like us to stop discussing here and talk about constraints and issues with the property: the inverse property has been addressed, and constraints can be better defined not here but in the property talk. Can we proceed there? ( ) I am not advocating for deletion, merely holding off using the property until all things that need discussing about it have been discussed and agreed. Where that discussion happens is up to people discussing it, not me (but I agree that this is not the best venue for that). It is also not up to me whether this discussion is closed or not - I'm not an administrator here and even if I was I have contributed to it far too much to be a neutral closer. While the discussion does remain open though I will continue to (try to) correct any misstatements or misunderstandings relevant to the discussion that I see. (talk: | | ) You have not assumed good faith in assuming instead that the creator of the property has reneged on their responsibility to competently weigh the merits of a proposal before creating it just because they haven't sat around and let the proposal linger for some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time; nor have you done so in assuming that those who reviewed it were not ""independent"", just because they were at a conference together–as if daring to collaborate productively in person on something implies some sort of conspiracy. If you have evidence of any of those things then that would be something else–but all we seem to get are vague allusions to some unspecified thing about it not being ""fully resolved"" that is preventing you from ""speaking in absolutes"". -- ( ) I'm sure the creator weighed the merits of the proposal as it stood at the time he created it, and they clearly believed they were improving Wikidata by creating it at that point. Noting that aspects of the proposal had been overlooked in the discussion at the time it was closed is not assuming bad faith on anyone, nor is disagreeing that speedy creation was better than waiting. The policies and guidelines around property creation are not ""some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time"" they are publicly written down at pages that have been linked several times already, and which property creators need to know about before they are granted the ability to create properties. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm making vague allusions to things not being fully resolved - take a look at the comments on this page and on the property talk page to see that there are aspects of this property that are still being discussed. I'm even more flabbergasted by the accusation that I'm describing anything as a conspiracy - it is not and was not a conspiracy and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary. I can see how some other people's comments may be interpreted that way but I am no more responsible for them than you are. Collaborating in person is good, but not when it is exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) as has been more eloquently expressed by below than I am able. (talk: | | ) No, process is not a reason to penalize something in that case either - if something has damaged something or is causing problems, then that is a reason to rectify it, not process. Ever. If you can point to damage or problems from this property, whether now or in the future, I would be interested to see it. As for ""assuming good faith""... please try practicing what you preach first. -- ( ) Please point to where I have not assumed good faith. I very strongly disagree that the way the property was created was acceptable (for reasons given multiple times), but it was clearly created in good faith. I am not aware that this property has caused or is causing damage, but there are potential issues with it explained by multiple people in multiple place that should be addressed before it gets very widespread use. These problems do not in my view necessitate deletion, at least at this time, but until they are fully resolved I am not going to speak in absolutes. As for process, I think we will just have to agree to disagree if you are unable to imagine how, in different circumstances to what happened here, not following process can be a damaging thing in and of itself. Even this creation has the potential to weaken the property proposal process if people see that not giving time for a full independent review here didn't lead to major problems they may, with similar enthusiasm, create something prematurely that does. (talk: | | ) Dear Thryduulf, you just said that the property was clearly created in good faith . I understand your point that process is important, but (for me, at least) it's not everything . Wiki principles as Presume good faith and Be bold are actually social practices that try to emphasize the role of people, community, social norms over bureaucracy. We have here kind of overwhelming support for the property, I'd like us to stop discussing here and talk about constraints and issues with the property: the inverse property has been addressed, and constraints can be better defined not here but in the property talk. Can we proceed there? ( ) I am not advocating for deletion, merely holding off using the property until all things that need discussing about it have been discussed and agreed. Where that discussion happens is up to people discussing it, not me (but I agree that this is not the best venue for that). It is also not up to me whether this discussion is closed or not - I'm not an administrator here and even if I was I have contributed to it far too much to be a neutral closer. While the discussion does remain open though I will continue to (try to) correct any misstatements or misunderstandings relevant to the discussion that I see. (talk: | | ) You have not assumed good faith in assuming instead that the creator of the property has reneged on their responsibility to competently weigh the merits of a proposal before creating it just because they haven't sat around and let the proposal linger for some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time; nor have you done so in assuming that those who reviewed it were not ""independent"", just because they were at a conference together–as if daring to collaborate productively in person on something implies some sort of conspiracy. If you have evidence of any of those things then that would be something else–but all we seem to get are vague allusions to some unspecified thing about it not being ""fully resolved"" that is preventing you from ""speaking in absolutes"". -- ( ) I'm sure the creator weighed the merits of the proposal as it stood at the time he created it, and they clearly believed they were improving Wikidata by creating it at that point. Noting that aspects of the proposal had been overlooked in the discussion at the time it was closed is not assuming bad faith on anyone, nor is disagreeing that speedy creation was better than waiting. The policies and guidelines around property creation are not ""some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time"" they are publicly written down at pages that have been linked several times already, and which property creators need to know about before they are granted the ability to create properties. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm making vague allusions to things not being fully resolved - take a look at the comments on this page and on the property talk page to see that there are aspects of this property that are still being discussed. I'm even more flabbergasted by the accusation that I'm describing anything as a conspiracy - it is not and was not a conspiracy and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary. I can see how some other people's comments may be interpreted that way but I am no more responsible for them than you are. Collaborating in person is good, but not when it is exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) as has been more eloquently expressed by below than I am able. (talk: | | ) Please point to where I have not assumed good faith. I very strongly disagree that the way the property was created was acceptable (for reasons given multiple times), but it was clearly created in good faith. I am not aware that this property has caused or is causing damage, but there are potential issues with it explained by multiple people in multiple place that should be addressed before it gets very widespread use. These problems do not in my view necessitate deletion, at least at this time, but until they are fully resolved I am not going to speak in absolutes. As for process, I think we will just have to agree to disagree if you are unable to imagine how, in different circumstances to what happened here, not following process can be a damaging thing in and of itself. Even this creation has the potential to weaken the property proposal process if people see that not giving time for a full independent review here didn't lead to major problems they may, with similar enthusiasm, create something prematurely that does. (talk: | | ) Dear Thryduulf, you just said that the property was clearly created in good faith . I understand your point that process is important, but (for me, at least) it's not everything . Wiki principles as Presume good faith and Be bold are actually social practices that try to emphasize the role of people, community, social norms over bureaucracy. We have here kind of overwhelming support for the property, I'd like us to stop discussing here and talk about constraints and issues with the property: the inverse property has been addressed, and constraints can be better defined not here but in the property talk. Can we proceed there? ( ) I am not advocating for deletion, merely holding off using the property until all things that need discussing about it have been discussed and agreed. Where that discussion happens is up to people discussing it, not me (but I agree that this is not the best venue for that). It is also not up to me whether this discussion is closed or not - I'm not an administrator here and even if I was I have contributed to it far too much to be a neutral closer. While the discussion does remain open though I will continue to (try to) correct any misstatements or misunderstandings relevant to the discussion that I see. (talk: | | ) You have not assumed good faith in assuming instead that the creator of the property has reneged on their responsibility to competently weigh the merits of a proposal before creating it just because they haven't sat around and let the proposal linger for some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time; nor have you done so in assuming that those who reviewed it were not ""independent"", just because they were at a conference together–as if daring to collaborate productively in person on something implies some sort of conspiracy. If you have evidence of any of those things then that would be something else–but all we seem to get are vague allusions to some unspecified thing about it not being ""fully resolved"" that is preventing you from ""speaking in absolutes"". -- ( ) I'm sure the creator weighed the merits of the proposal as it stood at the time he created it, and they clearly believed they were improving Wikidata by creating it at that point. Noting that aspects of the proposal had been overlooked in the discussion at the time it was closed is not assuming bad faith on anyone, nor is disagreeing that speedy creation was better than waiting. The policies and guidelines around property creation are not ""some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time"" they are publicly written down at pages that have been linked several times already, and which property creators need to know about before they are granted the ability to create properties. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm making vague allusions to things not being fully resolved - take a look at the comments on this page and on the property talk page to see that there are aspects of this property that are still being discussed. I'm even more flabbergasted by the accusation that I'm describing anything as a conspiracy - it is not and was not a conspiracy and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary. I can see how some other people's comments may be interpreted that way but I am no more responsible for them than you are. Collaborating in person is good, but not when it is exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) as has been more eloquently expressed by below than I am able. (talk: | | ) Dear Thryduulf, you just said that the property was clearly created in good faith . I understand your point that process is important, but (for me, at least) it's not everything . Wiki principles as Presume good faith and Be bold are actually social practices that try to emphasize the role of people, community, social norms over bureaucracy. We have here kind of overwhelming support for the property, I'd like us to stop discussing here and talk about constraints and issues with the property: the inverse property has been addressed, and constraints can be better defined not here but in the property talk. Can we proceed there? ( ) I am not advocating for deletion, merely holding off using the property until all things that need discussing about it have been discussed and agreed. Where that discussion happens is up to people discussing it, not me (but I agree that this is not the best venue for that). It is also not up to me whether this discussion is closed or not - I'm not an administrator here and even if I was I have contributed to it far too much to be a neutral closer. While the discussion does remain open though I will continue to (try to) correct any misstatements or misunderstandings relevant to the discussion that I see. (talk: | | ) I am not advocating for deletion, merely holding off using the property until all things that need discussing about it have been discussed and agreed. Where that discussion happens is up to people discussing it, not me (but I agree that this is not the best venue for that). It is also not up to me whether this discussion is closed or not - I'm not an administrator here and even if I was I have contributed to it far too much to be a neutral closer. While the discussion does remain open though I will continue to (try to) correct any misstatements or misunderstandings relevant to the discussion that I see. (talk: | | ) You have not assumed good faith in assuming instead that the creator of the property has reneged on their responsibility to competently weigh the merits of a proposal before creating it just because they haven't sat around and let the proposal linger for some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time; nor have you done so in assuming that those who reviewed it were not ""independent"", just because they were at a conference together–as if daring to collaborate productively in person on something implies some sort of conspiracy. If you have evidence of any of those things then that would be something else–but all we seem to get are vague allusions to some unspecified thing about it not being ""fully resolved"" that is preventing you from ""speaking in absolutes"". -- ( ) I'm sure the creator weighed the merits of the proposal as it stood at the time he created it, and they clearly believed they were improving Wikidata by creating it at that point. Noting that aspects of the proposal had been overlooked in the discussion at the time it was closed is not assuming bad faith on anyone, nor is disagreeing that speedy creation was better than waiting. The policies and guidelines around property creation are not ""some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time"" they are publicly written down at pages that have been linked several times already, and which property creators need to know about before they are granted the ability to create properties. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm making vague allusions to things not being fully resolved - take a look at the comments on this page and on the property talk page to see that there are aspects of this property that are still being discussed. I'm even more flabbergasted by the accusation that I'm describing anything as a conspiracy - it is not and was not a conspiracy and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary. I can see how some other people's comments may be interpreted that way but I am no more responsible for them than you are. Collaborating in person is good, but not when it is exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) as has been more eloquently expressed by below than I am able. (talk: | | ) I'm sure the creator weighed the merits of the proposal as it stood at the time he created it, and they clearly believed they were improving Wikidata by creating it at that point. Noting that aspects of the proposal had been overlooked in the discussion at the time it was closed is not assuming bad faith on anyone, nor is disagreeing that speedy creation was better than waiting. The policies and guidelines around property creation are not ""some unwritten and unspoken magic period of time"" they are publicly written down at pages that have been linked several times already, and which property creators need to know about before they are granted the ability to create properties. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm making vague allusions to things not being fully resolved - take a look at the comments on this page and on the property talk page to see that there are aspects of this property that are still being discussed. I'm even more flabbergasted by the accusation that I'm describing anything as a conspiracy - it is not and was not a conspiracy and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary. I can see how some other people's comments may be interpreted that way but I am no more responsible for them than you are. Collaborating in person is good, but not when it is exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) as has been more eloquently expressed by below than I am able. (talk: | | ) [MASK] I strongly oppose the way this property was created. Nevertheless, considering the fact that this property would most likely be created later (I would Support a proposal), if we would delete it now, deleting it would be unnecessarily disruptive and not help the project in any way. -- ( ) Comment I would like to address also the issue of the non public conference. I'm not one of the organizers, but as I understand the conference has been organized in very few months, with support of WMDE, WMF and external organizations, and given the limited budget there a venue with limited seats available was booked. So the non public thing was mostly a constraint given by lack of funds. It is important, I think, to state this because many people here think about the conference as a private event, giving the creation of the proposal a sort of conspiracy aura. I can assure you it was not like that. (for example, next Wikimania will be in a remote town in Italy, and will probably be less participated than other Wikimanias: will that qualify as non public ? It's safe to assume that some properties will/would likely be created there too). ( ) Well, , Wikidata is a Wiki, not a conference! Anything outside of the wiki is ""non-public"" here, no matter how many attended and how it was announced. I do not even consider Wikidata related IRC and email-lists ""public"" here, even if anybody can read them. Of course, you can discuss Wikidata and its content on any conference/wikimania or even with your boy/girlfriend in you kitchen if you like. But, except for some extra-sensitive issues (like OS), we take all important decisions as a community in the Wiki. But my opinion here is not that you took some shortcuts here is the largest problem. The largest problem is all the noise it caused. How we could avoid that next time somebody takes such a shortcut, I do not know. To ban every possibility to take shortcuts looks like a bad idea. It would be against , which also is a policy, like is. Therefor I want the ""should"" in ""The period before a property can be created should be no less than one week"" to stay where it is. Í have just read a StarTrek-novell. Kirk there tells us that ""It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"". (He went back to 1985 to rescue some shipwrecked aliens in New York without asking his boss first.) -- ( ) It seems that we agree :-) Leaving some room for shortcuts and ""common sense"" it's very important, IMHO, and, also IMHO, this was a case where the benefit of having a property created asap allowed people to tinker, experiment and do stuff . I hope that in the future other people will have the same opportunity. ( ) There are plenty of existing properties that could be used for people to ""tinker"" and ""do stuff"", and sandboxes for people to experiment in, without the need to shortcut the discussion process. I'm baffled by the apparent lack of realisation that the lack of significant problems to the database caused by this speedy creation was not down to ""common sense"" but to a large helping of luck. To me the ""common sense"" aspect of the property proposal process - i.e. getting a diversity of input on a proposal before creating it - is the very thing that was skipped in this case. (talk: | | ) Perhaps you have some sort of technical insight on this issue that I am missing: what exactly are the ""significant problems to the database"" you envision could have arised within the 4 minutes from the property was created until this PfD was filed or some immediate future thereof? -- ( ) ( ) You misunderstand. I am not saying there are potential significant problems with this property, I'm saying that speedy creation of properties without full discussion have the potential to cause significant problems (c.f. my Wikivoyage example above) such as poorly structured data, duplication, bad definitions, etc, etc. (talk: | | ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out?-- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) Is this why my comment at the RFC has gone completely ignored without even a cursory rebuttal? Could you explain to me or point me to a page that would show how experimentation would work for this? It still seems to me that the discussions in this thread indicates that there isn't an alternative option to tinker on properties in any practical sense. ( ) @ : If that question is for me I don't understand what is being asked. Please can you try rephrasing. (talk: | | ) So, in the future, if my common sense tells me that I need a property, I should just create it, because it's all about common sense? I am certain, you misinterpret majorly. It says ""If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, ..."" This was not the case here. -- ( ) What ""your"" common sense tells you is irrelevant to Wikidata. If you don't know what common sense is, and/or feel an urge to use it as an excuse to disrupt the project to illustrate a point, then don't be a Wikidata editor – simple. -- ( ) . Common sense is not creating a property without consultation of people outside your own (in this case participants of a conference). -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) Well, , Wikidata is a Wiki, not a conference! Anything outside of the wiki is ""non-public"" here, no matter how many attended and how it was announced. I do not even consider Wikidata related IRC and email-lists ""public"" here, even if anybody can read them. Of course, you can discuss Wikidata and its content on any conference/wikimania or even with your boy/girlfriend in you kitchen if you like. But, except for some extra-sensitive issues (like OS), we take all important decisions as a community in the Wiki. But my opinion here is not that you took some shortcuts here is the largest problem. The largest problem is all the noise it caused. How we could avoid that next time somebody takes such a shortcut, I do not know. To ban every possibility to take shortcuts looks like a bad idea. It would be against , which also is a policy, like is. Therefor I want the ""should"" in ""The period before a property can be created should be no less than one week"" to stay where it is. Í have just read a StarTrek-novell. Kirk there tells us that ""It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"". (He went back to 1985 to rescue some shipwrecked aliens in New York without asking his boss first.) -- ( ) It seems that we agree :-) Leaving some room for shortcuts and ""common sense"" it's very important, IMHO, and, also IMHO, this was a case where the benefit of having a property created asap allowed people to tinker, experiment and do stuff . I hope that in the future other people will have the same opportunity. ( ) There are plenty of existing properties that could be used for people to ""tinker"" and ""do stuff"", and sandboxes for people to experiment in, without the need to shortcut the discussion process. I'm baffled by the apparent lack of realisation that the lack of significant problems to the database caused by this speedy creation was not down to ""common sense"" but to a large helping of luck. To me the ""common sense"" aspect of the property proposal process - i.e. getting a diversity of input on a proposal before creating it - is the very thing that was skipped in this case. (talk: | | ) Perhaps you have some sort of technical insight on this issue that I am missing: what exactly are the ""significant problems to the database"" you envision could have arised within the 4 minutes from the property was created until this PfD was filed or some immediate future thereof? -- ( ) ( ) You misunderstand. I am not saying there are potential significant problems with this property, I'm saying that speedy creation of properties without full discussion have the potential to cause significant problems (c.f. my Wikivoyage example above) such as poorly structured data, duplication, bad definitions, etc, etc. (talk: | | ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out?-- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) Is this why my comment at the RFC has gone completely ignored without even a cursory rebuttal? Could you explain to me or point me to a page that would show how experimentation would work for this? It still seems to me that the discussions in this thread indicates that there isn't an alternative option to tinker on properties in any practical sense. ( ) @ : If that question is for me I don't understand what is being asked. Please can you try rephrasing. (talk: | | ) So, in the future, if my common sense tells me that I need a property, I should just create it, because it's all about common sense? I am certain, you misinterpret majorly. It says ""If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, ..."" This was not the case here. -- ( ) What ""your"" common sense tells you is irrelevant to Wikidata. If you don't know what common sense is, and/or feel an urge to use it as an excuse to disrupt the project to illustrate a point, then don't be a Wikidata editor – simple. -- ( ) . Common sense is not creating a property without consultation of people outside your own (in this case participants of a conference). -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) It seems that we agree :-) Leaving some room for shortcuts and ""common sense"" it's very important, IMHO, and, also IMHO, this was a case where the benefit of having a property created asap allowed people to tinker, experiment and do stuff . I hope that in the future other people will have the same opportunity. ( ) There are plenty of existing properties that could be used for people to ""tinker"" and ""do stuff"", and sandboxes for people to experiment in, without the need to shortcut the discussion process. I'm baffled by the apparent lack of realisation that the lack of significant problems to the database caused by this speedy creation was not down to ""common sense"" but to a large helping of luck. To me the ""common sense"" aspect of the property proposal process - i.e. getting a diversity of input on a proposal before creating it - is the very thing that was skipped in this case. (talk: | | ) Perhaps you have some sort of technical insight on this issue that I am missing: what exactly are the ""significant problems to the database"" you envision could have arised within the 4 minutes from the property was created until this PfD was filed or some immediate future thereof? -- ( ) ( ) You misunderstand. I am not saying there are potential significant problems with this property, I'm saying that speedy creation of properties without full discussion have the potential to cause significant problems (c.f. my Wikivoyage example above) such as poorly structured data, duplication, bad definitions, etc, etc. (talk: | | ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out?-- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) Is this why my comment at the RFC has gone completely ignored without even a cursory rebuttal? Could you explain to me or point me to a page that would show how experimentation would work for this? It still seems to me that the discussions in this thread indicates that there isn't an alternative option to tinker on properties in any practical sense. ( ) @ : If that question is for me I don't understand what is being asked. Please can you try rephrasing. (talk: | | ) So, in the future, if my common sense tells me that I need a property, I should just create it, because it's all about common sense? I am certain, you misinterpret majorly. It says ""If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, ..."" This was not the case here. -- ( ) What ""your"" common sense tells you is irrelevant to Wikidata. If you don't know what common sense is, and/or feel an urge to use it as an excuse to disrupt the project to illustrate a point, then don't be a Wikidata editor – simple. -- ( ) . Common sense is not creating a property without consultation of people outside your own (in this case participants of a conference). -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) There are plenty of existing properties that could be used for people to ""tinker"" and ""do stuff"", and sandboxes for people to experiment in, without the need to shortcut the discussion process. I'm baffled by the apparent lack of realisation that the lack of significant problems to the database caused by this speedy creation was not down to ""common sense"" but to a large helping of luck. To me the ""common sense"" aspect of the property proposal process - i.e. getting a diversity of input on a proposal before creating it - is the very thing that was skipped in this case. (talk: | | ) Perhaps you have some sort of technical insight on this issue that I am missing: what exactly are the ""significant problems to the database"" you envision could have arised within the 4 minutes from the property was created until this PfD was filed or some immediate future thereof? -- ( ) ( ) You misunderstand. I am not saying there are potential significant problems with this property, I'm saying that speedy creation of properties without full discussion have the potential to cause significant problems (c.f. my Wikivoyage example above) such as poorly structured data, duplication, bad definitions, etc, etc. (talk: | | ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out?-- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) Is this why my comment at the RFC has gone completely ignored without even a cursory rebuttal? Could you explain to me or point me to a page that would show how experimentation would work for this? It still seems to me that the discussions in this thread indicates that there isn't an alternative option to tinker on properties in any practical sense. ( ) @ : If that question is for me I don't understand what is being asked. Please can you try rephrasing. (talk: | | ) Perhaps you have some sort of technical insight on this issue that I am missing: what exactly are the ""significant problems to the database"" you envision could have arised within the 4 minutes from the property was created until this PfD was filed or some immediate future thereof?-- ( ) ( ) You misunderstand. I am not saying there are potential significant problems with this property, I'm saying that speedy creation of properties without full discussion have the potential to cause significant problems (c.f. my Wikivoyage example above) such as poorly structured data, duplication, bad definitions, etc, etc. (talk: | | ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out? -- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) ( ) You misunderstand. I am not saying there are potential significant problems with this property, I'm saying that speedy creation of properties without full discussion have the potential to cause significant problems (c.f. my Wikivoyage example above) such as poorly structured data, duplication, bad definitions, etc, etc. (talk: | | ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out?-- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) No, I don't misunderstand. I'll address your Wikivoyage example specifically then: What would the worst case scenario be if one of those properties had been created in the same way as the one under discussion here? And particularly: How long would it realistically take for that worst case scenario to play out?-- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) The worse case scenario would I think be a property created that is unclear in it's scope, definition and constraints and allows the addition of unstructured data. The direct effect of this would be a mess that needs to be cleaned up (volunteer time and effort - even more so if structured data has been migrated to this unstructured format), discouraged participants, and more volunteer time and effort to add in structured fashion what was added haphazardly. How long this would take to play out isn't the right question - the problem is the time and effort required to fix the issues caused. This would be a function of the number of edits made (directly using the property and any associated edits) rather than the length of time since creation. In a worst case scenario the effort would increase exponentially with use (e.g. taking multiple edits to undo 1 action). (talk: | | ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) How long it would take to play out is absolutely the right question, regardless of whether it fits your narrative or not - if the elusive ""significant harm"" you allude to isn't something that happens within the first 4 minutes after the property being created, then this PfD isn't based on evidence, but on mere speculation, because 4 minutes was all it was allowed to exist for before someone felt it their duty to assert their power to bog it down in bureaucratic drama. As for the unsubstantiated speculation itself, that the mere creation of a property would lead to the ""direct effect"" of a ""mess of unstructured data"": what nonsense. Data doesn't magically appear in the instant a property is created. Human editors create it, and as a rule it takes many weeks or months before it amounts to anything that could tangentially be construed as ""significant problems"" - far more time than would be required to intercede to stop it. Your bogeyman of ""significant harm"" is a complete fabrication. -- ( ) Is this why my comment at the RFC has gone completely ignored without even a cursory rebuttal? Could you explain to me or point me to a page that would show how experimentation would work for this? It still seems to me that the discussions in this thread indicates that there isn't an alternative option to tinker on properties in any practical sense. ( ) @ : If that question is for me I don't understand what is being asked. Please can you try rephrasing. (talk: | | ) @ : If that question is for me I don't understand what is being asked. Please can you try rephrasing. (talk: | | ) So, in the future, if my common sense tells me that I need a property, I should just create it, because it's all about common sense? I am certain, you misinterpret majorly. It says ""If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, ..."" This was not the case here. -- ( ) What ""your"" common sense tells you is irrelevant to Wikidata. If you don't know what common sense is, and/or feel an urge to use it as an excuse to disrupt the project to illustrate a point, then don't be a Wikidata editor – simple. -- ( ) . Common sense is not creating a property without consultation of people outside your own (in this case participants of a conference). -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) What ""your"" common sense tells you is irrelevant to Wikidata. If you don't know what common sense is, and/or feel an urge to use it as an excuse to disrupt the project to illustrate a point, then don't be a Wikidata editor – simple.-- ( ) . Common sense is not creating a property without consultation of people outside your own (in this case participants of a conference). -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) . Common sense is not creating a property without consultation of people outside your own (in this case participants of a conference). -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) That isn't common sense - that's just dumping on others for the sake of getting attention. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) Then it seems we have different views on common sense - another reason to follow policy and not just do what you think is right. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) That's a non sequitur. The fact that we have different views on common sense doesn't imply that they are equally right.-- ( ) ( ) Common sense is a poor support for the creation of this property within only a few hours from it was proposed, that much I agree. But it is not worse than the users involved can be forgiven. Deleting this property now would be directly against Common sense in my opinion. And adding ""must"" to this policy is in my opinion also against Common sense. The exceptions mentions in the RFC to create supplementary properties that gain support within another property-discussion looks like a good example when a ""shortcut"" in this process is valid. -- ( ) [MASK] per . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P999: Speedy kept, proposal discussion found, and now also in use. -- ( ) Speedy kept, proposal discussion found, and now also in use. -- ( ) [MASK] . The use seems clear and it's been around long enough to need to be [MASK] due to something silly like lack of creation data. That it was created by a banned user is mostly irrelevant. -- ( ) [MASK] seems to be very far from unused as of right now. Is there a better way than proposing something for deletion to encourage use I wonder? ( ) It seems. found the proposal discussion and completed documentation/import from Wikipedia: good work! I wonder if it was just the tip of an iceberg. --- If you find a property with low usage, I imagine the easiest way is probably to just import some data yourself (lots of properties correspond to template parameters but we didn't have the tools for users to easily import data from templates until recently). The more data we have, the more visible it becomes (people will see it on items, the property suggester will start suggesting it) and the more likely it becomes that other people will start using it. If, for whatever reason, that's not possible, there's the bot requests page, relevant wikiprojects or even project chat. I don't think this is the right place though because there's no minimum usage requirement for properties. - ( ) Well properties are created to be used. If even the proposer can't come up with sensible uses, it's likely we add overhead for nothing. --- It seems. found the proposal discussion and completed documentation/import from Wikipedia: good work! I wonder if it was just the tip of an iceberg. --- If you find a property with low usage, I imagine the easiest way is probably to just import some data yourself (lots of properties correspond to template parameters but we didn't have the tools for users to easily import data from templates until recently). The more data we have, the more visible it becomes (people will see it on items, the property suggester will start suggesting it) and the more likely it becomes that other people will start using it. If, for whatever reason, that's not possible, there's the bot requests page, relevant wikiprojects or even project chat. I don't think this is the right place though because there's no minimum usage requirement for properties. - ( ) Well properties are created to be used. If even the proposer can't come up with sensible uses, it's likely we add overhead for nothing. --- Well properties are created to be used. If even the proposer can't come up with sensible uses, it's likely we add overhead for nothing. --- [MASK] This is one of the parameters of which is used by quite a few projects. - ( ) speedy [MASK], as everybody is satisfied now/the main concerns are resolved? -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2901: Speedy [MASK] , accidental creation with wrong datatype. ( ) Speedy [MASK] , accidental creation with wrong datatype. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: property_usage_tracking_category_(P2875): Consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] , enough consensus existed. Jura, stop your Kindergarten-style passive-aggressive warfare and concentrate on constructive behavior. Thanks. -- ( ) There was no support for Izno's amended proposal. I don't see where you are reading that. If you resort to personal attacks each time people disagree with you, this is not helpful. --- Throwing out deletion requests, because you didn't get your will 100% is really, really childish. I see them as a personal attack on my work and myself. As I said in my property creation comment: Please discuss the details of this property on the property talk page. If, after half a year or so, this property has gained no traktion, it can still be [MASK]. -- ( ) You need to attempt to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. If you feel that you are attacked in your person if people disagree with your work, you might want to avoid such proposals. Makes me wonder if you actually tried to index such categories. --- There was no support for Izno's amended proposal. I don't see where you are reading that. If you resort to personal attacks each time people disagree with you, this is not helpful. --- Throwing out deletion requests, because you didn't get your will 100% is really, really childish. I see them as a personal attack on my work and myself. As I said in my property creation comment: Please discuss the details of this property on the property talk page. If, after half a year or so, this property has gained no traktion, it can still be [MASK]. -- ( ) You need to attempt to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. If you feel that you are attacked in your person if people disagree with your work, you might want to avoid such proposals. Makes me wonder if you actually tried to index such categories. --- Throwing out deletion requests, because you didn't get your will 100% is really, really childish. I see them as a personal attack on my work and myself. As I said in my property creation comment: Please discuss the details of this property on the property talk page. If, after half a year or so, this property has gained no traktion, it can still be [MASK]. -- ( ) You need to attempt to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. If you feel that you are attacked in your person if people disagree with your work, you might want to avoid such proposals. Makes me wonder if you actually tried to index such categories. --- You need to attempt to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. If you feel that you are attacked in your person if people disagree with your work, you might want to avoid such proposals. Makes me wonder if you actually tried to index such categories. --- What's wrong with using with some criteria items to indicate different types of tracking subcategories here? ( ) Hence [MASK] ( ) If neither the creator nor the proposer can explain it, shouldn't it be [MASK]? --- If the proposer for deletion can't explain why his support vote in the proposal for creation was to be neglected, shouldn't it be kept? This type of questions on personal issues are not helpful. ( ) Icons in discussions are somewhat misleading, especially when the proposal is revised thrice since it was first formulated. In any case, here the chronology makes it easy: none supported Izno's amended proposal. Worse, it's clearly not in line with the recent variants > Delete --- Icons may be somewhat misleading, it reflects that you didn't oppose to the single property proposal it started with. You even suggested how to use it in answer to Pasleim, together with a suggestion to split the property. The next day you changed the proposal according to this second suggestion. This new suggestion did not gain any support, but Izno explicitly rejected it, while supporting the original proposal. In that view I would come to the exact same conclusion as Srittau did: consensus to create this property. While labels like ""childish"" do not help, this deletion proposal and the way you try to give a twist to the facts are not in my view very helpful for the cooperation we all have on this project, but more reflect what tries to prevent. Please show some respect for the decision that Srittau has taken here. We all know what it is with properties: it is not easy to see beforehand how things will work out and we have to try and amend if necessary. Yours, ( ) I guess we are somewhat used to this type of comment by Srittau, but I don't think it's helpful nor particularly suitable for someone who had to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. It really disrupts the assessment of the property deletion. Please note that the property that was created wasn't in line with the samples in the proposal nor with your comment above. Personally, I really don't see where I supported the proposal with a single value constraint that was created. Maybe you could provide me with a diff. Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it. --- The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) Hence [MASK] ( ) If neither the creator nor the proposer can explain it, shouldn't it be [MASK]? --- If the proposer for deletion can't explain why his support vote in the proposal for creation was to be neglected, shouldn't it be kept? This type of questions on personal issues are not helpful. ( ) Icons in discussions are somewhat misleading, especially when the proposal is revised thrice since it was first formulated. In any case, here the chronology makes it easy: none supported Izno's amended proposal. Worse, it's clearly not in line with the recent variants > Delete --- Icons may be somewhat misleading, it reflects that you didn't oppose to the single property proposal it started with. You even suggested how to use it in answer to Pasleim, together with a suggestion to split the property. The next day you changed the proposal according to this second suggestion. This new suggestion did not gain any support, but Izno explicitly rejected it, while supporting the original proposal. In that view I would come to the exact same conclusion as Srittau did: consensus to create this property. While labels like ""childish"" do not help, this deletion proposal and the way you try to give a twist to the facts are not in my view very helpful for the cooperation we all have on this project, but more reflect what tries to prevent. Please show some respect for the decision that Srittau has taken here. We all know what it is with properties: it is not easy to see beforehand how things will work out and we have to try and amend if necessary. Yours, ( ) I guess we are somewhat used to this type of comment by Srittau, but I don't think it's helpful nor particularly suitable for someone who had to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. It really disrupts the assessment of the property deletion. Please note that the property that was created wasn't in line with the samples in the proposal nor with your comment above. Personally, I really don't see where I supported the proposal with a single value constraint that was created. Maybe you could provide me with a diff. Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it. --- The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) If the proposer for deletion can't explain why his support vote in the proposal for creation was to be neglected, shouldn't it be kept? This type of questions on personal issues are not helpful. ( ) Icons in discussions are somewhat misleading, especially when the proposal is revised thrice since it was first formulated. In any case, here the chronology makes it easy: none supported Izno's amended proposal. Worse, it's clearly not in line with the recent variants > Delete --- Icons may be somewhat misleading, it reflects that you didn't oppose to the single property proposal it started with. You even suggested how to use it in answer to Pasleim, together with a suggestion to split the property. The next day you changed the proposal according to this second suggestion. This new suggestion did not gain any support, but Izno explicitly rejected it, while supporting the original proposal. In that view I would come to the exact same conclusion as Srittau did: consensus to create this property. While labels like ""childish"" do not help, this deletion proposal and the way you try to give a twist to the facts are not in my view very helpful for the cooperation we all have on this project, but more reflect what tries to prevent. Please show some respect for the decision that Srittau has taken here. We all know what it is with properties: it is not easy to see beforehand how things will work out and we have to try and amend if necessary. Yours, ( ) I guess we are somewhat used to this type of comment by Srittau, but I don't think it's helpful nor particularly suitable for someone who had to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. It really disrupts the assessment of the property deletion. Please note that the property that was created wasn't in line with the samples in the proposal nor with your comment above. Personally, I really don't see where I supported the proposal with a single value constraint that was created. Maybe you could provide me with a diff. Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it. --- The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) Icons in discussions are somewhat misleading, especially when the proposal is revised thrice since it was first formulated. In any case, here the chronology makes it easy: none supported Izno's amended proposal. Worse, it's clearly not in line with the recent variants > Delete --- Icons may be somewhat misleading, it reflects that you didn't oppose to the single property proposal it started with. You even suggested how to use it in answer to Pasleim, together with a suggestion to split the property. The next day you changed the proposal according to this second suggestion. This new suggestion did not gain any support, but Izno explicitly rejected it, while supporting the original proposal. In that view I would come to the exact same conclusion as Srittau did: consensus to create this property. While labels like ""childish"" do not help, this deletion proposal and the way you try to give a twist to the facts are not in my view very helpful for the cooperation we all have on this project, but more reflect what tries to prevent. Please show some respect for the decision that Srittau has taken here. We all know what it is with properties: it is not easy to see beforehand how things will work out and we have to try and amend if necessary. Yours, ( ) I guess we are somewhat used to this type of comment by Srittau, but I don't think it's helpful nor particularly suitable for someone who had to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. It really disrupts the assessment of the property deletion. Please note that the property that was created wasn't in line with the samples in the proposal nor with your comment above. Personally, I really don't see where I supported the proposal with a single value constraint that was created. Maybe you could provide me with a diff. Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it. --- The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) Icons may be somewhat misleading, it reflects that you didn't oppose to the single property proposal it started with. You even suggested how to use it in answer to Pasleim, together with a suggestion to split the property. The next day you changed the proposal according to this second suggestion. This new suggestion did not gain any support, but Izno explicitly rejected it, while supporting the original proposal. In that view I would come to the exact same conclusion as Srittau did: consensus to create this property. While labels like ""childish"" do not help, this deletion proposal and the way you try to give a twist to the facts are not in my view very helpful for the cooperation we all have on this project, but more reflect what tries to prevent. Please show some respect for the decision that Srittau has taken here. We all know what it is with properties: it is not easy to see beforehand how things will work out and we have to try and amend if necessary. Yours, ( ) I guess we are somewhat used to this type of comment by Srittau, but I don't think it's helpful nor particularly suitable for someone who had to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. It really disrupts the assessment of the property deletion. Please note that the property that was created wasn't in line with the samples in the proposal nor with your comment above. Personally, I really don't see where I supported the proposal with a single value constraint that was created. Maybe you could provide me with a diff. Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it. --- The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) I guess we are somewhat used to this type of comment by Srittau, but I don't think it's helpful nor particularly suitable for someone who had to assess the consensus in a proposal discussion. It really disrupts the assessment of the property deletion. Please note that the property that was created wasn't in line with the samples in the proposal nor with your comment above. Personally, I really don't see where I supported the proposal with a single value constraint that was created. Maybe you could provide me with a diff. Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it. --- The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) The single value constraint was explicitly by Srittau brought into discussion, that should be on the talk page. Your action frustrates possible discussion. Please note that. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) This could mean that implicitly he acknowledges that there may be no consensus for the property he created? The result of this may be that we should formulate new proposals each time we come across an improvement and explicitly oppose anything that doesn't exactly match it. Not sure how this improves discussion. Maybe the creation was just premature. Let's delete it and re-open the discussion. --- Not on my behalf. ( ) Not on my behalf. ( ) [MASK] property and as single value: "" Obviously, if Izno already has a plan to make use of the created property, I'd be happy to comment and possibly support it."" <- is unnecessarily combative. The single value constraint will do 0 to stop you from using it; it will just limit how you use it to the ""most important"" category. As has been argued ad nauseum on several other proposals and which seems to be the sitting consensus, we are not here to categorize the projects' categories. If they can't do that job themselves, that's their problem, not ours . -- ( ) Please [MASK] us updated about your plan. --- Please [MASK] us updated on how you're basically rolling over and giving up on this PFD.  :) -- ( ) Please [MASK] us updated about your plan. --- Please [MASK] us updated on how you're basically rolling over and giving up on this PFD.  :) -- ( ) Please [MASK] us updated on how you're basically rolling over and giving up on this PFD. :) -- ( ) [MASK] . I was deploying this property when i found this discussion. ( ) Seems you also converted property we had previously to . In that case, we should [MASK] this. --- [MASK] -- ( ) Seems you also converted property we had previously to . In that case, we should [MASK] this. --- [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] IMO useful metadata. ( ) [MASK] . And Jura, stop making disruptive deletion requests. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2608_(P2608): Consensus to Delete , since is a duplicate of . -- ( ) Consensus to Delete , since is a duplicate of .-- ( ) @ , : ping property proposers -- ( ) Thanks, @ , :.-- ( ) Support It's really the same. I've copied the ""source"" in the older's description page from the to incorporate the heritage official inventory. The rest of information is similar. -- ( ) Thanks, @ , :.-- ( ) Thanks, @ , :. -- ( ) Support It's really the same. I've copied the ""source"" in the older's description page from the to incorporate the heritage official inventory. The rest of information is similar. -- ( ) I agree. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): There is already a section for this above. --- There is already a section for this above. --- If there is an original language, we have to [MASK] a symetric classification with an original publisher, an original publication date,... is the ground of the classification in wikidata for work and was adopted through a ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407): There is already a section for this above. --- There is already a section for this above. --- If there is an original language, we have to [MASK] a symetric classification with an original publisher, an original publication date,... is the ground of the classification in wikidata for work and was adopted through a ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Onisep_occupation_ID_(P3214): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete after migrating data. One of the formatter URLs for P1043, http://www.onisep.fr/http/redirection/metier/identifiant/$1 is the same as that for P3214. Good spot. All the professions with Onisep ID have also an IDEO ID, so we don't need migrating data. ( ) All the professions with Onisep ID have also an IDEO ID, so we don't need migrating data. ( ) Delete obviously a duplicate -- ( ) @ : It's possible to delete this property, to prevent that editors add this property instead of ? Thank you, ( ) @ : It's possible to delete this property, to prevent that editors add this property instead of ? Thank you, ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: image_of_grave_(P1442): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) That seems like a intensive task. It should be easier to make items while adding claims first. Is there more discussion about this? And please inform others on the property talk page. Oppose In many cases the grave is just a simple stone. Does a simple stone warrants an item? — ( ) [MASK] I don't think we should make items for individual burial plots in cemeteries and you haven't provided any reason why we should. - ( ) Oppose Completely opposed. And for we traditionnaly use the item about the cimetery of the town to then display it in an infobox. ( ) [MASK] As per Jérémy-Günther-Heinz -- [MASK] As certain link to Commons file. - ( ) [MASK] I believe usually (not always) it is not a good idea to create a dedicated entity for grave. P1442 is convenient for specifying an image in commons, and useful for distinguishing from P18 ( ) [MASK] I document cemeteries and graves using P1442 see and I preffer a property - ( ) [MASK] As per Finn Årup Nielsen and Nikki. ( ) Comment I Oppose the motivation as such, it makes it more complicated than necessary. I see an option to add P18 as a qualifier to P119. But that denies us the option to add a ""label"" to that picture. -- ( ) [MASK] Requiring a separate item for the graves of deceased people seems excessive. (In some cases it might be appropriate, such as if the person's grave is particularly noteworthy, but it shouldn't be necessary except in those exceptional cases.) ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: ISO_standard_(P503): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Well, we would need two properties: ""ISO standard this is standardized in"" and ""this is the item for ISO standard #1234"". This property could be repurposed for the latter. Also, we should have the replacement items first, before deleting this one. -- ( ) Were we to pursue the action of repurposing (which I think I support), I would suggest a rename as well to ""standard number"" or similar, so that we can apply this outside the realm of ISO with e.g. MIL-STD. -- ( ) Were we to pursue the action of repurposing (which I think I support), I would suggest a rename as well to ""standard number"" or similar, so that we can apply this outside the realm of ISO with e.g. MIL-STD. -- ( ) @ : I vaguely recall asking if this property existed a while ago, heh. It has the wrong domain for the question at the time. That said, oppose deletion per Srittau, and support a new property (if necessary) called ""specification""/""specified in"", for the same domain as P503 with item datatype. -- ( ) [MASK] I suggest using to indicate that an item is referred to in a particular ISO standard. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P500: no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Looks like you have a point. -- ( ) Delete Per GZWDer. Example of alternative use: . ( ) Not sure if the right entity can be determined conclusively through checking a series of other items and properties. --- Delete A bit too obscure for a property. -- [MASK] per my open issue above above. -- --- [MASK] An exclave is a territory located separately from the administrative entity to which it belongs, but which does not belong to another administrative entity. For example, is a territory located in the interior of France, but that belongs to Catalonia and is administered by Catalonia. The property Catalonia, serves to indicate that it is a territory separated from Catalonia but that belongs administratively to this region. In the case of property , it serves to indicate where it is located, but not to which administrative entity it belongs or which is a separate territory. -- ( ) @ , : The value and can be inferred from chain. may be a value of with qualifiers. -- ( ) @ : Property indicates where it is located, but not to which administrative entity belongs, nor is it a separate territory of that administrative entity. For example, is a because it is separate. Property indicates that condition. -- ( ) See the usage notice of P131: ""You only need to add the most local parent admin territory, but check that that item also has a P131, with the next level, and so on."" For an exclave, the value of P131 is the most local parent admin territory where it is located. to indicate that is a separate territory we already have and . -- ( ) See the usage notice of P131: ""You only need to add the most local parent admin territory, but check that that item also has a P131, with the next level, and so on."" For an exclave, the value of P131 is the most local parent admin territory where it is located. to indicate that is a separate territory we already have and .-- ( ) [MASK] as per . One of the most important exclaves of the 20th Century was West Berlin (1949-1989). ( ) [MASK] per . ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1302: no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Oppose This was suggested and rejected when was . If it is merged ""places served"" is not a good label as P2541 includes areas that are not ""served"" - e.g. does not ""serve"" rather it is jointly responsible for investigating accidents that occur there, and doesn't serve rather it is an umbrella organisation that supports its members wherever they are in the world. ( ) @ : You comment doesn't make sense in this section. Neither nor do use . -- ( ) Fair point, this shows the importance of reading what is written not what you assume is written. My appologies. ( ) @ : You comment doesn't make sense in this section. Neither nor do use . -- ( ) Fair point, this shows the importance of reading what is written not what you assume is written. My appologies. ( ) Fair point, this shows the importance of reading what is written not what you assume is written. My appologies. ( ) [MASK] Not convinced that the two mix well. P931 is for placed next an airport, the other for destinations. -- --- ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1158: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Sounds reasonable, already uses that for Jupiter and Saturnus. -- ( ) [MASK] ""landing"" may refer to the return, not the destination of the mission - specifically this is how it has been used here for space shuttle flights. I don't think ""start point"" ""Kennedy Space Center"" ""destination point"" Vandenberg airforce base, is what you would expect for a description of a space shuttle flight. Leave as it is. ( ) Delete per my comment on -- ( ) Delete per Pasleim for the use of . ( ) [MASK] per ArthurPSmith — [MASK] I recommend keeping this one. The location of the landing of a spacecraft could differ from its destination point. For example, a Shuttle mission would have a location of landing of somewhere on Earth but could have a destination point of some point in space, the ISS or Earth depending on the mission and the definition. ( ) [MASK] for the reason stated by Arthur. ( ) [MASK] agree with Arthur. --- [MASK] like Arthur -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2570: consensus to change datatype -- ( ) consensus to change datatype -- ( ) [MASK] I don't understand the issue - the cycle value is a number, what benefit is there to making it an item? ( ) ah, ok. The change makes sense then. Is it actually possible to change datatypes (other than what has been done with external identifiers?) I think a completely new property would need to be created to replace this one, and the entries migrated. ( ) ah, ok. The change makes sense then. Is it actually possible to change datatypes (other than what has been done with external identifiers?) I think a completely new property would need to be created to replace this one, and the entries migrated. ( ) change . item datatype has the advantage that you can easily access more information about the specific cylce, especially because there are already Wikipedia articles about single cycles, e.g. , . -- ( ) [MASK] We can use the property to indecate what cycle the eclipse is, e.g., . -- ( ) @ : It's not about deleting the property, it's about changing the datatype. Instead of saying 2570 it would be P2570 -- ( ) change . Sorry, I have misunderstand the topic... -- ( ) @ : It's not about deleting the property, it's about changing the datatype. Instead of saying 2570 it would be P2570 -- ( ) change . Sorry, I have misunderstand the topic... -- ( ) change . Sorry, I have misunderstand the topic... -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: metasubclass_of_(P2445): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) For reference, the . -- ( ) What's interesting in this proposal is that ... it was said that there would actually be only a few statements with this property if I recall well. But community approved it knowing that. This makes this deletion proposal even more puzzling to me. What's interesting in this proposal is that ... it was said that there would actually be only a few statements with this property if I recall well. But community approved it knowing that. This makes this deletion proposal even more puzzling to me. Oppose A few use is not really a good reason to oppose. Plus I'm puzzled by Jakob gave another reason in : this would be a specific case of a more generic property. But the generic case would be more easy to apply ?? ? I'm puzzled. Where is the consistency ? It's much easier to tell whether A is somehow-hierarchically-below B than whether A is of B. -- ( ) It's much easier to tell whether A is somehow-hierarchically-below B than whether A is of B. -- ( ) Also, why launching this proposal before the discussion on the other one is not finished and the not-so-equivalent alternative is not even and might not be created ?? ? This gives me a really bad taste in the mouth. If a property is used only three times in half a year, I see little practical acceptance nor need of it. I would welcome a more general and less difficult to apply property, such as ""subordinated"", that subsumes , the original intention of P2445 and other (too special or complicated) cases of hierarchical relationships. -- ( ) No, that does not subsumes meta subclass of as there is information implied by meta subclass of. If A is a metasubclass of B then an instance of A is probably a subclass of an instance of B, which can't be known by this generalisation. And it was already known at the proposal times that there would be just a very few statements with this property. If a property is used only three times in half a year, I see little practical acceptance nor need of it. I would welcome a more general and less difficult to apply property, such as ""subordinated"", that subsumes , the original intention of P2445 and other (too special or complicated) cases of hierarchical relationships. -- ( ) No, that does not subsumes meta subclass of as there is information implied by meta subclass of. If A is a metasubclass of B then an instance of A is probably a subclass of an instance of B, which can't be known by this generalisation. And it was already known at the proposal times that there would be just a very few statements with this property. No, that does not subsumes meta subclass of as there is information implied by meta subclass of. If A is a metasubclass of B then an instance of A is probably a subclass of an instance of B, which can't be known by this generalisation. And it was already known at the proposal times that there would be just a very few statements with this property. Current uses (2016--11-01): 4 -- ( ) Delete practically unused (down to 3 now?). Apparently no uses can be found for this. --- Delete unused, not external use, difficult to apply. -- ( ) [MASK] per TomTom above. It's worth reviewing first what the relationship is that this property tries to capture. Consider the following diagram. The P2445 'metasubclass' property, with A B implies an arrangement like the following, so M is a subclass of N, but the classes M and N are also usually instances of items A and B -- something in itself quite rare; but even more rare if A is not a subclass of B. P2445 exists to present the connection between A and B in such a case, ie that instances of A are likely to be subclasses of classes that are instances of B; but A itself is not a subclass of B. So for example is a subclass of ; but is also an instance of ; and is an instance of (as well as a subclass of ""aircraft""). There is a relationship between and , but is not a subclass of . Applying P2445 on Q15056995 notes that this structural relationship exists and is appropriate, and makes it easy to retrieve. Yes, the property is used on very few items. But this is not (really) because nobody has been bothered to populate it. The truth is, as TomTom noted above, there were only ever expected to be a handful of examples (the original property proposal in fact spun out of a discussion as to whether this kind of structure could exist at all ). Having found such examples, the easiest way to record them is in the database itself, and so this property. It also acts as a prompt, that a class M that is an instance of item A should well perhaps have a subclass relationship with some class N that is an instance of item B. There may indeed only be a handful of items A of this kind, so only a very limited number of potential uses of the property. But that was known from the start, and seems not a particularly good reason to delete it. ( ) [MASK] I see (and have now added to property examples) that there is another place where this property is being well-used: : : which succinctly represents dozens of relationships, of which here is one example: : : Why would we want to remove the ability to represent this ""meta-relationship"", unless someone knows a better way to represent it? Per postings above, already has a meaning that (even when applied to two metaclasses) is not equivalent to metasubclass of. ( ) Comment (addding): Also, there's no real reason to remove it unless it were being misused a lot more than it is being used correctly, or unless it were causing serious problems (other than the purported ""problem"" that it might be used infrequently or that there are some people who won't use it because they don't understand it, while others will and do). ( ) [MASK] per DavRosen. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2690_(P2690): consensus to delete properties -- ( ) consensus to delete properties -- ( ) [MASK] This is a very different concept to the new property, and the values are not compatible. For reference, I extracted the original proposal to . I won't oppose the deletion, it was a very borderline decision to create those properties in the first place and they have gained no traction in the half year since then. But Andy is correct in pointing out that is a very different property from this one. These properties link to the (half-hearted) semantic data initiative of the New York Times, while just links to topical pages, not semantic information. -- ( ) I'm not sure I see a practical difference between ""topical page"" and ""semantic information"" at least in this case - basically both are controlled vocabularies that define a subject area on which the NY Times has published. Wikidata items are semantic concepts in themselves, so however we link NY Times data to wikidata in practice what we're doing is linking it in to the semantic web. ( ) They are not strictly equivalent, topic pages appear to be a subset of Semantic API Concepts. ( ) {{Citation needed}} ( ) I'm not sure I see a practical difference between ""topical page"" and ""semantic information"" at least in this case - basically both are controlled vocabularies that define a subject area on which the NY Times has published. Wikidata items are semantic concepts in themselves, so however we link NY Times data to wikidata in practice what we're doing is linking it in to the semantic web. ( ) They are not strictly equivalent, topic pages appear to be a subset of Semantic API Concepts. ( ) {{Citation needed}} ( ) They are not strictly equivalent, topic pages appear to be a subset of Semantic API Concepts. ( ) {{Citation needed}} ( ) {{Citation needed}} ( ) Comment The formatter URL for these properties is not working. If the properties stay, it should be fixed. --- I mentioned that in my initial deletion comment. I don't believe the formatter URL is fixable, there doesn't seem to be a way to access these concepts without the developer key. ( ) An external identifier doesn't need a formatter url. The property could exist without a formatter URL. There are obviously other reasons why this property could be [MASK]. --- I mentioned that in my initial deletion comment. I don't believe the formatter URL is fixable, there doesn't seem to be a way to access these concepts without the developer key. ( ) An external identifier doesn't need a formatter url. The property could exist without a formatter URL. There are obviously other reasons why this property could be [MASK]. --- An external identifier doesn't need a formatter url. The property could exist without a formatter URL. There are obviously other reasons why this property could be [MASK]. --- The data set is not closed; it is open to anyone with an API key. Please point to a policy requiring the data sets to which we link to not have that requirement. And please justify your ""unfit"" claim. The dataset is closed with a personal API key. You can not link to the information without your personal API key. -- ( ) You have simply rephrased what I said. @ : perhaps the main concern is the ? Though I haven't read carefully, I assume we can't just register a key for ""wikidata"" and insert that into all the formatter URL's for everybody to use? Do the terms of use even allow extracting the concepts into wikidata? Not clear to me what the licensing constraints actually are. ( ) Sharing a key would be a violation of their terms of use. I can say anything to the other questions. -- ( ) The dataset is closed with a personal API key. You can not link to the information without your personal API key. -- ( ) You have simply rephrased what I said. @ : perhaps the main concern is the ? Though I haven't read carefully, I assume we can't just register a key for ""wikidata"" and insert that into all the formatter URL's for everybody to use? Do the terms of use even allow extracting the concepts into wikidata? Not clear to me what the licensing constraints actually are. ( ) Sharing a key would be a violation of their terms of use. I can say anything to the other questions. -- ( ) You have simply rephrased what I said. @ : perhaps the main concern is the ? Though I haven't read carefully, I assume we can't just register a key for ""wikidata"" and insert that into all the formatter URL's for everybody to use? Do the terms of use even allow extracting the concepts into wikidata? Not clear to me what the licensing constraints actually are. ( ) Sharing a key would be a violation of their terms of use. I can say anything to the other questions. -- ( ) @ : perhaps the main concern is the ? Though I haven't read carefully, I assume we can't just register a key for ""wikidata"" and insert that into all the formatter URL's for everybody to use? Do the terms of use even allow extracting the concepts into wikidata? Not clear to me what the licensing constraints actually are. ( ) Sharing a key would be a violation of their terms of use. I can say anything to the other questions. -- ( ) Sharing a key would be a violation of their terms of use. I can say anything to the other questions. -- ( ) Delete only used in about 5 items. Closed data. This is not going to work. ( ) ITYM ""only used in about 5 items so far "". Please point to a policy requiring the data sets to which we link to not require an API key. Stop Wikilawyering and start using common sense. ( ) So there is no such policy; and all you have to offer is the ""common sense"" fallacy. ITYM ""only used in about 5 items so far "". Please point to a policy requiring the data sets to which we link to not require an API key. Stop Wikilawyering and start using common sense. ( ) So there is no such policy; and all you have to offer is the ""common sense"" fallacy. Stop Wikilawyering and start using common sense. ( ) So there is no such policy; and all you have to offer is the ""common sense"" fallacy. So there is no such policy; and all you have to offer is the ""common sense"" fallacy. Delete we should only link to open databases. A database which requires an API key to read the data is against the spirit of providing free knowledge to everyone. -- ( ) There is no policy nor precedence for this. We record several identifiers with no formatter URL, nor even any online presence at all. There is no policy nor precedence for this. We record several identifiers with no formatter URL, nor even any online presence at all. Delete practically unused. Apparently no uses can be found for this. --- Delete in its current state. If they open it (more) widely, ie. suitable organisational access, then we can review. We should be encouraging open datasets! To ""Pigsonthewing"" this is not case of looking for prescriptive ""blackletter policy"", it is about usability and functionality, and the project's ability to make a reasoned determination where a dataset is functionally closed for the purposes of our project. If they want in, they can read this discussion and look at what they want to do.  — Delete Unused, no external use of properties, closed database. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: OpenStreetMap_relation_ID_(P402): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete 100% agree, we should encourage Wikidata ID usage on OSM side, and possibly even help with our bot running prowess to convert all existing ""wikipedia"" tag to ""wikidata"" tag. P.S. the data should be moved to OSM before being [MASK]. -- ( ) Delete To start, I must say that I agree on the subject matter, and have kept it as my guideline over the years. However, I see great difficulties for non-coders, to make a combined query in OSM and Wikidata. What if was automatically, regularly updated by a bot? Perhaps both ways, also the Wikidata ID in OSM with fresher data from Wikidata. I fear that playing around with this data will only be available for few. -- ( ) , if I understand you correctly, your objection is about tooling , not the database storage. And tooling can be greatly improved without the need to duplicate data. Data duplication produces inconsistencies and errors, as you will no longer know which data is authoritative, and some changes may be introduced in both. I suspect that it would be relatively easy for the overpass API to support Wikidata. Moreover, I would insist we should improve all other OSM-related tooling to natively support Wikidata, as that will allow much richer meta-information querying. The is exactly that - a mixture of OSM and Wikidata that the less technical (SPARQL-only) community can use. We should do more of this kinds of tools. -- ( ) I would be more than happy to vote for deletion, if the connection would work ubiquitously. I am however one of those less technical, and I possibly cannot make fool-proof arguments. When I was creating the Wikidata IDs for Finnish municipalities in OSM for a classroom assignment (they are still not all there), I would have needed a combination of Overpass + SPARQL to sort out which links between Wikidata and OSM were missing. That was beyond my skills. I could have used the Wikipedia data of the municipalities and made a query for those with a missing OSM id. But thinking how I would do it in OSM, or programmatically add those in OSM would be far too complex. So yes, it's about tooling, but in many ways. -- ( ) I have changed my vote to delete, with the idea that the connection must work ubiquitously without the need for the ID. -- ( ) , if I understand you correctly, your objection is about tooling , not the database storage. And tooling can be greatly improved without the need to duplicate data. Data duplication produces inconsistencies and errors, as you will no longer know which data is authoritative, and some changes may be introduced in both. I suspect that it would be relatively easy for the overpass API to support Wikidata. Moreover, I would insist we should improve all other OSM-related tooling to natively support Wikidata, as that will allow much richer meta-information querying. The is exactly that - a mixture of OSM and Wikidata that the less technical (SPARQL-only) community can use. We should do more of this kinds of tools. -- ( ) I would be more than happy to vote for deletion, if the connection would work ubiquitously. I am however one of those less technical, and I possibly cannot make fool-proof arguments. When I was creating the Wikidata IDs for Finnish municipalities in OSM for a classroom assignment (they are still not all there), I would have needed a combination of Overpass + SPARQL to sort out which links between Wikidata and OSM were missing. That was beyond my skills. I could have used the Wikipedia data of the municipalities and made a query for those with a missing OSM id. But thinking how I would do it in OSM, or programmatically add those in OSM would be far too complex. So yes, it's about tooling, but in many ways. -- ( ) I have changed my vote to delete, with the idea that the connection must work ubiquitously without the need for the ID. -- ( ) I would be more than happy to vote for deletion, if the connection would work ubiquitously. I am however one of those less technical, and I possibly cannot make fool-proof arguments. When I was creating the Wikidata IDs for Finnish municipalities in OSM for a classroom assignment (they are still not all there), I would have needed a combination of Overpass + SPARQL to sort out which links between Wikidata and OSM were missing. That was beyond my skills. I could have used the Wikipedia data of the municipalities and made a query for those with a missing OSM id. But thinking how I would do it in OSM, or programmatically add those in OSM would be far too complex. So yes, it's about tooling, but in many ways. -- ( ) I have changed my vote to delete, with the idea that the connection must work ubiquitously without the need for the ID. -- ( ) Delete P402 have never made sense to me because it's only in rare cases there is a actual relation in OSM and not a node or way. Using the Overpass API is a much better solution. -- ( ) Delete once data is migrated. Delete Using of Overpass-API makes P402 obsolete. -- ( ) Comment Made up queries (""The original search was: “wikidata=Q874373”) make no sense, who would query the Eiffel Tower by wikidata=Q243. Few users would know id of Effel Tower in Wikidata. It is hardly usable, unless you know every id in Wikidata. Then, how overpass can replace current ? It makes querying Wikidata more complex, not simpler. IMO it is too early to speak of replacement, until users are okay with implied penalty when it comes to federated SPARQL services. ( ) Comment Made up queries (""The original search was: “wikidata=Q874373”) make no sense, who would query the Eiffel Tower by wikidata=Q243. Few users would know id of Effel Tower in Wikidata. It is hardly usable, unless you know every id in Wikidata. Then, how overpass can replace current ? It makes querying Wikidata more complex, not simpler. IMO it is too early to speak of replacement, until users are okay with implied penalty when it comes to federated SPARQL services. ( ) [MASK] There is no viable alternative. OSM relation ID are pretty stable, for example for ID is 6 years old ( ) and it is unlikely to be changed. Many of databases having its own property on WD will not exist after 6 years. On cswiki we use these IDs for long time without any problem, so now we use in multiple templates. Simplest exists on 28 projects. is very bad alternative. -- ( ) @ : See below; we can query their database for each item instead. As a counterexample to administrative boundaries, public transport relations are often [MASK] or even repurposed (since there are two different schemas, one deprecated). In addition, even if other databases link back to Wikidata, any Wikidata editor can also edit OpenStreetMap and vice versa, making it useless to have two copies of the same data by two overlapping groups of editors. ( ) @ : I cannot see any comparable alternative. allows simple direct link from wiki to OSM without need of querying, 3rd party tool/services, gadgets or mw extensions. OSM relations may be unstable if they are incomplete, so mergers are sometimes necessary, but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. Even for public transport relations - just random example from my country - osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old. Note also that at the moment is used mostly for administrative boundaries and streets (see ). -- ( ) @ : But what's the point of having it if our dataset is only about one-quarter the possible size of theirs and we can easily access theirs? It's kind of like having old-style interwiki links, but only having them for one namespace on one of the wikis. ( ) @ : See below; we can query their database for each item instead. As a counterexample to administrative boundaries, public transport relations are often [MASK] or even repurposed (since there are two different schemas, one deprecated). In addition, even if other databases link back to Wikidata, any Wikidata editor can also edit OpenStreetMap and vice versa, making it useless to have two copies of the same data by two overlapping groups of editors. ( ) @ : I cannot see any comparable alternative. allows simple direct link from wiki to OSM without need of querying, 3rd party tool/services, gadgets or mw extensions. OSM relations may be unstable if they are incomplete, so mergers are sometimes necessary, but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. Even for public transport relations - just random example from my country - osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old. Note also that at the moment is used mostly for administrative boundaries and streets (see ). -- ( ) @ : But what's the point of having it if our dataset is only about one-quarter the possible size of theirs and we can easily access theirs? It's kind of like having old-style interwiki links, but only having them for one namespace on one of the wikis. ( ) @ : I cannot see any comparable alternative. allows simple direct link from wiki to OSM without need of querying, 3rd party tool/services, gadgets or mw extensions. OSM relations may be unstable if they are incomplete, so mergers are sometimes necessary, but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. Even for public transport relations - just random example from my country - osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old. Note also that at the moment is used mostly for administrative boundaries and streets (see ). -- ( ) @ : But what's the point of having it if our dataset is only about one-quarter the possible size of theirs and we can easily access theirs? It's kind of like having old-style interwiki links, but only having them for one namespace on one of the wikis. ( ) @ : But what's the point of having it if our dataset is only about one-quarter the possible size of theirs and we can easily access theirs? It's kind of like having old-style interwiki links, but only having them for one namespace on one of the wikis. ( ) Comment > but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. ... osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old Completely agree with @ :, I have same experience with objects I edit or watch. Tram/metro infrastructure is very stable. ""[MASK] history"" is a good practice in OSM. Experienced users won't change ids every time they touch objects (nodes/ways/relations). Since 2015 JOSM provides . Bus schedules and detours change frequently sometimes. Discussions stability of bus route id (both in WD or in OSM) won't lead to any meaningful results to the end users (both WD or OSM users). Public transport schema (route_master=*). We can't retag objects quirkier than what we have or we don't have local knowledge. ( ) Comment > but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. ... osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old Completely agree with @ :, I have same experience with objects I edit or watch. Tram/metro infrastructure is very stable. ""[MASK] history"" is a good practice in OSM. Experienced users won't change ids every time they touch objects (nodes/ways/relations). Since 2015 JOSM provides . Bus schedules and detours change frequently sometimes. Discussions stability of bus route id (both in WD or in OSM) won't lead to any meaningful results to the end users (both WD or OSM users). Public transport schema (route_master=*). We can't retag objects quirkier than what we have or we don't have local knowledge. ( ) Comment > but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. ... osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old Completely agree with @ :, I have same experience with objects I edit or watch. Tram/metro infrastructure is very stable. ""[MASK] history"" is a good practice in OSM. Experienced users won't change ids every time they touch objects (nodes/ways/relations). Since 2015 JOSM provides . Bus schedules and detours change frequently sometimes. Discussions stability of bus route id (both in WD or in OSM) won't lead to any meaningful results to the end users (both WD or OSM users). Public transport schema (route_master=*). We can't retag objects quirkier than what we have or we don't have local knowledge. ( ) Comment > but once relations are complete, they are pretty stable. ... osm relation of Prague tram line no. 3 is 5 years old Completely agree with @ :, I have same experience with objects I edit or watch. Tram/metro infrastructure is very stable. ""[MASK] history"" is a good practice in OSM. Experienced users won't change ids every time they touch objects (nodes/ways/relations). Since 2015 JOSM provides . Bus schedules and detours change frequently sometimes. Discussions stability of bus route id (both in WD or in OSM) won't lead to any meaningful results to the end users (both WD or OSM users). Public transport schema (route_master=*). We can't retag objects quirkier than what we have or we don't have local knowledge. ( ) As of January 2017 the property is used in 24 templates at 7 projects. -- ( ) As of January 2017 the property is used in 24 templates at 7 projects.-- ( ) Comment @ , , , , , : See . ( ) @ , , , , , : While the above linked proposal looks to have no chance of being accepted/noticed, there is a completely different proposal on the same page to automatically update external databases' identifiers which could affect this. ( ) Also pinging and . ( ) @ , , , , , : While the above linked proposal looks to have no chance of being accepted/noticed, there is a completely different proposal on the same page to automatically update external databases' identifiers which could affect this. ( ) Also pinging and . ( ) [MASK] From the users' comments above, I take it that these links are stable. That OSM links to Wikidata is a good thing. There are several other databases that link to Wikidata, but we still don't remove them from here. --- @ : Even if relations are stable, it doesn't change the fact that in OSM relations make up of objects, and we can't link to any of the others because they get [MASK] all the time. They can link to our database, and here items get merged much less (and redirects are kept). ( ) That's still 4.5 million relations. We don't really have that many more items that could get coordinates/such identifiers. --- @ : Using more useful data, there are three times as many nodes and ways with Wikipedia/Wikidata tags as there are relations (see ). If they have a more complete dataset, we may as well just use theirs. ( ) I'm not saying that for your non-Wikidata specific application, you can't use a third party service for better coverage. For many identifiers, the source site holds more data than Wikidata. This isn't a problem as such. Besides, in this case, it's not possible that there be three times as many items linked once we have 4.5 million relations: Wikidata simply doesn't have 1,000,000,000 items to start with (in case you wanted to link every node to a Wikidata item). --- @ : The fact remains that many objects, like almost all villages and towns which don't have administrative boundaries (as well as most buildings, beaches, small islands, parks, forests, lakes, rivers and sports grounds), are never going to get their own relations because there's no need for that to happen. Of course, it might end up being the norm for relations to be created entirely for the purpose of linking from Wikidata to them, but that'd just be a massive waste of time because we can already link the other way. ( ) @ : Even if relations are stable, it doesn't change the fact that in OSM relations make up of objects, and we can't link to any of the others because they get [MASK] all the time. They can link to our database, and here items get merged much less (and redirects are kept). ( ) That's still 4.5 million relations. We don't really have that many more items that could get coordinates/such identifiers. --- @ : Using more useful data, there are three times as many nodes and ways with Wikipedia/Wikidata tags as there are relations (see ). If they have a more complete dataset, we may as well just use theirs. ( ) I'm not saying that for your non-Wikidata specific application, you can't use a third party service for better coverage. For many identifiers, the source site holds more data than Wikidata. This isn't a problem as such. Besides, in this case, it's not possible that there be three times as many items linked once we have 4.5 million relations: Wikidata simply doesn't have 1,000,000,000 items to start with (in case you wanted to link every node to a Wikidata item). --- @ : The fact remains that many objects, like almost all villages and towns which don't have administrative boundaries (as well as most buildings, beaches, small islands, parks, forests, lakes, rivers and sports grounds), are never going to get their own relations because there's no need for that to happen. Of course, it might end up being the norm for relations to be created entirely for the purpose of linking from Wikidata to them, but that'd just be a massive waste of time because we can already link the other way. ( ) That's still 4.5 million relations. We don't really have that many more items that could get coordinates/such identifiers. --- @ : Using more useful data, there are three times as many nodes and ways with Wikipedia/Wikidata tags as there are relations (see ). If they have a more complete dataset, we may as well just use theirs. ( ) I'm not saying that for your non-Wikidata specific application, you can't use a third party service for better coverage. For many identifiers, the source site holds more data than Wikidata. This isn't a problem as such. Besides, in this case, it's not possible that there be three times as many items linked once we have 4.5 million relations: Wikidata simply doesn't have 1,000,000,000 items to start with (in case you wanted to link every node to a Wikidata item). --- @ : The fact remains that many objects, like almost all villages and towns which don't have administrative boundaries (as well as most buildings, beaches, small islands, parks, forests, lakes, rivers and sports grounds), are never going to get their own relations because there's no need for that to happen. Of course, it might end up being the norm for relations to be created entirely for the purpose of linking from Wikidata to them, but that'd just be a massive waste of time because we can already link the other way. ( ) @ : Using more useful data, there are three times as many nodes and ways with Wikipedia/Wikidata tags as there are relations (see ). If they have a more complete dataset, we may as well just use theirs. ( ) I'm not saying that for your non-Wikidata specific application, you can't use a third party service for better coverage. For many identifiers, the source site holds more data than Wikidata. This isn't a problem as such. Besides, in this case, it's not possible that there be three times as many items linked once we have 4.5 million relations: Wikidata simply doesn't have 1,000,000,000 items to start with (in case you wanted to link every node to a Wikidata item). --- @ : The fact remains that many objects, like almost all villages and towns which don't have administrative boundaries (as well as most buildings, beaches, small islands, parks, forests, lakes, rivers and sports grounds), are never going to get their own relations because there's no need for that to happen. Of course, it might end up being the norm for relations to be created entirely for the purpose of linking from Wikidata to them, but that'd just be a massive waste of time because we can already link the other way. ( ) I'm not saying that for your non-Wikidata specific application, you can't use a third party service for better coverage. For many identifiers, the source site holds more data than Wikidata. This isn't a problem as such. Besides, in this case, it's not possible that there be three times as many items linked once we have 4.5 million relations: Wikidata simply doesn't have 1,000,000,000 items to start with (in case you wanted to link every node to a Wikidata item). --- @ : The fact remains that many objects, like almost all villages and towns which don't have administrative boundaries (as well as most buildings, beaches, small islands, parks, forests, lakes, rivers and sports grounds), are never going to get their own relations because there's no need for that to happen. Of course, it might end up being the norm for relations to be created entirely for the purpose of linking from Wikidata to them, but that'd just be a massive waste of time because we can already link the other way. ( ) @ : The fact remains that many objects, like almost all villages and towns which don't have administrative boundaries (as well as most buildings, beaches, small islands, parks, forests, lakes, rivers and sports grounds), are never going to get their own relations because there's no need for that to happen. Of course, it might end up being the norm for relations to be created entirely for the purpose of linking from Wikidata to them, but that'd just be a massive waste of time because we can already link the other way. ( ) Delete , volatile and leads users to technical innards that are unlikely to be useful for them. ( ) That is the question that was at the beginning of this request. The conclusion is that it's actually stable. A third party service is offered as replacement, however, I don't know about its stability. --- @ : I literally just had to because an OSM editor changed the relation referring to the entirety of it with another one. If we had a bot to go around and check for these changes (like the old interwiki bots), then ideally we would have properties for OSM nodes and ways as well, but there obviously isn't such a bot right now and I'm not sure how much support making one would have. ( ) That is the question that was at the beginning of this request. The conclusion is that it's actually stable. A third party service is offered as replacement, however, I don't know about its stability. --- @ : I literally just had to because an OSM editor changed the relation referring to the entirety of it with another one. If we had a bot to go around and check for these changes (like the old interwiki bots), then ideally we would have properties for OSM nodes and ways as well, but there obviously isn't such a bot right now and I'm not sure how much support making one would have. ( ) @ : I literally just had to because an OSM editor changed the relation referring to the entirety of it with another one. If we had a bot to go around and check for these changes (like the old interwiki bots), then ideally we would have properties for OSM nodes and ways as well, but there obviously isn't such a bot right now and I'm not sure how much support making one would have. ( ) Weak oppose (changed from ""[MASK]"") I would like for us to link to OSM too, not just the other way around, as it makes some queries simpler from Wikidata. But I don't sufficiently grok the different properties needed for that, and I have the feeling that some people in the OSM community seem to be opposed to have datasets uploaded. Before these datasets are lost, I'd like to see them added to Wikidata and preserved. But I have not sufficient background on the relation between Wikidata and OSM, and how OSM is doing things. (The rest is old comment) OSM seems to be reluctant to accept Wikidata IDs and, even if in, rather quick in deleting them again, which leads to a loss of information. Even if the IDs are not 100% stable, we can at least save them here. The important thing is that these IDs are not reused, even when they change, so that we don't accidentally link to the wrong thing. I would suggest to [MASK] this property here and to extend its coverage considerably. -- ( ) OSM is not reluctant to accept Wikidata IDs. One OSM editor has recently thrown his toys out of the proverbial over a set of automated edits that, he claims, broke the letter (not intent), of OSM's automated edit policy, but other such edits have not been problematical, and the number of Wikidata IDs in OSM is growing steadily and at an accelerating rate. @ : OSM does not seem reluctant to accept Wikidata IDs to me. In fact, the default editor on their website (iD) automatically adds Wikidata tags whenever someone links to Wikipedia (see for a demonstration). It's mass automated edits that (some) OSM people don't like. - ( ) OSM is not reluctant to accept Wikidata IDs. One OSM editor has recently thrown his toys out of the proverbial over a set of automated edits that, he claims, broke the letter (not intent), of OSM's automated edit policy, but other such edits have not been problematical, and the number of Wikidata IDs in OSM is growing steadily and at an accelerating rate. @ : OSM does not seem reluctant to accept Wikidata IDs to me. In fact, the default editor on their website (iD) automatically adds Wikidata tags whenever someone links to Wikipedia (see for a demonstration). It's mass automated edits that (some) OSM people don't like. - ( ) Delete I am in favour of changing the current situation, either by deleting P402, or by adding properties for linking to ways and nodes (which has been rejected multiple times). Anyone who wants to get links between Wikidata and OSM can't rely on our data because it deliberately omits most of them and so will need to query OSM anyway. The data for this property is unreliable too, because people [MASK] using it to add IDs of nodes and ways (e.g. , ). - ( ) If we delete all properties where our data might not be perfect and some other source provides a link to Wikidata, we might and up deleting most of our properties. --- Slippery slope arguments are rarely good arguments. Nobody (except maybe you) is going to propose deleting everything just because one thing is judged to better handled in a different way, so that does not seem like a valid argument for keeping the property. - ( ) Well, stating that it needs maintenance isn't really a good argument either. --- I did not argue that we should remove it because it needs maintenance and if you think I did, you've misunderstood what I said. My argument is that the current status - disallowing most links while allowing a small subset - is fundamentally flawed and that would not change even if our data were perfectly maintained. - ( ) There are actually quite a lot of relations available we could import. --- If we delete all properties where our data might not be perfect and some other source provides a link to Wikidata, we might and up deleting most of our properties. --- Slippery slope arguments are rarely good arguments. Nobody (except maybe you) is going to propose deleting everything just because one thing is judged to better handled in a different way, so that does not seem like a valid argument for keeping the property. - ( ) Well, stating that it needs maintenance isn't really a good argument either. --- I did not argue that we should remove it because it needs maintenance and if you think I did, you've misunderstood what I said. My argument is that the current status - disallowing most links while allowing a small subset - is fundamentally flawed and that would not change even if our data were perfectly maintained. - ( ) There are actually quite a lot of relations available we could import. --- Slippery slope arguments are rarely good arguments. Nobody (except maybe you) is going to propose deleting everything just because one thing is judged to better handled in a different way, so that does not seem like a valid argument for keeping the property. - ( ) Well, stating that it needs maintenance isn't really a good argument either. --- I did not argue that we should remove it because it needs maintenance and if you think I did, you've misunderstood what I said. My argument is that the current status - disallowing most links while allowing a small subset - is fundamentally flawed and that would not change even if our data were perfectly maintained. - ( ) There are actually quite a lot of relations available we could import. --- Well, stating that it needs maintenance isn't really a good argument either. --- I did not argue that we should remove it because it needs maintenance and if you think I did, you've misunderstood what I said. My argument is that the current status - disallowing most links while allowing a small subset - is fundamentally flawed and that would not change even if our data were perfectly maintained. - ( ) There are actually quite a lot of relations available we could import. --- I did not argue that we should remove it because it needs maintenance and if you think I did, you've misunderstood what I said. My argument is that the current status - disallowing most links while allowing a small subset - is fundamentally flawed and that would not change even if our data were perfectly maintained. - ( ) There are actually quite a lot of relations available we could import. --- There are actually quite a lot of relations available we could import. --- Delete We are steadily adding Wikidata identifiers to OSM, and extracting information from OSM to build a service is way easier (the WMF services are already doing it I believe). IDs aren't guaranteed to be stable (the argument ""it's stable since x years"" is invalid IMHO, because it covers only a small fraction of possible Point of Interests: museums could be represented either as nodes, ways or relations, and moving the information from a node to a way it's a common operation which changes the ID). Having a process that runs on the current OSM data could also help mantain with a bot -- ( ) Comment Are people supporting deletion coming here based on some invitation on OSM? --- @ : I don't think so, although it might be a good idea to notify either the OSM wiki's community portal(?) or the talk mailing list, as I haven't done that yet. However, many of the participating editors, including myself, are also OSM mappers. ( ) @ : I don't think so, although it might be a good idea to notify either the OSM wiki's community portal(?) or the talk mailing list, as I haven't done that yet. However, many of the participating editors, including myself, are also OSM mappers. ( ) [MASK] . That OSM has its own system is not our business. ( ) @ : But you are aware that keeping data which might be outdated unnoticedly might not be a good idea? For example, say the building of a reputated organization which has a Wikidata entry consists of a (multipolygon) relation. Consider further that someone then thinks that a MP is not the way to go, because the building has a quite simple shape and turns it into a way, discarding the multipolygon. And voilà – the data inconsistency is gone. Thus a from me. -- ( ) @ : But you are aware that keeping data which might be outdated unnoticedly might not be a good idea? For example, say the building of a reputated organization which has a Wikidata entry consists of a (multipolygon) relation. Consider further that someone then thinks that a MP is not the way to go, because the building has a quite simple shape and turns it into a way, discarding the multipolygon. And voilà – the data inconsistency is gone. Thus a from me. -- ( ) Comment OpenStreetMap regular here - Wikidata IDs have been added to OSM objects en masse in the past weeks without the requisite discussion on OSM side; more than 100,000 by alone. These additions have been overwhelmingly been automatic (based sometimes on existing Wikipedia links, sometimes on name/type/coordinate matching) and are of sub-standard quality for OSM (because they have been mostly done by people without local knowledge who did't understand the difference between two similarly named administrative entities that share a Wikipedia but not a Wikidata entry etc). It is therefore not a given that these links will be allowed to remain in OSM, and if they are, it is quite possible that data consumers will shy away from using them because of the sub-standard quality. Hi, just to clarify - I have posted about it to the OSM talk list, and I only converted existing Wikipedia links into their corresponding Wikidata IDs. I know others might have done more ""risky"" edits such as auto-discovering corresponding Wikipedia article, but in this case, each Wikidata item corresponds to exactly one Wikipedia link, so this is more like locking the WP link in place, in case the article gets renamed. Similarly named places don't really relate to this issue, unless both places link to the same Wikipedia article, so, by extension, they will link to the same Wikidata item. On the other hand, having Wikidata items allow for much better cross-site quality validation, because you can compare tags on the element with the statements in Wikidata. -- ( ) Further to Yurik's response: The IP's comment is ambiguous. When they say they refer to the specific subset of Wikidata IDs in OSM described in their comment, not to Wikidata IDs in general. The ""sub-standard quality"" bar is pure FUD. I too, speak as an OSM regular. Hi, just to clarify - I have posted about it to the OSM talk list, and I only converted existing Wikipedia links into their corresponding Wikidata IDs. I know others might have done more ""risky"" edits such as auto-discovering corresponding Wikipedia article, but in this case, each Wikidata item corresponds to exactly one Wikipedia link, so this is more like locking the WP link in place, in case the article gets renamed. Similarly named places don't really relate to this issue, unless both places link to the same Wikipedia article, so, by extension, they will link to the same Wikidata item. On the other hand, having Wikidata items allow for much better cross-site quality validation, because you can compare tags on the element with the statements in Wikidata. -- ( ) Further to Yurik's response: The IP's comment is ambiguous. When they say they refer to the specific subset of Wikidata IDs in OSM described in their comment, not to Wikidata IDs in general. The ""sub-standard quality"" bar is pure FUD. I too, speak as an OSM regular. [MASK] . I think it's useful to have links to OSM from Wikidata, even if the reverse link is also present in OSM, partly because it's easier for data-consumers of Wikidata to use (not having to call a separate API), and partly because there might be some legitimate disagreement about what the 'right' concordance should be (e.g. Wikidata editors might link two different items to the same OSM relation, but OSM might only consider that a single Wikidata item should be linked back). OSM relation IDs are roughly as stable as Wikidata IDs (which can change, for example, if two items are merged, or one is mistakenly [MASK] and then re-added). The fact that some OSM nodes and ways don't belong to a relation shouldn't stop us having the property, particularly as I don't think there's any rule in OSM against adding a single way to a relation, for the purposes of adding semantic information to the relation. ( ) @ : I don't think there's a way of putting the information of a single node into a relation, because aside from this very narrow scope it would be completely pointless. This might be rather annoying for places that don't have exact boundaries, as well as things like trees which can't be tagged as areas. ( ) A relation is simply an object which contains other nodes, ways and/or relations. You can have a relation with just one object (in fact, you can have a relation which contains no objects at all) but creating a relation for something which can already be represented by a single node or way is redundant (nodes and ways can have tags, so you don't need a relation to add semantic information) and doesn't add any value to OSM, so it's not something we should encourage people to do. - ( ) @ : I meant as in there isn't a valid relation type which could do that. You could have a multipolygon containing a single way, but there's no such way (AFAIK) to do that for a node. ( ) @ : Ah, I think what you're saying is that there's no established use for a relation with a single node? (I wouldn't use ""valid"" to describe that, you're allowed to come up with new tags if you can't find any existing tag that fits). - ( ) @ : Whilst it might often be redundant in OSM to create a relation containing a single node or way, I don't think there's any specific rule or guidelines against it, and in practice it probably happens quite a bit. Eg the tag is almost always applied to a relation, and whilst that normally covers at least two nodes (one for the stop on either side of a road), this isn't always the case. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) @ : I don't think there's a way of putting the information of a single node into a relation, because aside from this very narrow scope it would be completely pointless. This might be rather annoying for places that don't have exact boundaries, as well as things like trees which can't be tagged as areas. ( ) A relation is simply an object which contains other nodes, ways and/or relations. You can have a relation with just one object (in fact, you can have a relation which contains no objects at all) but creating a relation for something which can already be represented by a single node or way is redundant (nodes and ways can have tags, so you don't need a relation to add semantic information) and doesn't add any value to OSM, so it's not something we should encourage people to do. - ( ) @ : I meant as in there isn't a valid relation type which could do that. You could have a multipolygon containing a single way, but there's no such way (AFAIK) to do that for a node. ( ) @ : Ah, I think what you're saying is that there's no established use for a relation with a single node? (I wouldn't use ""valid"" to describe that, you're allowed to come up with new tags if you can't find any existing tag that fits). - ( ) @ : Whilst it might often be redundant in OSM to create a relation containing a single node or way, I don't think there's any specific rule or guidelines against it, and in practice it probably happens quite a bit. Eg the tag is almost always applied to a relation, and whilst that normally covers at least two nodes (one for the stop on either side of a road), this isn't always the case. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) A relation is simply an object which contains other nodes, ways and/or relations. You can have a relation with just one object (in fact, you can have a relation which contains no objects at all) but creating a relation for something which can already be represented by a single node or way is redundant (nodes and ways can have tags, so you don't need a relation to add semantic information) and doesn't add any value to OSM, so it's not something we should encourage people to do. - ( ) @ : I meant as in there isn't a valid relation type which could do that. You could have a multipolygon containing a single way, but there's no such way (AFAIK) to do that for a node. ( ) @ : Ah, I think what you're saying is that there's no established use for a relation with a single node? (I wouldn't use ""valid"" to describe that, you're allowed to come up with new tags if you can't find any existing tag that fits). - ( ) @ : Whilst it might often be redundant in OSM to create a relation containing a single node or way, I don't think there's any specific rule or guidelines against it, and in practice it probably happens quite a bit. Eg the tag is almost always applied to a relation, and whilst that normally covers at least two nodes (one for the stop on either side of a road), this isn't always the case. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) @ : I meant as in there isn't a valid relation type which could do that. You could have a multipolygon containing a single way, but there's no such way (AFAIK) to do that for a node. ( ) @ : Ah, I think what you're saying is that there's no established use for a relation with a single node? (I wouldn't use ""valid"" to describe that, you're allowed to come up with new tags if you can't find any existing tag that fits). - ( ) @ : Whilst it might often be redundant in OSM to create a relation containing a single node or way, I don't think there's any specific rule or guidelines against it, and in practice it probably happens quite a bit. Eg the tag is almost always applied to a relation, and whilst that normally covers at least two nodes (one for the stop on either side of a road), this isn't always the case. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) @ : Ah, I think what you're saying is that there's no established use for a relation with a single node? (I wouldn't use ""valid"" to describe that, you're allowed to come up with new tags if you can't find any existing tag that fits). - ( ) @ : Whilst it might often be redundant in OSM to create a relation containing a single node or way, I don't think there's any specific rule or guidelines against it, and in practice it probably happens quite a bit. Eg the tag is almost always applied to a relation, and whilst that normally covers at least two nodes (one for the stop on either side of a road), this isn't always the case. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) @ : Whilst it might often be redundant in OSM to create a relation containing a single node or way, I don't think there's any specific rule or guidelines against it, and in practice it probably happens quite a bit. Eg the tag is almost always applied to a relation, and whilst that normally covers at least two nodes (one for the stop on either side of a road), this isn't always the case. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) @ : I meant as in for general use cases (there's no multipolygon equivalent for nodes), for things like trees and other nodes which can't be mapped as areas. I suppose it's possible that we could make (for example) metadata relations where the only tags are type=metadata and wikidata=Qxxx, but it seems like a confusing waste of time. ( ) Comment , right now I'm leaning on [MASK] . I don't really see the problem with this property. Redundancy: 100 % of Wikidata is redundant (we even give the link in reference to tell from where it's redundant). Pull from OSM: not really easy and you need a different tool (a lot of people have trouble using Query, learning yet another tool is not a good idea and - I find - overpass turbo to be particularly slow and complex to use; see my recent examples on ). Unstable: all link outside (and even some inside) Wikidata are unstable, and OSM relations are quite stable. In the end, the deletion doesn't seems the appropriate answer for the question here, can't a tool/script/bot periodically check is the link is still ok? (like I said, it could be useful for other properties too). Cdlt ( ) @ : I think there are APIs aside from overpass which can pull OSM data, such as the one used in , but in my experience Overpass is sufficient, if a bit clunky and slow. I believe there have been proposals to update data with bots before, but they did not pass and that's why we don't have properties for ways and nodes. A proposal to [MASK] Wikidata synched with external databases (which would include OSM) is #36 on , but it's not likely to receive much attention. ( ) Yes, Overpass is nearly almost ok and yes, there is probably hundreds of ways to pull from OSM, but that's beside the point ; I've got a problem with the « pull » itself; if you split the date in two places, it's way more complicated to do query on both of them. Update data by bots is at best complicated and often kind of stupid and I'm glad it did'nt pass, I asked for a « check » not for an update (and not only for but for all properties that generate links since most URL aren't stable, even less stable than OSM relations). Finally, Wikidata ID are not stable either, is someone checking on OSM side if the link are still valid? Cdlt, ( ) @ : I think you're better off asking someone else for most of the details, as I don't primarily edit Wikidata and don't run bots, but I think OSM editors are assuming that Wikidata QIDs stay there for basically forever and that redirects from item merges won't be [MASK] or usurped. Do Wikidata items get split often? ( ) Not often but it happens (I don't know if there is stats on this matter, when I look in the deletion log - - most of them seems just non-sense being rightfully [MASK] but I've seem some case where users delete instead of merging or even reuse and change completely an item, the latter won't show on logs and would be hard to track, impossible for a bot). Cdlt, ( ) @ : I think there are APIs aside from overpass which can pull OSM data, such as the one used in , but in my experience Overpass is sufficient, if a bit clunky and slow. I believe there have been proposals to update data with bots before, but they did not pass and that's why we don't have properties for ways and nodes. A proposal to [MASK] Wikidata synched with external databases (which would include OSM) is #36 on , but it's not likely to receive much attention. ( ) Yes, Overpass is nearly almost ok and yes, there is probably hundreds of ways to pull from OSM, but that's beside the point ; I've got a problem with the « pull » itself; if you split the date in two places, it's way more complicated to do query on both of them. Update data by bots is at best complicated and often kind of stupid and I'm glad it did'nt pass, I asked for a « check » not for an update (and not only for but for all properties that generate links since most URL aren't stable, even less stable than OSM relations). Finally, Wikidata ID are not stable either, is someone checking on OSM side if the link are still valid? Cdlt, ( ) @ : I think you're better off asking someone else for most of the details, as I don't primarily edit Wikidata and don't run bots, but I think OSM editors are assuming that Wikidata QIDs stay there for basically forever and that redirects from item merges won't be [MASK] or usurped. Do Wikidata items get split often? ( ) Not often but it happens (I don't know if there is stats on this matter, when I look in the deletion log - - most of them seems just non-sense being rightfully [MASK] but I've seem some case where users delete instead of merging or even reuse and change completely an item, the latter won't show on logs and would be hard to track, impossible for a bot). Cdlt, ( ) Yes, Overpass is nearly almost ok and yes, there is probably hundreds of ways to pull from OSM, but that's beside the point ; I've got a problem with the « pull » itself; if you split the date in two places, it's way more complicated to do query on both of them. Update data by bots is at best complicated and often kind of stupid and I'm glad it did'nt pass, I asked for a « check » not for an update (and not only for but for all properties that generate links since most URL aren't stable, even less stable than OSM relations). Finally, Wikidata ID are not stable either, is someone checking on OSM side if the link are still valid? Cdlt, ( ) @ : I think you're better off asking someone else for most of the details, as I don't primarily edit Wikidata and don't run bots, but I think OSM editors are assuming that Wikidata QIDs stay there for basically forever and that redirects from item merges won't be [MASK] or usurped. Do Wikidata items get split often? ( ) Not often but it happens (I don't know if there is stats on this matter, when I look in the deletion log - - most of them seems just non-sense being rightfully [MASK] but I've seem some case where users delete instead of merging or even reuse and change completely an item, the latter won't show on logs and would be hard to track, impossible for a bot). Cdlt, ( ) @ : I think you're better off asking someone else for most of the details, as I don't primarily edit Wikidata and don't run bots, but I think OSM editors are assuming that Wikidata QIDs stay there for basically forever and that redirects from item merges won't be [MASK] or usurped. Do Wikidata items get split often? ( ) Not often but it happens (I don't know if there is stats on this matter, when I look in the deletion log - - most of them seems just non-sense being rightfully [MASK] but I've seem some case where users delete instead of merging or even reuse and change completely an item, the latter won't show on logs and would be hard to track, impossible for a bot). Cdlt, ( ) Not often but it happens (I don't know if there is stats on this matter, when I look in the deletion log - - most of them seems just non-sense being rightfully [MASK] but I've seem some case where users delete instead of merging or even reuse and change completely an item, the latter won't show on logs and would be hard to track, impossible for a bot). Cdlt, ( ) [MASK] What is the problem of having OSM relations numbers here??? It takes so little storage space in DB that the discussion about deleting the property seems to be largely irrelevant here... This is more of a chicken/egg problem - should Wikidata have OSM relations numbers or OSM relations have wikidata IDs on them??? An extreme resolution could be these would be [MASK] on both sides and then we would end up having NOTHING at all! Is this what you want? Or rather a little redundancy in having the information on both sides? Redundancy is never bad (it is actually desirable!!!) if one can bear the storage costs (the cost is negligible in this case). So strong [MASK] from myself. -- ( ) @ : it makes a lot more sense to only bother adding Wikidata IDs to OSM, because (a) Wikidata has only one type of entity which should be linked, and (b) you can't use the Wikidata property to pull OSM objects through (which is why I started this discussion). Until we have bots to scour OSM for Wikidata IDs and conflicts/errors (and vice versa), the property's data is likely to slowly become outdated as well as polluted with way and node IDs. Your ""extreme resolution"" is a pointless strawman argument. I would argue that it's not necessarily good to have redundancy right now , because it's a waste of editors' time to have to add data to both projects (manually or semi-automatically). ( ) @ : it makes a lot more sense to only bother adding Wikidata IDs to OSM, because (a) Wikidata has only one type of entity which should be linked, and (b) you can't use the Wikidata property to pull OSM objects through (which is why I started this discussion). Until we have bots to scour OSM for Wikidata IDs and conflicts/errors (and vice versa), the property's data is likely to slowly become outdated as well as polluted with way and node IDs. Your ""extreme resolution"" is a pointless strawman argument. I would argue that it's not necessarily good to have redundancy right now , because it's a waste of editors' time to have to add data to both projects (manually or semi-automatically). ( ) Comment Made a which affects this discussion. ( ) [MASK] As per J Klamo. -- ( ) [MASK] It's all very well to say we can use Overpass to obtain the link for a single OSM relation. But what if one to do a query, to eg identify all the items in a particular group of classes (which could be quite big) which are currently missing an OSM relation? With this property in Wikidata, it's easy. Without this property it is significantly hard. Overpass can return 1 OSM relation. But can it return 10,000? And can it do it within the time-limit for a WDQS query? ( ) @ : It is a cause for some concern, as the Wikidata and OSM databases are not really linked (no parser functions, limited querying outside the Kartographer extension's GeoJSON and the WD property, etc.). If it's a particular class of objects, you could search for OSM relations of that type which have wikipedia=/wikidata= tags and then compare them a list of Wikidata items. Maybe Overpass features could be ported over to WDQS, but I'm not really familiar with the latter. ( ) @ : It is a cause for some concern, as the Wikidata and OSM databases are not really linked (no parser functions, limited querying outside the Kartographer extension's GeoJSON and the WD property, etc.). If it's a particular class of objects, you could search for OSM relations of that type which have wikipedia=/wikidata= tags and then compare them a list of Wikidata items. Maybe Overpass features could be ported over to WDQS, but I'm not really familiar with the latter. ( ) [MASK] I think it is best to have bidirectional links between Wikidata and other services where possible. So if another service links to Wikidata, I don't think that is any reason for Wikidata to not link back. The maintenance issues could be solved with a bot to sync the two (i.e. bot can scan OSM for links to Wikidata and add the backlink from Wikidata to OSM if it doesn't exist). With linking only from OSM to Wikidata, people browsing Wikidata might not become aware that OSM has useful information on the item they are looking at. ( ) @ : I would agree in principle, but proposals for both a bot and node/way properties have already been rejected, and you'd need to find someone willing to devote their time to writing bot code for something minimally useful (both databases are publicly accessible and editable; the Kartographer MediaWiki extension already pulls data directly from OSM). We would also need the bot to edit on the OSM side, and as far as I'm aware there aren't any (approved) maintenance bots there yet. The best solution is probably to get the WMF/OSM developers to integrate the databases or provide more convenient links between them such as parser functions and automated display of data from the other database, but there's no guarantee that's ever going to happen. ( ) @ : I would agree in principle, but proposals for both a bot and node/way properties have already been rejected, and you'd need to find someone willing to devote their time to writing bot code for something minimally useful (both databases are publicly accessible and editable; the Kartographer MediaWiki extension already pulls data directly from OSM). We would also need the bot to edit on the OSM side, and as far as I'm aware there aren't any (approved) maintenance bots there yet. The best solution is probably to get the WMF/OSM developers to integrate the databases or provide more convenient links between them such as parser functions and automated display of data from the other database, but there's no guarantee that's ever going to happen. ( ) [MASK] Even if I see sensible points on both sides, my opinion is leaded by 2 considerations. There is no stable spatial database. It could be very nice for us, but it does not exist. This kind of stuff refers to present; biographical, historical databases, which concern the past, are not concerned by this issue. A database based on (even partially) the space of today fatally goes obsolete, and as far as my knowledge goes perfection and eternity are no goals in the project. And pass the hot potato to OSM would only sweep the dust under the rug. Second, how many users can use queries, how many can understand the idea of a property referring to a relation id? ( ) [MASK] the current P402 while we create/populate a new property to contain ""node/1"" or ""relation/1"" values; then we Delete an old P402 as overly restricted. We need external links other than relations. ( ) @ : The issue remains that you would need a bot operating on both Wikidata and OpenStreetMap to [MASK] updating all the values (node/way properties have already been rejected due to being too unstable). ( ) @ : The issue remains that you would need a bot operating on both Wikidata and OpenStreetMap to [MASK] updating all the values (node/way properties have already been rejected due to being too unstable). ( ) Properties in WD were rejected in order to use (un)stable OSM data? Then OSM is stable for purpose of OSM-WD mappings, isn't? We don't need to track 96% of nodes. Right now it is impossible to write an OSM editor which would stream writes from OSM to WD (other than to relations). ( ) Properties in WD were rejected in order to use (un)stable OSM data? Then OSM is stable for purpose of OSM-WD mappings, isn't? We don't need to track 96% of nodes. Right now it is impossible to write an OSM editor which would stream writes from OSM to WD (other than to relations). ( ) Properties in WD were rejected in order to use (un)stable OSM data? Then OSM is stable for purpose of OSM-WD mappings, isn't? We don't need to track 96% of nodes. Right now it is impossible to write an OSM editor which would stream writes from OSM to WD (other than to relations). ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P3122: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] Identifier for people named in , the famous ""manuscript record of the 'Great Survey' of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086 by order of King William the Conqueror"", and so clearly useful. The target site offers linked, open data in JSON format. Comment It's still practically unused and generates maintenance. If it might eventually be needed, people probably still end up proposing it again: something we had just now at . --- Comment it is unused (which is no reason for deletion) but probably not useless. @ : I've looked into this database to see what can be done but I ended up a bit confused, the example is : but there is nine ID for people with this name, why is that and how do you tell which is which? and in particular : how can a bot or a tool add the right ID to the right item? Cdlt, ( ) If they are shown to be for the same person, add them to the item; they will eventually be merged & redirected. If not, leave them. This is no different to, say, . So the only uses of this property is a speculation? --- The remarkable leap from what I wrote to what you concluded is staggering, and unwarranted. If they are shown to be for the same person, add them to the item; they will eventually be merged & redirected. If not, leave them. This is no different to, say, . So the only uses of this property is a speculation? --- The remarkable leap from what I wrote to what you concluded is staggering, and unwarranted. So the only uses of this property is a speculation? --- The remarkable leap from what I wrote to what you concluded is staggering, and unwarranted. The remarkable leap from what I wrote to what you concluded is staggering, and unwarranted. [MASK] WD has a fair number of entries for 11th century Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Normans. In many cases they are identified as holders or tenants of particular lands in Domesday. Yes, the property still needs to be populated (and IMO we may need to be quite careful to restrict to only identifications that have reasonable certainty). But it will then be quite valuable to see where the lands held by a particular individual we have an article on actually were; or, in the opposite direction, where individuals in the OpenDomesday database can be linked to Wikipedia articles. (And/or to other databases we may have identifiers for). ( ) See for example the blue-linked names at and . ( ) See for example the blue-linked names at and . ( ) [MASK] . Wikidata is a work in progress, and this property has a clear use. That it isn't widely used yet is not a reason to prevent its use in the future. ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1124_(P1124): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete I don't think we need a new capacity property - or maybe can handle the cases where this is already used. I assume was proposed because quantities with units weren't available at the time; in any case I agree it isn't needed now. ( ) Delete . Use the other properties available. ( ) Note I have replaced all current uses of this property with . I believe it can just be [MASK]. ( ) Note I have replaced all current uses of this property with . I believe it can just be [MASK]. ( ) Comment @ : Volume and capacity are not the same thing, e.g. a lift with a capacity of 8 persons is not a measure of the lift's volume, same applies to TEU capacity, it is not a measure of a ship's internal volume. So, replacing this with is somewhat muddled up. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . feel free to replace with something better. All current uses can be found by following the ""What links here"" link for . ( ) feel free to replace with something better. All current uses can be found by following the ""What links here"" link for . ( ) Delete . No current use (and little evidence of past use). Use + unit . That property is officially labelled ""volume as quantity"" with alias ""tonnage"" so it's reasonable to use it for capacity. There may be a case of starting a new property called ""Cargo capacity"" which can take either volume, mass, TEU, or even dimensionless tonnage as units, but we can have that discussion later. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: PORT_film_ID_(P905)_and_PORT_person_ID_(P2435): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Comment port.hu is still online -- ( ) That may be, but the items that contain the domains I marked might require cleanup. ( ) That may be, but the items that contain the domains I marked might require cleanup. ( ) [MASK] As I've said in similar cases previsouly, we should not delete data when this kind of thing happens. Just remove or deprecate the formatter URLs, or update them to an archive like archive.org [MASK] for now as port.hu is still online.-- ( ) Then update them, right now we are sending people to offline pages. ( ) Then update them, right now we are sending people to offline pages. ( ) [MASK] what the hell? How have I not been notified? All IDs work with the Hungarian links, and huwiki heavily relies on them. It's the most popular film database here, check Alexa for Hungary. There are no plans to close the Hungarian edition too. – ( ) [MASK] port.hu is still working -- ( ) [MASK] must be some kind of unfunny joke. This is the most referenced Hungarian movie database. Also they were always been historically friendly towards Wikipedia, and have provided lots of data for us. -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Curlie_ID_(P998): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] These IDs link into a useful dataset of significant historic value, and world be worth keeping even if DMOZ goes away completely. DMOZ also looks likely to be forked and resurrected elsewhere in the near future. The Related Sites extension can also be retargeted to the new continuity DMOZ fork when it is available: what matters is the data and the community supporting it, not the hosting entity. -- ( ) [MASK] yes, in general obsolete sites do not imply that their ID's are useless as they may have been correlated by others or may have attached data that is still available; if it had only been used a few times I might agree with deletion, but the DMOZ id has been used on over 11,000 items so I think it is definitely worth preserving. ( ) [MASK] per the . [MASK] per above and prior conversation that I started two weeks before OP. — [MASK] per and . ( ) [MASK] The DMOZ website has been shutdown but the dataset is still available. DMOZ made their data available for download as RDF and someone has mirrored the last copy . Since the dataset still exists, even though it won't be updated and the official hosting is gone, I don't see why the property should be [MASK]. ( ) Comment: a volunteer-run static mirror now exists at , linked to by the holding page now at dmoz.org, and thus presumably unofficially endorsed by the old site maintainers. I've now added it as for this property. There also seems to be some low-profile activity on cresting a read-write fork. -- ( ) Comment: a volunteer-run static mirror now exists at , linked to by the holding page now at dmoz.org, and thus presumably unofficially endorsed by the old site maintainers. I've now added it as for this property. There also seems to be some low-profile activity on cresting a read-write fork. -- ( ) [MASK] . Wikidata should record defunct identifiers used by notable organisations/projects as they are probably important for anyone learning about that organisation/project. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P794_(P794): Please use existing section for this property. Do not confuse users by creating multiple discussions about the same topic. --- Please use existing section for this property. Do not confuse users by creating multiple discussions about the same topic. --- @ : I think you will find there are rather a lot more live uses than that (!): tinyurl.com/mldypvu I am not entirely sure about the use of as a substitute, but we'll see how it goes. ( ) @ : I suspected that might be the case; any idea why my query didn't work? ( ) @ : I suspected that might be the case; any idea why my query didn't work? ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: comment_(DEPRECATED)_(P2315): Consensus to delete . Consensus to delete . See and for the two new proposals I mentioned. - ( ) Comment Property created as a result of this request, but no other new property. Original property is retained. -- Comment Property created as a result of this request, but no other new property. Original property is retained. -- Delete per the nominator. Clearly is not being used correctly, and the talk page suffices for a comment. -- ( ) Delete Overloaded property. -- ( ) Comment I cleaned up the most of the remaining uses. Going forward, usage instructions that are in descriptions, can use . Once the MediaWiki feature is available, this can be removed from descriptions. Notes that are in qualifiers, can continue to use this property. Obviously, it needs to be monitored to avoid that it isn't misused. To limit this, I changed the property label (the problem with the current label was already pointed out before it was actually created). Currently the bulk of inappropriate uses were those that should have been using P2559, but weren't converted when that property was requested and created. Seems like someone didn't follow up on the creation → fixed. There were a few cases liked , where actual content was added in the property. It seems the property now works as it should. --- Please don't change labels of properties in substantive fashion while there is an ongoing deletion request. I should have but didn't realize that the edits I made earlier today were to this property. -- ( ) Sorry about that, I thought I had cleared up the problematic uses and the only remaining ones are the ones where this covers a gap between the new property and the remaining uses. To avoid future problems, the label needs to be changed (as already suggested before creation, on first discussion, etc.). If there are no arguments against it, we can finish sorting this out and can close this discussion. --- Please don't change labels of properties in substantive fashion while there is an ongoing deletion request. I should have but didn't realize that the edits I made earlier today were to this property. -- ( ) Sorry about that, I thought I had cleared up the problematic uses and the only remaining ones are the ones where this covers a gap between the new property and the remaining uses. To avoid future problems, the label needs to be changed (as already suggested before creation, on first discussion, etc.). If there are no arguments against it, we can finish sorting this out and can close this discussion. --- Sorry about that, I thought I had cleared up the problematic uses and the only remaining ones are the ones where this covers a gap between the new property and the remaining uses. To avoid future problems, the label needs to be changed (as already suggested before creation, on first discussion, etc.). If there are no arguments against it, we can finish sorting this out and can close this discussion. --- Delete obviously. Cdlt, ( ) Delete , has no connection with structured data. -- ( ) Delete Bad use ( ) Comment @ : thanks for cleaning up the unstructured uses of this property, but could you do a plan for the remaining uses? Just deleting it when it's still in use isn't a good idea. Generally, we identify alternatives, then remove the the property, and, at last delete it. --- I don't see what you mean. is instsalled to reflect the original scope of the property plus its first extension, while , the unstructured data, was rejected. I am not aware of any other initiative to split parts off the original property. I removed all usage that IMHO shouldn't be there or could be replaced. Nothing left, so deletion was in my view the thing to do. ( ) There are about 222 uses left mainly by which don't fit P2559 nor the other proposed property. Probably some of the people commenting above made the same error as you did. --- I overlooked the usage in Porperty-namespacy. My apologies. Restored and removed decision. ( ) I don't see what you mean. is instsalled to reflect the original scope of the property plus its first extension, while , the unstructured data, was rejected. I am not aware of any other initiative to split parts off the original property. I removed all usage that IMHO shouldn't be there or could be replaced. Nothing left, so deletion was in my view the thing to do. ( ) There are about 222 uses left mainly by which don't fit P2559 nor the other proposed property. Probably some of the people commenting above made the same error as you did. --- I overlooked the usage in Porperty-namespacy. My apologies. Restored and removed decision. ( ) There are about 222 uses left mainly by which don't fit P2559 nor the other proposed property. Probably some of the people commenting above made the same error as you did. --- I overlooked the usage in Porperty-namespacy. My apologies. Restored and removed decision. ( ) I overlooked the usage in Porperty-namespacy. My apologies. Restored and removed decision. ( ) Thanks, I'm afraid I did not check this discussion in along time. -- Thanks, I'm afraid I did not check this discussion in along time. -- Thanks, I'm afraid I did not check this discussion in along time. -- Thanks, I'm afraid I did not check this discussion in along time. -- Thanks, I'm afraid I did not check this discussion in along time. -- Comment I agree not to add unstructured info in WD; most of the time, I used as a qualifier to clarify the cryptic meaning of on properties, after a short discussion with and after someone else disagreed to use for that purpose (I believe it was ). See for an example. There are still no other property to provide such info. -- @ : Propose a new property. I am skeptical that it would be declined. If it is declined, there is still the talk page for this information. -- ( ) I just proposed new property . Please comment :D -- @ : Propose a new property. I am skeptical that it would be declined. If it is declined, there is still the talk page for this information. -- ( ) I just proposed new property . Please comment :D -- I just proposed new property . Please comment :D -- I ported the qualifiers. Now there are 15 items and 21 properties left using . -- ( ) Thanks, Most of the items concern comments on errors in sources. I am thinking of proposing a property on that. ( ) I think we have a property for that, but my memory is fuzzy. Not a string, I'm pretty sure. -- ( ) Proposed: . ( ) Thanks, Most of the items concern comments on errors in sources. I am thinking of proposing a property on that. ( ) I think we have a property for that, but my memory is fuzzy. Not a string, I'm pretty sure. -- ( ) Proposed: . ( ) I think we have a property for that, but my memory is fuzzy. Not a string, I'm pretty sure. -- ( ) Proposed: . ( ) Proposed: . ( ) [MASK] It's useful to have a way to document why a certain decision is made. If I read a biography and the it gives me an occuption of a person but there are two different ways I could model that occuption in Wikidata it's good to be able to leave a comment to explain why I chose A and not B. ( ) That would probably be best done on the talk page, where the decision could be discussed if anyone wants. ( ) That would probably be best done on the talk page, where the decision could be discussed if anyone wants. ( ) For the original use case, please find a new proposal at . --- Delete - Even if in some cases can be useful for editors, it's too tempting for introducing unstructured data, which is totally useless for users. So should be removed, editor comments can always be written in the talk page. — Comment - I've been using this property in cases where I should have been using . My bad. -- ( ) @ : I don't see why one can't license one's talk page contributions under a less restrictive license than is required. ( ) Delete I think we created the necessary replacement/expanded its scope where needed. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P907_(P907): Clear consensus to delete. -- Clear consensus to delete. -- Note: The proponent, , announced his retirement in, and has not edited since, January 2015. Hence Delete . -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete because external database is shut down. ( ) Delete as per nomination. Delete since database is shut down and only minimal uses. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: kinship_to_subject_(P1039): Consensus to [MASK]. ( ) Consensus to [MASK]. ( ) ""Specifically""? Really? No will find it, nor know how to use it. Too ugly for general users. So [MASK] as this named and used property is useful and user friendly. Far better to fix up the relationships of what exists rather than try to recreate what looks like a working wheel.   — Delete , but [MASK] . I actually want the latter to have an even broader use than what it has now. It is precisely the fact that it catches everything that makes it useful and easy to use. ( ) @ : is proposed for split to different properties. You may want to discuss this above. -- ( ) @ : is proposed for split to different properties. You may want to discuss this above.-- ( ) Prefer ""object has role"" per discussion above-- ( ) [MASK] For user friendliness. ( ) For user friendliness you may add aliases. Also have no indication that the type of kinship is with respect of the relationship to the person item on the page where added, but ""object has role"" clearly have. also discussed the ambiguity.-- ( ) ""Object has role"" is no better and lacks clarity. I doubt that anyone is going to think of some other person as an ""object"", nor that a relationship of grandparent, or father-in-law as a ""role"". They are people and have relationships/kinships/...  — For user friendliness you may add aliases. Also have no indication that the type of kinship is with respect of the relationship to the person item on the page where added, but ""object has role"" clearly have. also discussed the ambiguity. -- ( ) ""Object has role"" is no better and lacks clarity. I doubt that anyone is going to think of some other person as an ""object"", nor that a relationship of grandparent, or father-in-law as a ""role"". They are people and have relationships/kinships/...  — ""Object has role"" is no better and lacks clarity. I doubt that anyone is going to think of some other person as an ""object"", nor that a relationship of grandparent, or father-in-law as a ""role"". They are people and have relationships/kinships/...  — [MASK] User friendly, enough specific, easier queryable. -- ( ) [MASK] is too generic and is not defined enough. — ( ) Comment I would like to reduce number of basic properties to memorize: SPARQL/easier data entry, but I also understand comments about ""Object has role"". ( ) Wait for the outcome of , above. [MASK] Kinship doesn't lead to participation or importance, so and are not applicable. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: version_type_(P548): Clear consensus to [MASK]. -- Clear consensus to [MASK]. -- [MASK] Deleting the property makes the relevant data less clear. ( ) We don't need seperate properties if one property don't not make confusion. and is both already merged with (at least) 3 different properties. -- ( ) I don't like our ""part_of"" property and how it tries to do many different things either. ( ) We don't need seperate properties if one property don't not make confusion. and is both already merged with (at least) 3 different properties.-- ( ) I don't like our ""part_of"" property and how it tries to do many different things either. ( ) I don't like our ""part_of"" property and how it tries to do many different things either. ( ) [MASK] With P:548, we know the value type of this qualifier (Q28530564); with the ""global"" property ""object has role"", we can't set this constraint and this property will be less well defined for this specific use than P:548 (notifying has more than 50 participants and . Please post on instead. because this property is about software version type). — ( ) [MASK] Specific properties are easier to use than a generic qualifier. The generic qualifier can't have constraints specific to this domain on it as Metamorforme42 points out. (Or, if there was some way to conditionally apply them to the generic qualifier, I think that would get very unwieldy quickly if generic qualifiers have dozen of domain-specific conditional constraints on them.) ( ) [MASK] For the time being the specific property has big usability benefits as pointed out before while the disadvantages are marginal. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: taxon_author_(P405): Consensus to [MASK] as it doesn't replicate directly and has other semantics. ( ) Consensus to [MASK] as it doesn't replicate directly and has other semantics. ( ) [MASK] is a widely used property, is a qualifier. Also @ : as one of the more active taxon people. ( ) Hence the final sentence of my nomination, which you appear to have overlooked. Hence the final sentence of my nomination, which you appear to have overlooked. [MASK] because Mr. Mabbett's proposal is not very well grounded. -- ( ) Succu's objection (he having been selectively canvassed) contains no substance; and certainly offers no reason why two properties are needed. It appears to be merely . „selectively canvassed”, ? Why should we use the new property. Please give some arguments. Thanks -- ( ) Your reading powers are awesome, ""selectively canvassed"" is indeed what I wrote. Now please apply those powers to the proposal I made at the start of this section. Your primary proposal is to delete in favor of Your secondary proposal is to broaden the context of in favor of deleting Your argument is „ is rendered redundant by the recent creation of “ So what is „ rendered redundant “ by the creation of this new property? Please be more talkative, Mr. Mabbett. Thanks. -- ( ) Succu's objection (he having been selectively canvassed) contains no substance; and certainly offers no reason why two properties are needed. It appears to be merely . „selectively canvassed”, ? Why should we use the new property. Please give some arguments. Thanks -- ( ) Your reading powers are awesome, ""selectively canvassed"" is indeed what I wrote. Now please apply those powers to the proposal I made at the start of this section. Your primary proposal is to delete in favor of Your secondary proposal is to broaden the context of in favor of deleting Your argument is „ is rendered redundant by the recent creation of “ So what is „ rendered redundant “ by the creation of this new property? Please be more talkative, Mr. Mabbett. Thanks. -- ( ) „selectively canvassed”, ? Why should we use the new property. Please give some arguments. Thanks -- ( ) Your reading powers are awesome, ""selectively canvassed"" is indeed what I wrote. Now please apply those powers to the proposal I made at the start of this section. Your primary proposal is to delete in favor of Your secondary proposal is to broaden the context of in favor of deleting Your argument is „ is rendered redundant by the recent creation of “ So what is „ rendered redundant “ by the creation of this new property? Please be more talkative, Mr. Mabbett. Thanks. -- ( ) Your reading powers are awesome, ""selectively canvassed"" is indeed what I wrote. Now please apply those powers to the proposal I made at the start of this section. Your primary proposal is to delete in favor of Your secondary proposal is to broaden the context of in favor of deleting Your argument is „ is rendered redundant by the recent creation of “ So what is „ rendered redundant “ by the creation of this new property? Please be more talkative, Mr. Mabbett. Thanks. -- ( ) Your primary proposal is to delete in favor of Your secondary proposal is to broaden the context of in favor of deleting Your argument is „ is rendered redundant by the recent creation of “ So what is „ rendered redundant “ by the creation of this new property? Please be more talkative, Mr. Mabbett. Thanks. -- ( ) I would prefer that taxonomy would also use the qualifier solution with but I see no reason to delete this existing property as long as the data isn't moved over. ( ) In nomenclature it's not important which of several authors coined the name . There is no one to one relationship between these two qualifiers. See also . -- ( ) In nomenclature it's not important which of several authors coined the name . There is no one to one relationship between these two qualifiers. See also . -- ( ) I have been convinced to [MASK] . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: inventory_number_(P217): Consensus to [MASK]. ( ) Consensus to [MASK]. ( ) [MASK] no, it's not the same. is used with and with . ( ) That can easily be resolved by merging and . That can easily be resolved by merging and . [MASK] Not the same thing at all. A catalogue code is a specific code signed to an object when it appears in an exhibition. An inventory number is a number assigned by the institution where the object resides. They are two totally different things (and this is what I spent $80k getting into debt to learn... ;-) ( ) That distinction does not appear to be made on Wikidata. Not least since galaxies and other astronomical bodies, for example, are rarely exhibited, nor kept in institutions. Sounds like galaxies should not be using inventory numbers then and just catalogs. When it comes to paintings or other movable heritage, however, we need both. ( ) AFAICT, they do use ""catalogue"" (despite not being exhibited). Why do we need both? Because a painting can be lent out for an exhibition, whereupon its exhibition catalog number is not the same as its inventory number in the lending institution. They are two disctinct concepts that should not be confused. An inventory number refers to a collection, while a catalog number generally refers to a page in a printed book. ( ) The fact that ""a painting can be lent out for an exhibition"" in no way precludes the combining of these two properties. Nor does the fact that some catalogues exist on dead tree media. That distinction does not appear to be made on Wikidata. Not least since galaxies and other astronomical bodies, for example, are rarely exhibited, nor kept in institutions. Sounds like galaxies should not be using inventory numbers then and just catalogs. When it comes to paintings or other movable heritage, however, we need both. ( ) AFAICT, they do use ""catalogue"" (despite not being exhibited). Why do we need both? Because a painting can be lent out for an exhibition, whereupon its exhibition catalog number is not the same as its inventory number in the lending institution. They are two disctinct concepts that should not be confused. An inventory number refers to a collection, while a catalog number generally refers to a page in a printed book. ( ) The fact that ""a painting can be lent out for an exhibition"" in no way precludes the combining of these two properties. Nor does the fact that some catalogues exist on dead tree media. Sounds like galaxies should not be using inventory numbers then and just catalogs. When it comes to paintings or other movable heritage, however, we need both. ( ) AFAICT, they do use ""catalogue"" (despite not being exhibited). Why do we need both? Because a painting can be lent out for an exhibition, whereupon its exhibition catalog number is not the same as its inventory number in the lending institution. They are two disctinct concepts that should not be confused. An inventory number refers to a collection, while a catalog number generally refers to a page in a printed book. ( ) The fact that ""a painting can be lent out for an exhibition"" in no way precludes the combining of these two properties. Nor does the fact that some catalogues exist on dead tree media. AFAICT, they do use ""catalogue"" (despite not being exhibited). Why do we need both? Because a painting can be lent out for an exhibition, whereupon its exhibition catalog number is not the same as its inventory number in the lending institution. They are two disctinct concepts that should not be confused. An inventory number refers to a collection, while a catalog number generally refers to a page in a printed book. ( ) The fact that ""a painting can be lent out for an exhibition"" in no way precludes the combining of these two properties. Nor does the fact that some catalogues exist on dead tree media. Because a painting can be lent out for an exhibition, whereupon its exhibition catalog number is not the same as its inventory number in the lending institution. They are two disctinct concepts that should not be confused. An inventory number refers to a collection, while a catalog number generally refers to a page in a printed book. ( ) The fact that ""a painting can be lent out for an exhibition"" in no way precludes the combining of these two properties. Nor does the fact that some catalogues exist on dead tree media. The fact that ""a painting can be lent out for an exhibition"" in no way precludes the combining of these two properties. Nor does the fact that some catalogues exist on dead tree media. ""It would be detrimental to the project to remove this needed identifier for collections"" is simply a rephrasing of ""we need both""; not an argument as to why both are needed. To track paintings in collections on Wikidata, whenever possible, we like to use inventory numbers of institutions, because we can easily cross-reference these with other publications and online resources. The visual image and measurements are not enough to determine the uniqueness of a painting and other characteristics are needed. The inventory number is just one piece of the puzzle. Catalogs of works in an institution may or may not be published by institutions themselves, but are also an important piece of the puzzle. Art auction data is also important; in that case, a painting may be assigned a lot number and this is often used in art provenance records in combination with the date, place, and name of the auction house, whether or not that specific painting made it into the printed sale catalog (if a sale catalog was even printed at all). At a following auction, the same lot number can be re-used, so to refer to a specific painting in any auction you need the number in combination with the other references. The exact same thing is true for collections, except the accessioning and deaccessioning process happens a lot more slowly. Catalogs, on the other hand, are assembled at the discretion of the author, and sometimes the author is well versed in provenance methodology, and sometimes not. So a catalog might be recorded by number, number + page number, catalog number, footnote number or illustration number in addition to catalog number, etc. So the idea of using an inventory number for a collection is a lot cleaner than using a catalog number, which can be quite messy. Museums produce catalogs regularly for exhibitions, and from time to time they may produce highlight catalogs (which sometimes do and sometimes don't include the inventory numbers). They very rarely produce catalogs on paper of the entire collection. Probably less often than once every 15 years or so. Merging these fields would making tracking much more difficult, in addition to confusing the number assigned to a painting by an institution in its inventory and the number assigned to a painting by the institution in one of its printed catalogs. ( ) To track paintings in collections on Wikidata, whenever possible, we like to use inventory numbers of institutions, because we can easily cross-reference these with other publications and online resources. The visual image and measurements are not enough to determine the uniqueness of a painting and other characteristics are needed. The inventory number is just one piece of the puzzle. Catalogs of works in an institution may or may not be published by institutions themselves, but are also an important piece of the puzzle. Art auction data is also important; in that case, a painting may be assigned a lot number and this is often used in art provenance records in combination with the date, place, and name of the auction house, whether or not that specific painting made it into the printed sale catalog (if a sale catalog was even printed at all). At a following auction, the same lot number can be re-used, so to refer to a specific painting in any auction you need the number in combination with the other references. The exact same thing is true for collections, except the accessioning and deaccessioning process happens a lot more slowly. Catalogs, on the other hand, are assembled at the discretion of the author, and sometimes the author is well versed in provenance methodology, and sometimes not. So a catalog might be recorded by number, number + page number, catalog number, footnote number or illustration number in addition to catalog number, etc. So the idea of using an inventory number for a collection is a lot cleaner than using a catalog number, which can be quite messy. Museums produce catalogs regularly for exhibitions, and from time to time they may produce highlight catalogs (which sometimes do and sometimes don't include the inventory numbers). They very rarely produce catalogs on paper of the entire collection. Probably less often than once every 15 years or so. Merging these fields would making tracking much more difficult, in addition to confusing the number assigned to a painting by an institution in its inventory and the number assigned to a painting by the institution in one of its printed catalogs. ( ) [MASK] I don't think we have to call everything a catalog whether or not it is a catalog. ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] per Missvain, not the same thing at all. ( ) . [MASK] I first ran into catalogue code and inventory number in connection with paintings. To me the inventory number is special from a catalogue code in that it entails an ownership and it is the owner that makes the inventory number and there is usually only one. Catalogues may be made by anyone and every exhibition or ""reasoned catalogue"" ( ) may have there own numbering scheme. For most painting we would expected that there is always an inventory number. There may be zero or more catalogue numbers. I also concur with the arguments of . and to me are also distinct. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: doubles_record_(P555)_and_singles_record_(P564): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete per the nominator--these should be replaced since a wins/losses combined property is non-granular semantic information (indicated by the expected dash). -- ( ) Delete . ( ) [MASK] for now. Four properties make more sense, but this property should be kept until then. Qualifiers are not an appropriate substitute for sub-properties, though. -- ( ) ""but this property should be kept until then"" - We have the replacement properties and just need to do the replacement. Voting [MASK] based on the fact it's being used is not a valid reason for keeping. Lastly, sub-properties are a bad thing . -- ( ) What are those properties? I only see and , we are still lacking ""games won in singles/doubles"", ""games lost in singles/doubles"". -- ( ) @ : something generic like wins ""singles tennis match"" (which would be P31 and P279 tennis match P279 competition or similar). -- ( ) @ : In your proposal, how should we then call-up the replacer for ""win-loss balance in singles"" in infoboxes (currently called-up as {{#property:P564}})? I have no clue as to how the code would look like that I would have to write in a tennis player's infobox. ( ) ""but this property should be kept until then"" - We have the replacement properties and just need to do the replacement. Voting [MASK] based on the fact it's being used is not a valid reason for keeping. Lastly, sub-properties are a bad thing . -- ( ) What are those properties? I only see and , we are still lacking ""games won in singles/doubles"", ""games lost in singles/doubles"". -- ( ) @ : something generic like wins ""singles tennis match"" (which would be P31 and P279 tennis match P279 competition or similar). -- ( ) @ : In your proposal, how should we then call-up the replacer for ""win-loss balance in singles"" in infoboxes (currently called-up as {{#property:P564}})? I have no clue as to how the code would look like that I would have to write in a tennis player's infobox. ( ) What are those properties? I only see and , we are still lacking ""games won in singles/doubles"", ""games lost in singles/doubles"". -- ( ) @ : something generic like wins ""singles tennis match"" (which would be P31 and P279 tennis match P279 competition or similar). -- ( ) @ : In your proposal, how should we then call-up the replacer for ""win-loss balance in singles"" in infoboxes (currently called-up as {{#property:P564}})? I have no clue as to how the code would look like that I would have to write in a tennis player's infobox. ( ) @ : something generic like wins ""singles tennis match"" (which would be P31 and P279 tennis match P279 competition or similar). -- ( ) @ : In your proposal, how should we then call-up the replacer for ""win-loss balance in singles"" in infoboxes (currently called-up as {{#property:P564}})? I have no clue as to how the code would look like that I would have to write in a tennis player's infobox. ( ) @ : In your proposal, how should we then call-up the replacer for ""win-loss balance in singles"" in infoboxes (currently called-up as {{#property:P564}})? I have no clue as to how the code would look like that I would have to write in a tennis player's infobox. ( ) Delete and can be used but we need a good qualifier to make the distinction between single/double/mixed matches. -- ( ) ? -- ( ) ? -- ( ) [MASK] These two properties are actively used on quite some languages, in tennis-infoboxes. Deletion will make it a lot more difficult to maintain the value of these items (that is changing basically every week for active players), as well as replacing those properties in the infoboxes. For tennis, this is just the way statistics are registered, and this is the only way this makes sense for tennis. For other sports, these properties should not be used. Maybe the name of the properties (or their explanation) should be changed to clarify that they are tennis only? ( ) [MASK] The concept of 'win/loss balance' is a natural phenomenon in tennis. A concept like 'number of matches won' in itself has no meaning there (neither has 'number of matches lost'). It's only the two numbers together that make sense. The inclusion of and in tennis players' infoboxes is finally coming into use (more than just occasionally), and their wikidata values are actually getting updated by the international community. Replacing them by four new properties (two would not work, obviously) would cause more complicated code to include them in the infoboxes, and that will most probably arouse new objections against wikidata. ( ) Delete . Also, with and with qualifiers we can make some interesting queries. I can do the data conversion task here (I was anyway planning to update data from websites) and notify Wikipedias etc. @ , : fyi, I created a simple to be used in tennis infoboxes. It may will require some clean-up, but that is a different story. -- ( ) @ , : extra-ping, as I forgot to sign. -- ( ) Unfortunately LUA is not (yet) accepted on some wiki's, like nl-wiki. Use of WikiData-data is actually not fully accepted yet, though ""we"" try to push it through in some areas where it makes most sense, like these two highly changing properties (updated weekly, in theory). But in theory LUA would indeed take away some of the issues, but for the moment I would prefer to [MASK] these two properties, as without them some wiki's will simply loose the data completely right now. ( ) Client decisions not to use Lua (really??) shouldn't affect our decisions. That's just, frankly, dumb . While they're welcome to their opinion, they're also welcome to the consequences of that opinion, and one of them is that they may not have access to the same power as other wikis do. -- ( ) And we wouldn't delete and , when converting data. At least, I was planning to do that. Once I would convert everything (keeping also old props), then is the work with Wikipedias. We can also have some logic in module - if there isn't the ""new"" properties, load the ""old"" ones. Yes, we would have extra work in maintaining data for some while, but with help of SPARQL queries that is pretty easily doable with python. -- ( ) There is no official vote or something that lua shouldn't be used on nlwiki. Edoderoo is probably talking about and the relevant discussion. It's not weird that a part of the community doesn't like pushing of ""outsiders"". @ , : extra-ping, as I forgot to sign. -- ( ) Unfortunately LUA is not (yet) accepted on some wiki's, like nl-wiki. Use of WikiData-data is actually not fully accepted yet, though ""we"" try to push it through in some areas where it makes most sense, like these two highly changing properties (updated weekly, in theory). But in theory LUA would indeed take away some of the issues, but for the moment I would prefer to [MASK] these two properties, as without them some wiki's will simply loose the data completely right now. ( ) Client decisions not to use Lua (really??) shouldn't affect our decisions. That's just, frankly, dumb . While they're welcome to their opinion, they're also welcome to the consequences of that opinion, and one of them is that they may not have access to the same power as other wikis do. -- ( ) And we wouldn't delete and , when converting data. At least, I was planning to do that. Once I would convert everything (keeping also old props), then is the work with Wikipedias. We can also have some logic in module - if there isn't the ""new"" properties, load the ""old"" ones. Yes, we would have extra work in maintaining data for some while, but with help of SPARQL queries that is pretty easily doable with python. -- ( ) There is no official vote or something that lua shouldn't be used on nlwiki. Edoderoo is probably talking about and the relevant discussion. It's not weird that a part of the community doesn't like pushing of ""outsiders"". Unfortunately LUA is not (yet) accepted on some wiki's, like nl-wiki. Use of WikiData-data is actually not fully accepted yet, though ""we"" try to push it through in some areas where it makes most sense, like these two highly changing properties (updated weekly, in theory). But in theory LUA would indeed take away some of the issues, but for the moment I would prefer to [MASK] these two properties, as without them some wiki's will simply loose the data completely right now. ( ) Client decisions not to use Lua (really??) shouldn't affect our decisions. That's just, frankly, dumb . While they're welcome to their opinion, they're also welcome to the consequences of that opinion, and one of them is that they may not have access to the same power as other wikis do. -- ( ) And we wouldn't delete and , when converting data. At least, I was planning to do that. Once I would convert everything (keeping also old props), then is the work with Wikipedias. We can also have some logic in module - if there isn't the ""new"" properties, load the ""old"" ones. Yes, we would have extra work in maintaining data for some while, but with help of SPARQL queries that is pretty easily doable with python. -- ( ) There is no official vote or something that lua shouldn't be used on nlwiki. Edoderoo is probably talking about and the relevant discussion. It's not weird that a part of the community doesn't like pushing of ""outsiders"". Client decisions not to use Lua (really??) shouldn't affect our decisions. That's just, frankly, dumb . While they're welcome to their opinion, they're also welcome to the consequences of that opinion, and one of them is that they may not have access to the same power as other wikis do. -- ( ) And we wouldn't delete and , when converting data. At least, I was planning to do that. Once I would convert everything (keeping also old props), then is the work with Wikipedias. We can also have some logic in module - if there isn't the ""new"" properties, load the ""old"" ones. Yes, we would have extra work in maintaining data for some while, but with help of SPARQL queries that is pretty easily doable with python. -- ( ) There is no official vote or something that lua shouldn't be used on nlwiki. Edoderoo is probably talking about and the relevant discussion. It's not weird that a part of the community doesn't like pushing of ""outsiders"". And we wouldn't delete and , when converting data. At least, I was planning to do that. Once I would convert everything (keeping also old props), then is the work with Wikipedias. We can also have some logic in module - if there isn't the ""new"" properties, load the ""old"" ones. Yes, we would have extra work in maintaining data for some while, but with help of SPARQL queries that is pretty easily doable with python. -- ( ) There is no official vote or something that lua shouldn't be used on nlwiki. Edoderoo is probably talking about and the relevant discussion. It's not weird that a part of the community doesn't like pushing of ""outsiders"". There is no official vote or something that lua shouldn't be used on nlwiki. Edoderoo is probably talking about and the relevant discussion. It's not weird that a part of the community doesn't like pushing of ""outsiders"". [MASK] Both properties are used in 40+ projects.-- ( ) Delete per above as splittable into two propereties. ( ) Why has this discussion stayed open for over a year? ( ) [MASK] Per Vinkje83 and Edoderoo, these properties are widely used in tennis infoboxes in this combination (win/loss). -- ( ) [MASK] used in many Wikipedia templates, can't be removed. ( ) Delete -- ( ) [MASK] (for now) because I can't see (nobody's demonstrated it here) how the properties would be replaced. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P3417: Consensus to [MASK] in the present form. ( ) Consensus to [MASK] in the present form. ( ) I don't understand what's the value of knowing what tag is used for a certain topic on a closed, private and proprietary website, especially one which works actively against public dissemination of knowledge and even archival: A ridiculous nomination, and a very pointy one just after . Speedy [MASK] . The property uses IDs for an external source, so the data type is valid IMHO. [MASK] -- ( ) When the external-id datatype was introduced, we had about which properties should have external-id datatype. Consensus was somehow that an external-id should uniquely identify a concept, that's why certain string-properties weren't converted to external-id, e.g. . For me is pretty similar to as it was introduced to group together posts and ease searching. They don't identify concepts but group together ideas like , , . Therefore I Support to move this property from external-id to string datatype. -- ( ) The claim that ""They don't identify concepts"" is ; a few examples have been used to suggest that it is true, but they are a small and atypical minority. It's not an atypical minority. Many topics are simply ill defined, e.g. added to is about Kernel in operating systems but also about popcorn kernels and kernel in mathematics. added to is about the term, the region and a campmobile. Some more flaws from the Q10000-Q12000 range: on , on , on , on . -- ( ) Mis-application of a topic by a tiny number of individuals (there were just three for popcorn, out of 204 questions) does not invalidate the correct usage. This is no different to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons categories, for example, or other external IDs. Commons categories are indeed not better than quora topics, thats why has string datatype. -- ( ) No, it is not. Impressiv: a not existing question about the which renders to a related question by @ :. Thus Delete -- ( ) There were acutally more questions on . Pigsonthewing has now fixed all the issues I pointed out above. This is positive for Quora but it covers up the issue. -- ( ) I'm not clear whether Succu's reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created is that 701 people (Too many? Too few?) follow a single specific topic; or that it was me who made the valid match between that single topic and the equivalent item in Wikidata. Which is it? I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. The claim that ""They don't identify concepts"" is ; a few examples have been used to suggest that it is true, but they are a small and atypical minority. It's not an atypical minority. Many topics are simply ill defined, e.g. added to is about Kernel in operating systems but also about popcorn kernels and kernel in mathematics. added to is about the term, the region and a campmobile. Some more flaws from the Q10000-Q12000 range: on , on , on , on . -- ( ) Mis-application of a topic by a tiny number of individuals (there were just three for popcorn, out of 204 questions) does not invalidate the correct usage. This is no different to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons categories, for example, or other external IDs. Commons categories are indeed not better than quora topics, thats why has string datatype. -- ( ) No, it is not. Impressiv: a not existing question about the which renders to a related question by @ :. Thus Delete -- ( ) There were acutally more questions on . Pigsonthewing has now fixed all the issues I pointed out above. This is positive for Quora but it covers up the issue. -- ( ) I'm not clear whether Succu's reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created is that 701 people (Too many? Too few?) follow a single specific topic; or that it was me who made the valid match between that single topic and the equivalent item in Wikidata. Which is it? I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. It's not an atypical minority. Many topics are simply ill defined, e.g. added to is about Kernel in operating systems but also about popcorn kernels and kernel in mathematics. added to is about the term, the region and a campmobile. Some more flaws from the Q10000-Q12000 range: on , on , on , on . -- ( ) Mis-application of a topic by a tiny number of individuals (there were just three for popcorn, out of 204 questions) does not invalidate the correct usage. This is no different to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons categories, for example, or other external IDs. Commons categories are indeed not better than quora topics, thats why has string datatype. -- ( ) No, it is not. Impressiv: a not existing question about the which renders to a related question by @ :. Thus Delete -- ( ) There were acutally more questions on . Pigsonthewing has now fixed all the issues I pointed out above. This is positive for Quora but it covers up the issue. -- ( ) I'm not clear whether Succu's reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created is that 701 people (Too many? Too few?) follow a single specific topic; or that it was me who made the valid match between that single topic and the equivalent item in Wikidata. Which is it? I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. Mis-application of a topic by a tiny number of individuals (there were just three for popcorn, out of 204 questions) does not invalidate the correct usage. This is no different to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons categories, for example, or other external IDs. Commons categories are indeed not better than quora topics, thats why has string datatype. -- ( ) No, it is not. Impressiv: a not existing question about the which renders to a related question by @ :. Thus Delete -- ( ) There were acutally more questions on . Pigsonthewing has now fixed all the issues I pointed out above. This is positive for Quora but it covers up the issue. -- ( ) I'm not clear whether Succu's reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created is that 701 people (Too many? Too few?) follow a single specific topic; or that it was me who made the valid match between that single topic and the equivalent item in Wikidata. Which is it? I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. Commons categories are indeed not better than quora topics, thats why has string datatype. -- ( ) No, it is not. No, it is not. Impressiv: a not existing question about the which renders to a related question by @ :. Thus Delete -- ( ) There were acutally more questions on . Pigsonthewing has now fixed all the issues I pointed out above. This is positive for Quora but it covers up the issue. -- ( ) I'm not clear whether Succu's reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created is that 701 people (Too many? Too few?) follow a single specific topic; or that it was me who made the valid match between that single topic and the equivalent item in Wikidata. Which is it? I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. There were acutally more questions on . Pigsonthewing has now fixed all the issues I pointed out above. This is positive for Quora but it covers up the issue. -- ( ) I'm not clear whether Succu's reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created is that 701 people (Too many? Too few?) follow a single specific topic; or that it was me who made the valid match between that single topic and the equivalent item in Wikidata. Which is it? I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. I'm not willingly to guess a concept behind . For me there is simply nothing noteworthy we should link to. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I wasn't asking you to guess anything; I was asking for clarification of your stated reason for wanting to overturn the consensus that saw this property created. Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) Again: Please [MASK] in mind the context of this subthread. Danke. -- ( ) I note that my question was not answered. The data type is according to my opinion correct. [MASK] . ( ) For me it isn't clear: this proposal is for delete the property, or for delete this property and recreate it with a different data type? -- ( ) It's to delete it and recreate it with string datatype. We can only do the opposite change without deleting. For the full deletion of the property, a second section would need to be started. --- That is not correct. We can convert both ways, since the two datatypes use the same internal representation. ( ) It's to delete it and recreate it with string datatype. We can only do the opposite change without deleting. For the full deletion of the property, a second section would need to be started. --- That is not correct. We can convert both ways, since the two datatypes use the same internal representation. ( ) That is not correct. We can convert both ways, since the two datatypes use the same internal representation. ( ) Support conversion to string datatype. In addition the problem that came up on Project Chat which prompted me to start this thread, there seems to be also a stability issue with these strings. As the explanations we get to the contrary are comments like ""ridicule"" and acts conver up instead of explain possible issues that come up, these links seem highly problematic. --- Yet again, I need to remind you that adding ""support"" to your own proposal is double ! voting. Your nomination was described as ""ridiculous"", which is not ""ridicule"". No evidence of a ""cover up"" has been shown. Yet again, I need to remind you that adding ""support"" to your own proposal is double ! voting. Your nomination was described as ""ridiculous"", which is not ""ridicule"". No evidence of a ""cover up"" has been shown. [MASK] Since string and external-id have the same structure this should not be ""delete""; so the real question is whether a conversion is merited. If I am understanding the original external-id conversion arguments, I believe this should be external-id over string. The differentiating factor seems to be whether the value has as a unique . Virtually all identifiers are used for grouping (e.g., all of and ). Though is certainly used for grouping it is not a peer reviewed controlled vocabulary (so it is very easy to come up with different hash tags that essentially cover the same concept). This is why I see it differently than this one. I prefer it to be external id. ( ) [MASK] with external ID. If someone finds it useful, and it's not causing any direct harm to our project, then by all means let it be. ( ) [MASK] ; no opinion about datatype or references. ( ) Support migration , unfortunately [MASK] such claims under external-id could sometimes make problems that may or not about ""language variants""-related markers (e.g. -{}- ), cf. . -- ( ) It's hard to determine any relation between the link you provide and P3417. @ : I added your Phabricator account as a subscriber to so that you know what's wrong within those items now. -- ( ) That appears to eb about a parser bug. There is nothing wrong with this property, which is not mentioned there. It's hard to determine any relation between the link you provide and P3417. @ : I added your Phabricator account as a subscriber to so that you know what's wrong within those items now. -- ( ) That appears to eb about a parser bug. There is nothing wrong with this property, which is not mentioned there. @ : I added your Phabricator account as a subscriber to so that you know what's wrong within those items now. -- ( ) That appears to eb about a parser bug. There is nothing wrong with this property, which is not mentioned there. That appears to eb about a parser bug. There is nothing wrong with this property, which is not mentioned there. It's time this benighted proposal was closed. We have 161K uses of the property, and growing. ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: NSW_Flora_ID_(P3130): no consensus to change data type -- ( ) no consensus to change data type -- ( ) families ( href=/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl? page=nswfl&lvl=fm&name= , e.g. genera ( href=/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl? page=nswfl&lvl=gn&name= , e.g. infraspecific taxa ( href=/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl? page=nswfl&lvl=in&name= , e.g. The problem with Url's is that it makes the data easy to break if they switch away from the php formatted links. ( ) Not really. See . It's also easy to apply URL constraints. -- ( ) Not really. See . It's also easy to apply URL constraints. -- ( ) Oppose deletion until the alternative solutions (plural) I put to Succu on the bot requests page have been properly discussed. Mind to repeat them? -- ( ) There's a link to the discussion in the first line of this section. Obviously it matters to you... (colons too) -- ( ) Mind to repeat them? -- ( ) There's a link to the discussion in the first line of this section. Obviously it matters to you... (colons too) -- ( ) There's a link to the discussion in the first line of this section. Obviously it matters to you... (colons too) -- ( ) Obviously it matters to you... (colons too) -- ( ) I am not a big fan of URL's in Wikidata (unwieldy), and actually I would be in favour of switching GRIN from URL to external identifier (should be quite doable). Having said that, this particular case is a very poor candidate for an external identifier, as it apparently would lead to ""in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp.~australasica"" as a external identifier, which is just as unwieldy as a full URL. - ( ) : Could you express your concerns about datatype URL a little bit more please? -- ( ) My unease consists of two points: 1) if one checks an item the URL's are in a place where one does not expect them (GRIN is in a different block from GBIF, ITIS and other such databases). 2) readability of a URL is very poor (too long). - ( ) Thanks. So both of your concerns are about the handling by the Wikidata UI I think. The migration to external ID resulting into the rendering it in a separated section has a lot of pro and cons but was leaving the datatype URL behind. I'd like to see them united. I'm not sure how this could be done, but I'am sure that declaring fragments of an URL as an external ID is the wrong way. -- ( ) : Could you express your concerns about datatype URL a little bit more please? -- ( ) My unease consists of two points: 1) if one checks an item the URL's are in a place where one does not expect them (GRIN is in a different block from GBIF, ITIS and other such databases). 2) readability of a URL is very poor (too long). - ( ) Thanks. So both of your concerns are about the handling by the Wikidata UI I think. The migration to external ID resulting into the rendering it in a separated section has a lot of pro and cons but was leaving the datatype URL behind. I'd like to see them united. I'm not sure how this could be done, but I'am sure that declaring fragments of an URL as an external ID is the wrong way. -- ( ) My unease consists of two points: 1) if one checks an item the URL's are in a place where one does not expect them (GRIN is in a different block from GBIF, ITIS and other such databases). 2) readability of a URL is very poor (too long). - ( ) Thanks. So both of your concerns are about the handling by the Wikidata UI I think. The migration to external ID resulting into the rendering it in a separated section has a lot of pro and cons but was leaving the datatype URL behind. I'd like to see them united. I'm not sure how this could be done, but I'am sure that declaring fragments of an URL as an external ID is the wrong way. -- ( ) Thanks. So both of your concerns are about the handling by the Wikidata UI I think. The migration to external ID resulting into the rendering it in a separated section has a lot of pro and cons but was leaving the datatype URL behind. I'd like to see them united. I'm not sure how this could be done, but I'am sure that declaring fragments of an URL as an external ID is the wrong way. -- ( ) There are adjacent solutions: , , , , , , but I would not propagate that for taxon items like this one. having indeed a combination of two parts in the ID. I don't see much objection in using something similar here for the identifier, hence having ""lvl=fm&name=Acanthaceae"" as the identifier, which indeed is the identifying part. , , , , , , but I would not propagate that for taxon items like this one. having indeed a combination of two parts in the ID. I don't see much objection in using something similar here for the identifier, hence having ""lvl=fm&name=Acanthaceae"" as the identifier, which indeed is the identifying part. Therefore Oppose to deletion and change into URL-datatype. ( ) A part of an like lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp. ~australasica is not an . An like URL is. -- ( ) A part of a may not be an , an may become part of a . ( ) : Please, could you provide more details? I do not understand what your point is. -- ( ) My point is that I disagree with you that lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp. ~australasica cannot be considered an identifier. The actual fact that the identifier is made part of a URL is hardly an argument. ( ) So a part of an ID makes it an ID of its own? -- ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) A part of an like lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp. ~australasica is not an . An like URL is. -- ( ) A part of a may not be an , an may become part of a . ( ) : Please, could you provide more details? I do not understand what your point is. -- ( ) My point is that I disagree with you that lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp. ~australasica cannot be considered an identifier. The actual fact that the identifier is made part of a URL is hardly an argument. ( ) So a part of an ID makes it an ID of its own? -- ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) A part of a may not be an , an may become part of a . ( ) : Please, could you provide more details? I do not understand what your point is. -- ( ) My point is that I disagree with you that lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp.~australasica cannot be considered an identifier. The actual fact that the identifier is made part of a URL is hardly an argument. ( ) So a part of an ID makes it an ID of its own? -- ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) : Please, could you provide more details? I do not understand what your point is. -- ( ) My point is that I disagree with you that lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp.~australasica cannot be considered an identifier. The actual fact that the identifier is made part of a URL is hardly an argument. ( ) So a part of an ID makes it an ID of its own? -- ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) My point is that I disagree with you that lvl=in&name=Avicennia~marina+subsp. ~australasica cannot be considered an identifier. The actual fact that the identifier is made part of a URL is hardly an argument. ( ) So a part of an ID makes it an ID of its own? -- ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) So a part of an ID makes it an ID of its own? -- ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) Nope. And that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. But the ID has become part of the URL. Do you suggest that the part does not identify the database entry uniquely? ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) Yes: A part of an is not an ID. A part of like 0 is not an ID. -- ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) You seem to state that you want to delete and ? That would take a new deletion request. But what you say about the general case, would mean that ID's with a formatter URL cannot be ID's, because the URL is already an ID. I fail to understand that. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) Of course not. is a shortcut for an external id e.g. for an internal database table id ( ). Saying could be identified by = 0 alone makes no sense to me. A should not treated this way. -- ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) But then, the actual problem is that - just like - its identifier consists of two parts, one describing ""lvl"" (somewhat similar to ""level""), and one pointing to the actual taxon. There is even a third, ""page=nswfl"" pointing to the database. The mere fact that the UI does not allow multiple part entries for ID's does IMHO not disqualify these to be identifiers, combined into a single identifier. Would we switch to URL, then there is the interesting fact that there is no reason to not insert a shortcut like , which interestingly is functioning, but in fact gets close to your mentioning about identified by = 0 . I would not be in favour of that kind of use. ( ) Looks like that was later ( ). -- ( ) Looks like that was later ( ). -- ( ) Looks like that was later ( ). -- ( ) Looks like that was later ( ). -- ( ) Looks like that was later ( ). -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: ISO_639-6_code_(P221): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Comment see . --- Delete Not used, deprecated, better avoid to import useless data. ( ) Comment I do not object to deleting, or keeping. However, I would like to understand why the standard was withdrawn - the ISO language codes are certainly useful for a lot of what we do here, is there a plan to replace it with something else? ( ) @ : Its current status is ""withdrawn, no replacement"", but of course ISO 639-3 and others remain operational. I haven't found the official reasons behind the withdrawal, however they shed some light on the inconvenience of using language codes for language classification and the lack of consensus on the topic, as language are fuzzy living entities and it is quite hard to find boundaries, even more so for variants. On on the ietf-languages mailing list hint towards a lack of usefulness, plus that the agency that was designated as registration authority ceased its operation. -- ( ) @ : Its current status is ""withdrawn, no replacement"", but of course ISO 639-3 and others remain operational. I haven't found the official reasons behind the withdrawal, however they shed some light on the inconvenience of using language codes for language classification and the lack of consensus on the topic, as language are fuzzy living entities and it is quite hard to find boundaries, even more so for variants. On on the ietf-languages mailing list hint towards a lack of usefulness, plus that the agency that was designated as registration authority ceased its operation. -- ( ) [MASK] While I have doubts about how useful or verifiable the data is, several Wikipedias include this in their infoboxes and some are even using the data from this property. - ( ) I'd rather [MASK] : how to store the 639-6 code without this property? Cdlt, ( ) Delete The only non-WMF resource of ISO 639-6, , is even no longer providing the list, and only says ""No Results Found"", for the existing usage of codes, we should announce all the local communities, to run a bot script to remove em from . -- ( ) Delete as per nomination. With the specification withdrawn and the data no longer available this seems to be of little usefulness. There are several other ISO 639 identifiers that can be used in lieu of this one. [MASK] Given that Wikipedia import the data into their infoboxes. We should delete data that get's used in infoboxes without good reason. ( ) @ : deletion of parameters from infoboxes can just be a bot work, iirc. -- ( ) @ : deletion of parameters from infoboxes can just be a bot work, iirc. -- ( ) @ : Whether the individual Wikipedias want to delete the paramater from their infobox is an editorial decision on their side and not something that a Wikidata approved bot can decide. @ : So please provide another online resource, that we could still query ISO 639-6 to make values correct. -- ( ) Why do you believe that the present values aren't correct? ( ) @ : Whether the individual Wikipedias want to delete the paramater from their infobox is an editorial decision on their side and not something that a Wikidata approved bot can decide. @ : So please provide another online resource, that we could still query ISO 639-6 to make values correct. -- ( ) Why do you believe that the present values aren't correct? ( ) @ : Whether the individual Wikipedias want to delete the paramater from their infobox is an editorial decision on their side and not something that a Wikidata approved bot can decide. @ : So please provide another online resource, that we could still query ISO 639-6 to make values correct. -- ( ) Why do you believe that the present values aren't correct? ( ) Why do you believe that the present values aren't correct? ( ) [MASK] as in use. Yes a bot could delete the parameters from the infoboxes, but then that would result in the data currently present in the article disappearing - if we want Wikipedias to use Wikidata as a source for infobox information it is very important that we don't delete the information they are using without their consensus. Separately I don't see why Wikidata has to restrict itself to currently used identifiers, surely our mission includes representing the world as it was rather than just as it is (otherwise why have entries for entities like or properties like instead of deleting the no-longer valid data). ( ) Question according to Wikipedia this has been withdrawn, but was it replaced with anything? If a newer, better standard exists then we should replace this identifier with the newer version, and Wikipedia infoboxes should follow suit. [MASK] as useful and meaningful ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: number_of_elevators_(P1301): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Oppose specific enough, 850+ uses, used by two templates. -- ( ) The issue isn't whether it's used, but whether it's needed. The issue isn't whether it's used, but whether it's needed. Oppose Using a specific property as opposed to a generic property with a qualifier is more user-friendly. It is less clicking/typing, easier for new users to understand, etc. I think qualified generic properties should only be used if no specific property exists, and specific properties should only be [MASK] if they are useless (and 851 uses proves this isn't useless.) ( ) Delete ""number of ..."" (lifts) belong to units. I see ""lits"" as units. One property or qualifier is enough to describe ""totals"". I don't understand why do we enter units, when we can explode property count for every unit. Do we need units or do we need specific properties instead of units? ( ) Oppose This is utilised in templates already, and seems like a reasonable use, which would be much harder to reproduce with the qualifier. . -- ( ) Oppose Used in ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P3649_(P3649): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) That seems true, so let's Delete the new one. ( ) The examples on the property pages are for different people. vs The prefix is only significant if using the ideas url. The same information, the list of papers, is available from the authors.repec.org url, which doesn't need the prefix. -- ( ) I can see that they are for diferent people. I referred to the formats not the values . I can see that they are for diferent people. I referred to the formats not the values . I found the url for displaying the IDEAS interface without having to know the e/f prefix: -- ( ) In that case, Delete . After migrating data; that is - there are now over 500 uses. I already copied all enwiki infobox uses to P2428. Evidently didn't see the deletion notice on the P3649 talk page. -- ( ) Sorry. I didn't know the deletion was being debated. Feel free to do what's best. ( ) In that case, Delete . After migrating data; that is - there are now over 500 uses. I already copied all enwiki infobox uses to P2428. Evidently didn't see the deletion notice on the P3649 talk page. -- ( ) Sorry. I didn't know the deletion was being debated. Feel free to do what's best. ( ) After migrating data; that is - there are now over 500 uses. I already copied all enwiki infobox uses to P2428. Evidently didn't see the deletion notice on the P3649 talk page. -- ( ) Sorry. I didn't know the deletion was being debated. Feel free to do what's best. ( ) I already copied all enwiki infobox uses to P2428. Evidently didn't see the deletion notice on the P3649 talk page. -- ( ) Sorry. I didn't know the deletion was being debated. Feel free to do what's best. ( ) Sorry. I didn't know the deletion was being debated. Feel free to do what's best. ( ) IDEAS is a particular site based on RePEc`s data. Since the identifiers are the same, it is bad to [MASK] both in Wikidata, because data entry efforts split up between the two, and it would be cumbersome trying to [MASK] them in sync. RePEc Author links are meant to be permanent (see the note on the bottom of, e.g., ), whereas IDEAS URLs don't claim that. -- That said, the IDEAS page contains more information (about ranking, download statistics and so on), so there is value in linking to it. Is there something like computed fields in Wikidata, which would allow us to offer only P2428 for input, but to display an additional computed link link to IDEAS? ( ) As of just now, there are 14 items which have P3649 and no P2428, while 1787 items have P2828 and no P3549. ( ) From time to time I check for P3649 and update P2428, if not present. So as of just now, there are no such items. ( ) From time to time I check for P3649 and update P2428, if not present. So as of just now, there are no such items. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1646: Delete Per . ( ) Delete in order to maintain only one property ( ) for all constraint-related questions. P1646 can be derived from P2302. ( ) Migrate and then Delete . -- ( ) Migrate and then Delete . -- ( ) Migrate then Delete . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: terminus_location_(P609): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Strongly agree the deletion reason , I'm just confused with such unnecessary splitting. -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete , confusing and unnecessary. ( ) [MASK] Per . and are bit confusing, but they are used distinctively (both 10,000+ uses). Separate property is better solution than qualifier. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). [MASK] Just because people aren't using it properly doesn't mean it should be [MASK]. Please see where it is properly used, like . -- ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) Notified since the first one didn't go through. -- ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) ( • • ) Notified since the first one didn't go through. -- [MASK] The distinction between the two properties is made in the infoboxes on Wikipedia also. -- ( ) [MASK] I'll concede that this split model doesn't work particularly well with the given tunnel example. However, it is the best solution for road items, for reasons spelled out in the property proposal linked above. - [MASK] , subtle differences, even though people do not use it properly. ( ) Delete I think it would be helpful to have P276 qualifier in P559 - we have to use direction qualifier anyway . P609 is specific but adds no new information over P559 and P276. And we need to qualify P609 anyway using same qualifiers. ( ) It seems apparent that the problem here is that the railways community and the highways community use differently: Highways: for connections to other highways at end of a highway; for the wider geographical area where the end of the highway is located Railways: for the station / depot / feature which marks the end of the railway line. Highways: for connections to other highways at end of a highway; for the wider geographical area where the end of the highway is located Railways: for the station / depot / feature which marks the end of the railway line. We're clearly using for two different purposes. To deal with this situation I suggest split the ""connection at terminus"" use of to a new property and [MASK] for the roads use; and [MASK] the ""feature at terminus"" use of for railways use. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Fotografen.nl_ID_(P3269): no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) [MASK] with modified formatter URL for those photographers where the pages were archived at archive.org, at least until the same information from that archived page is actually also available elsewhere. The fotografen.nl had some quite valuable information that was (and still is) not available on the RKDartists website (sample photos by the photographer, a bibliography, sometimes a short written biography and information about memberships and management of copyrights). And it turns out that the Wayback Machine has partly archived fotografen.nl. I therefore suggest to [MASK] the property and change the formatter URL to https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/http://fotografen.nl/nl/component/nfm_fotografen/fotograaf/id/$1 Examples for checking that fotografen.nl indeed had more information: vs vs vs vs Comment The 'web-beta.archive.org' URL at Internet Archive gives better results than the 'web.archive.org' version. Comment A quick test seems to show that this only works for some photographers whose oeuvres are managed by the Nederlands Fotomuseum. I'm willing to inventorize and remove the values for those statements that don't link to working archive.org pages. [MASK] per Spinster (but do not delete values for pages not archived by archive.org; other arhcives may exist). Comment We have for linking to archived pages. If the outcome is to [MASK] the property, I think adding qualifiers for known archived pages would be better than changing the formatter URL. - ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P3688_(P3688): Unused property, [MASK] . ( ) Unused property, [MASK] . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: inception_(P571): Looks like a mistake, closing this one as invalid . ( ) Looks like a mistake, closing this one as invalid . ( ) @ : Please clarify your problem more. I think this request is a mistake. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P796: consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete A nonsense property. -- ( ) Delete per nom (currently only has two uses),. Comment currently has 388 uses. -- ( ) Comment currently has 388 uses. -- ( ) Delete two qualifiers for the same purpose, older one had more specific labels. ( ) [MASK] These properties have not the same purpose. See for example, if you replace by , you lose the meaning of the statement. (@ , , , , :) — ( ) @ : By ""the meaning of the statement"" are you asking local field names? If yes, those can be locally modified, no needed to absolutely use Property names. -- ( ) @ : Sorry but I don't understand your question: what do you mean by ""local field names""? What I want to say is that when you look at the statement : in , you understand the meaning of the qualifiers. If you replace (in French at least, but it seems the same in English) ""point d'origine"" by ""relatif à"", you cannot understand what it means. — ( ) @ : By ""the meaning of the statement"" are you asking local field names? If yes, those can be locally modified, no needed to absolutely use Property names. -- ( ) @ : Sorry but I don't understand your question: what do you mean by ""local field names""? What I want to say is that when you look at the statement : in , you understand the meaning of the qualifiers. If you replace (in French at least, but it seems the same in English) ""point d'origine"" by ""relatif à"", you cannot understand what it means. — ( ) @ : Sorry but I don't understand your question: what do you mean by ""local field names""? What I want to say is that when you look at the statement : in , you understand the meaning of the qualifiers. If you replace (in French at least, but it seems the same in English) ""point d'origine"" by ""relatif à"", you cannot understand what it means. — ( ) shouldn't use "" "", but P2210 ""reference point"". Most users don't know what Geo datum is. Most users only need one datum in their life . ( ) Geodatums should be where they make sense the most (e.g. geopoint properties, geoshape properties). ( ) shouldn't use "" "", but P2210 ""reference point"". Most users don't know what Geo datum is. Most users only need one datum in their life . ( ) Geodatums should be where they make sense the most (e.g. geopoint properties, geoshape properties). ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P402: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) I notified author, editor who proposed it and editor who supported it during creation. Should I notify ones listed in ""This property is being used by:"" at ? ( ) It seems that was at least partially based on misunderstanding - relation ids may not only be [MASK], the may also change meaning (this type of OSM edit would not be considered ideal, but nobody would complain about changing meaning of relation id) ( ) See also that ended as ""Declined"" ( ) [MASK] Wildely used property. The relation seem at enough stable for Wikidata. I don't think the relation of or will change in time. -- ( ) [MASK] Of course, the content of OSM relations can be changed, the content of Wikidata items too. Delete Wikidata! No, don't do that. Be aware things can bechanged and deal with it. Many important OSM objects are monitored and maintained. As an OSM contributor I have a look at many objects and find them in good condition, stable enough for Wikidata. -- ( ) [MASK] Very useful. I don't have seen any changes in my workspace from OSM so where this ""figures"" comming from. About how many % we're talking from? -- ( ) [MASK] Nothing fundamental has changed since . No need to discuss it again and again.-- ( ) Sorry, I expected older deletion discussion to be linked from the talk page of property (like it is done on Wikipedia) ( ) Sorry, I expected older deletion discussion to be linked from the talk page of property (like it is done on Wikipedia) ( ) Comment The correct way to do OSM would be linking to the tags and not to the id and in this case it would be the ( ). However the problem that needs to be solved before P402 can be deprecated is how to check in template/Lua if the wikidata tag exists. Currently this is not possible and without any external information stored in WD it prevents autozooming to the area in mapframes and automatic linking to the correct OSM relation. Until this happens one solution is to sync OSM wikidata tag values and P402 values with a bot like Mateusz Konieczny considered and I wrote my take on this: ( ) I made a template which links to OSM using wikidata-tags: {{ |Q539324}} → -- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] . ( ) [MASK] . Already used for Kartographer maps in different projects. -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P4264: Consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] Jura's unanswered question was whether the ID's were stable; it certainly would have been nice to have an answer. Perhaps @ : would like to comment on why he ignored the question in closing this? Nevertheless I think this is a useful property (and as far as I can tell the ID""s are stable). ( ) [MASK] Useful property for company disambiguation, and as a source for insights upon it. The process to change an ID is complicated (you have to manually file a request to LinkedIn), making the property rather stable. ( ) At this stage, I think we only need to discuss if the closure was premature or not. If yes, the property can be [MASK]. --- ?huh? I don't think that's wikidata policy at all. ( ) Most administrators and property creators try to follow the applicable process. I noticed that ChristianKl mostly ignores it, but this isn't a reason to let these slip through. It can be created later, once everything is sorted out. -- --- @ :: If you think ChristianKl ignore the simple rule for the property creator, it would be more productive to go directly to the and ask to revoke his right. -- ( ) ? huh? I don't think that's wikidata policy at all. ( ) Most administrators and property creators try to follow the applicable process. I noticed that ChristianKl mostly ignores it, but this isn't a reason to let these slip through. It can be created later, once everything is sorted out. -- --- @ :: If you think ChristianKl ignore the simple rule for the property creator, it would be more productive to go directly to the and ask to revoke his right. -- ( ) Most administrators and property creators try to follow the applicable process. I noticed that ChristianKl mostly ignores it, but this isn't a reason to let these slip through. It can be created later, once everything is sorted out. -- --- @ :: If you think ChristianKl ignore the simple rule for the property creator, it would be more productive to go directly to the and ask to revoke his right. -- ( ) @ :: If you think ChristianKl ignore the simple rule for the property creator, it would be more productive to go directly to the and ask to revoke his right. -- ( ) [MASK] . A disruptive deletion nomination, with no valid rationale. [MASK] - LinkedIn is a prominent service and a property for this is justified. -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P4174: Consensus to [MASK] , given that it's not in quality different than storing and similar identifiers. The property is not to be used to reveal the identity of users who didn't disclose their identity publically and doing so would be subject to sanctions as explained in the usage instructions of the property. ( ) ) Consensus to [MASK] , given that it's not in quality different than storing and similar identifiers. The property is not to be used to reveal the identity of users who didn't disclose their identity publically and doing so would be subject to sanctions as explained in the usage instructions of the property. ( ) ) Delete "" "". -- ( ) Delete - created while several unresolved Strong oppose - real problem with -- ( ) There were no ""unresolved"" opposes; the opposition based on WMF privacy policy was addressed and refuted: the data was already held using ; the new property makes it easier to monitor such use. There were no ""unresolved"" opposes; the opposition based on WMF privacy policy was addressed and refuted: the data was already held using ; the new property makes it easier to monitor such use. [MASK] Otherwise items like will be nonsense. -- ( ) Also ping supporters @ , , , , :@ , , : -- ( ) Also ping supporters @ , , , , :@ , , : -- ( ) [MASK] . But delete the warning message. There is no reason to have for Wikimedia a special policy that we don't have for Facebook or Instagram. ( ) Neutral this property shouldn't have been created until a consensus had been reached on how to use it but now that is has been created, I see no real reason to delete it. PS: I have no illusion, the property is not really the issue here, with or without this property, the exact same data can, were and will be stored (prior to this property creation there was already a hundred of wikimedia user name store in various ways). Cdlt, ( ) [MASK] per my arguments made in the creation conversation — not least that the information is already held; at least this way it can be monitored more sensibly. — [MASK] . Arguments of are right: there is no difference between a Wikimedia username and an other username in an other website (for example Twitter, where a lot of people also use a pseudonym). ( ) Are you saying that you wont be respecting WMF policies even in fields where it's applicable? --- oh yes, there is an enormous difference - on Facebook, you have to use your real name (per FB rules) ; there is NO privacy of FB, per FB rules - on wikimedia, there is an official !! - it is totally different -- ( ) I challenged you in the property proposal to cite any part of WMF policy which means we can't have this property. You failed to do so. You cannot do so. Are you saying that you wont be respecting WMF policies even in fields where it's applicable? --- oh yes, there is an enormous difference - on Facebook, you have to use your real name (per FB rules) ; there is NO privacy of FB, per FB rules - on wikimedia, there is an official !! - it is totally different -- ( ) I challenged you in the property proposal to cite any part of WMF policy which means we can't have this property. You failed to do so. You cannot do so. I challenged you in the property proposal to cite any part of WMF policy which means we can't have this property. You failed to do so. You cannot do so. Delete : I'm really worried about the privacy part. If people [MASK] adding and without source, who says they will do it for this one? Our policies and tools are not good enough for something like this. Attempts to get better policies were useless so far. Delete useless with current ""usage instructions"". Encouraging users to create items about themselves is not a good idea.-- ( ) [MASK] without this property, the data just gets stored in / . For privacy concerns, this doesn't make any difference. -- ( ) After this is [MASK], I don't think it should be stored with that property. Already now, some seem to have used that other property as a way to circumvent as creation of this property was refused due to privacy concerns before. --- @ : I guess the template should use this property? So let's withdraw so-called ""privacy"" problems. -- ( ) After this is [MASK], I don't think it should be stored with that property. Already now, some seem to have used that other property as a way to circumvent as creation of this property was refused due to privacy concerns before. --- @ : I guess the template should use this property? So let's withdraw so-called ""privacy"" problems. -- ( ) @ : I guess the template should use this property? So let's withdraw so-called ""privacy"" problems. -- ( ) [MASK] As every properties, this one is intended for public and referenced information. If it used differently, we have for the disclosure of non-public personal information (with oversighters to remove such data and administrators to ban transgressors). As noticed by , this property allows to store Wikimedia usernames in a single place, making possible to monitor and detect bad usage much more easily than the actual situation. I also agree with : Wikimedia usernames don't differ from or , and I see no one stating that they were created to doxx Twitter and Instagram users... -- ( ) [MASK] per many of the above. Furthermore, this property passed a property proposal in the last few days. PfD should not be used to circumvent that process; the claim of ""lack of consensus "" is false. Well, that ""it passed a property proposal"" is a strongly disputed claim here. -- ( ) That it passed a property proposal is an undisputable truth. The claims that it should not have done so are far from ""strong"", and have no merit. They're made by the original objectors, who aren't happy at being in the losing minority - but the proposal was closed by a neutral admin. Even if the admin was at fault, then the avenue for remedy would be the Admin Noticeboard (or Project Chat), not PfD. Well, that ""it passed a property proposal"" is a strongly disputed claim here. -- ( ) That it passed a property proposal is an undisputable truth. The claims that it should not have done so are far from ""strong"", and have no merit. They're made by the original objectors, who aren't happy at being in the losing minority - but the proposal was closed by a neutral admin. Even if the admin was at fault, then the avenue for remedy would be the Admin Noticeboard (or Project Chat), not PfD. That it passed a property proposal is an undisputable truth. The claims that it should not have done so are far from ""strong"", and have no merit. They're made by the original objectors, who aren't happy at being in the losing minority - but the proposal was closed by a neutral admin. Even if the admin was at fault, then the avenue for remedy would be the Admin Noticeboard (or Project Chat), not PfD. [MASK] - the arguments on the property proposal page against this were unconvincing, as the concerns could be solved with policy and simple queries to [MASK] things in check. We should not be outright deleting a property because it might be a problem, when the utility is clearly demonstrated. -- ( ) @ : could you demonstrate such a simple query that would ""[MASK] things in check""? --- @ : could you demonstrate such a simple query that would ""[MASK] things in check""? --- wrt to this thing being the same as twitter or facebook or instagram, it is an undisputable truth in those social networks users can protect their accounts with a lock, not allowing common people to scrutinize their actions, pictures or vapid fantasies. In Wikimedia projects all your contributions are open , with the exact time you saved them, every topic, every comment in every discussion. We even offer tools to stalk user's edits. And it's not possible to hide any of that under a little tiny lock. It's not even possible to delete your account here. It's not exactly the same. Strakhov ( ) thanks , this is exactly the problem : this makes too easy scrutinizing edits of a user, by persons who, without this property, would not be able to link the username to the real-life identity… only voluntary disclosure by concerned users should be allowed to avoid risks for contributors in their private and/or professional life -- ( ) thanks , this is exactly the problem : this makes too easy scrutinizing edits of a user, by persons who, without this property, would not be able to link the username to the real-life identity… only voluntary disclosure by concerned users should be allowed to avoid risks for contributors in their private and/or professional life -- ( ) [MASK] as any personal identifier it makes no sense to allow home page, but prohibit social media accounts (incl this). Personal web pages are not replacement to other accounts (e.g. youtube cannot replace homepage and vice versa). We could improve any description in order to follow any policy - it is strange to remove property. ( ) Comment many lawbreaking things could be entered in - should we remove them? .. Please don't make this slippery slope argument every time. This is not specific to properties or even specific property . ( ) Delete until issues on ""only the account owner is able to..."" are resolved. We are not in a hurry, since people willing to disclose their Wikimedia alias already discovered how to store this data circumventing and, after all, there are not so many legitimate uses. Strakhov ( ) By the way, our labour here is about constructing a collaborative database, not losing or winning proposals. Strakhov ( ) Comment First, I'd like to see a comment from WMF's legal staff or quotation of privacy policy that states that this property should not exist. Second, this property had actually existed as / before this one was created, so in my opinion there didn't have to be any discussion about its existence. ( ) @ : Would you be able to have an official viewpoint from WMF from the appropriate staff member? Thanks.   — Also @ : the leader of . -- ( ) and I have talked (and consulted with legal) and while we don't believe it is a violation of the Privacy Policy (and so wouldn't try to block it etc) we do note that it does have the potential of being used for harassment or outing (in violation of the Terms of Use) if done without the blessing of the user involved and/or when it isn't pubic knowledge. There are lots of users who are very public with the fact that they are the same person who an article is about (hence the existence of well used talk page templates or user boxes) but it can also be a problematic thing if they're trying to preserve their privacy online like many of us try to do. ( ) @ : Would you be able to have an official viewpoint from WMF from the appropriate staff member? Thanks.  — Also @ : the leader of . -- ( ) and I have talked (and consulted with legal) and while we don't believe it is a violation of the Privacy Policy (and so wouldn't try to block it etc) we do note that it does have the potential of being used for harassment or outing (in violation of the Terms of Use) if done without the blessing of the user involved and/or when it isn't pubic knowledge. There are lots of users who are very public with the fact that they are the same person who an article is about (hence the existence of well used talk page templates or user boxes) but it can also be a problematic thing if they're trying to preserve their privacy online like many of us try to do. ( ) and I have talked (and consulted with legal) and while we don't believe it is a violation of the Privacy Policy (and so wouldn't try to block it etc) we do note that it does have the potential of being used for harassment or outing (in violation of the Terms of Use) if done without the blessing of the user involved and/or when it isn't pubic knowledge. There are lots of users who are very public with the fact that they are the same person who an article is about (hence the existence of well used talk page templates or user boxes) but it can also be a problematic thing if they're trying to preserve their privacy online like many of us try to do. ( ) [MASK] : I'm for keeping it, but to use it only when a profile page on any Wikimedia project already discloses this information. This profile page should then be added as reference URL. -- ( ) [MASK] if a bot can actively revert all changes involving this property by non-autoconfirmed users (on the assumption that all autoconfirmed users are aware of and adhere to the WMF's privacy policy). ( ) [MASK] property similar to properties for other social network. Same policy should be applied. ( ) [MASK] We have properties for user accounts on other sites that are less relevant than Wikimedia. -- ( ) [MASK] per @ , @ and @ . -- ( ) [MASK] Wikidata has many properties for things that count as sensitive personal data: birth date, gender, sexual orientation, union membership and online account are examples. A breach of privacy comes when people use these inappropriately , adding speculative or inappropriately obtained data. The fact that Wikidata can represent such data is not the fault. Hence it is a fallacy to argue against the existence of the property on grounds of possible misuse. None of the arguments for removal seem solid. ( ) [MASK] . Valid identifier with unique values. ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] under @ 's terms. ~ @ : Just close it by you, the petition above is successed. -- ( ) @ : I can't determine what you mean. @ : 5*vote delete - 17*vote [MASK] - 2*neutral, isn't enough to close as clearly no consensus (maybe this must be closed by an uninvolved sysop, but who)? -- ( ) @ : I can't determine what you mean. @ : 5*vote delete - 17*vote [MASK] - 2*neutral, isn't enough to close as clearly no consensus (maybe this must be closed by an uninvolved sysop, but who)? -- ( ) @ : 5*vote delete - 17*vote [MASK] - 2*neutral, isn't enough to close as clearly no consensus (maybe this must be closed by an uninvolved sysop, but who)? -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: category_contains_(P4224): Consensus to [MASK] . ( ) ) Consensus to [MASK] . ( ) ) Then Reasonator should be adjusted. There is no benefit in this property anyway. Thanks, ( ) There is no benefit in this property anyway. Thanks, ( ) [MASK] This property passed recently a property proposal. PfD should not be used to circumvent that process. -- ( ) Comment It is an in-crowd that is involves in property proposals. When their work cannot be objected to it means that their work is to be considered infallible. This argument expresses a superiority that is not warranted. There is damage so I ask for a speedy deletion. Thanks, ( ) Comment It is an in-crowd that is involves in property proposals. When their work cannot be objected to it means that their work is to be considered infallible. This argument expresses a superiority that is not warranted. There is damage so I ask for a speedy deletion. Thanks, ( ) [MASK] but I don't understand 's point with regard to Reasonator, can you provide a link to a case where the new property causes a problem? ( ) Look at what . . Thanks, ( ) as opposed to ? I agree with folks above, we should urge Magnus to support this in Reasonator. Maybe the migration to the new property should wait until that's done. I don't see this as a reason to delete the property though - it's simply wrong to say that a category ""is a list"" of something, categories are not organized that way. ( ) [MASK] per and . ""is a list of"" is absolutely not the same thing. It's Reasonator that needs to adjust. ( ) Humour me and explain why it is not a list. The fact that this list is part of a category is already in the type of the P31. It does not need further refinement imho. Thanks, ( ) That was more abuse of the system to enforce something you like. It was messy and I'm glad we're fixing it. I do not understand your answer. Thanks, ( ) @ : I would say and are quite different things. For one thing, the former is in the latter category. For another, the category has a lot of sub-categories. ( ) In both instances the content of the list at Wikidata is the same. It has little to do with what is actually in an English list or category as it is a combination of what is in German, Russian, Dutch etc categories and lists as well. Thanks, ( ) Humour me and explain why it is not a list. The fact that this list is part of a category is already in the type of the P31. It does not need further refinement imho. Thanks, ( ) That was more abuse of the system to enforce something you like. It was messy and I'm glad we're fixing it. I do not understand your answer. Thanks, ( ) @ : I would say and are quite different things. For one thing, the former is in the latter category. For another, the category has a lot of sub-categories. ( ) In both instances the content of the list at Wikidata is the same. It has little to do with what is actually in an English list or category as it is a combination of what is in German, Russian, Dutch etc categories and lists as well. Thanks, ( ) That was more abuse of the system to enforce something you like. It was messy and I'm glad we're fixing it. I do not understand your answer. Thanks, ( ) I do not understand your answer. Thanks, ( ) @ : I would say and are quite different things. For one thing, the former is in the latter category. For another, the category has a lot of sub-categories. ( ) In both instances the content of the list at Wikidata is the same. It has little to do with what is actually in an English list or category as it is a combination of what is in German, Russian, Dutch etc categories and lists as well. Thanks, ( ) In both instances the content of the list at Wikidata is the same. It has little to do with what is actually in an English list or category as it is a combination of what is in German, Russian, Dutch etc categories and lists as well. Thanks, ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P4420: [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) @ , , , : ping user involved in the proposal discussion and creation. -- ( ) My apologies. I proposed the duplicated property unaware of the old one. They should be merged as much as that is feasible. ~ Delete . I did not check whether a similar property already existed when I created this one. ( ) Delete . I did not check whether a similar property already existed when I created this one. ( ) Delete - only 3 uses, they should be moved over to P3180. Good catch NMaia! ( ) Delete ( ) Delete per above, duplication is just duplication. -- ( ) Delete . - ( ) Speeedy delete (and redirect if possible). No need for disussion of routine housekeeping of this kind. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4492_(P4492): [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4205_(P4205): Consensus to delete -- ( ) Consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete sorry from me too, I'm a bit new to property creation and didn't check this one well enough. -- ( ) A little [MASK] , shouldn't this for personal detail like ? -- ( ) Ah! Indeed, it could be used from user. ( ) @ : Well, my comment above in theory shouldn't be a reason to withdraw this pfd, since I still don't see how an example could be happened, really the 4sq staffs should consider a better way to search *public* user details. -- ( ) UPDATE 2017-10-27 I now changed my vote to Delete , as no body is interesting in that url schema. -- ( ) @ : Well, my comment above in theory shouldn't be a reason to withdraw this pfd, since I still don't see how an example could be happened, really the 4sq staffs should consider a better way to search *public* user details. -- ( ) UPDATE 2017-10-27 I now changed my vote to Delete , as no body is interesting in that url schema. -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Comment I don't doubt the validity of this property, but I doubt its usefulness. In what situation will this be useful for curating public knowledge? ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1905_(P1905): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) It is only used 6 times despite being more than 2 years old It is marked as and is therefore indirectly an identifier despite having monolingual texts as values Two other properties can be used to link to the same dataset: and to use it as a qualifier on to indicate the name, but if we actually want to store these names there I think we should rather use a generic property for that (""name in registry"" or something like that), so that it could be used on other identifiers in the same way. Delete I think would be suitable for showing the name in the Crossref Funder DB. ( ) Delete -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2422_(P2422): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) [MASK] It is different from . There could be a quantity X of a particular medal that have been produced which corresponds to , while only a quantity Y has been awarded, which corresponds to . Also, is also used for ""number of inductees"", so if there is a deletion, some would need to be merged to ""quantity"" as stated above by , but the inductees numbers would need to be merged to ""membership"" property, although it's not as a good as keeping . Thanks, ( ) In the unlikely event that we know that a specified number of medals have been made but only some have been awarded, use, say, with an ""applies to part"" = ""unissued award"" qualifier. In the unlikely event that we know that a specified number of medals have been made but only some have been awarded, use, say, with an ""applies to part"" = ""unissued award"" qualifier. Comment the current English label is ambiguous in the first place, and more akin to ""quantity awarded"", as by its current label it could be interpreted to the number of awards a person has, eg. number of Grammies won. I tend to favour deletion and stop the propagation of ""specialist"" labels that can suitably covered by something like ""quantity"". The more specialist labels makes things more difficult for contributors to have to know or guess, and means that when we come to infoboxes people just get it wrong. Our purpose is to help get it right and easier for infoboxes!   — Delete per Andy − ( ) Delete per Andy ( ) @ , , : Please use {{[MASK]}}, {{Vote_delete}} to make it more clear whether you support or oppose this property existing or support or oppose it's deletion. ( ) So it means I would put ""Quantity: 0"" to the Canadian Victoria Cross because it has never been awarded since its inception, but that would mean it doesn't exist with a quantity of 0, but at the same time I can take a picture of it since it does physically exist... How does it make sense? I support renaming it to ""quantity awarded"" to make it more clear though. ( ) [MASK] . It seems to be used in the meantime. --- It is indeed currently used. But since the nomination explains how such use is redundant, and can thus be replaced, an objection on that basis is irrelevant. It is indeed currently used. But since the nomination explains how such use is redundant, and can thus be replaced, an objection on that basis is irrelevant. Delete In use ≠ cannot be [MASK], we can just mark it as DEPRECATED, find a migration way and finally (i.e. migration is done) delete it. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Open_Funder_Registry_funder_ID_(P3153): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) it is virtually unused it is redundant with its formatter URL is confusing (it goes to the list of publications associated with this funder id) @ , , , , , : participants in the original creation of or @ : participant in the discussion linked above Delete given that this has hardly been used, and DOI works for the same function, I don't think we need this property now. ( ) [MASK] I agree the property has not been used as much as it could, however I don't think this should be a reason to delete it. I'd suggest we focus on a pilot to meaningfully populate it and showcase its use. I also don't fully understand the second reason: a funder ID is not the same as a DOI, even though a funder can be uniquely referenced via a combination of its ID and a dedicated DOI prefix. Finally, the formatter URL is the one provided by Crossref as part of the funder ID specs, but we could change it to take the same value as the RDF URI scheme ( ( ) [MASK] per DarTar. [MASK] The values of the property can be written as one simple number, e.g. 501100000831, or as a DOI with fixed prefix, e.g. 10.13039/501100000831. This was already discussed in the , but voted aggainst using simply DOI. The does not respect that. I also think that it is better to have different properties for DOI, which are mostly used for publications, and this funder's ID. Thus we should change the Mix'n'Match catalogue and additionally replace all DOIs starting with 10.13039 by the corresponding funder's ID. This will then immediately increase the number of times this properties is used to several thousands. Moreover, change the resolving url as suggested above, or simply the DOI resolver. -- ( ) @ , , : Again I am responsible for a good chunk of these DOI uses - simply because I knew that Fundref IDs were part of the DOI system, and I was not aware of this property (as it was unused)… that really stresses the importance of actually using the properties you create within a reasonable amount of time. Once the excitement of the proposal is gone, please do not abandon your brainchildren like this, as they want to rise and shine! Feel free to carry out the replacement that you propose. − ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4039_(P4039): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete as you proposed it and it's practically unused. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P3084: consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P794_(P794)_2: consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete and split to different properties. -- ( ) For {{ |QXXX|PYYY|QZZZ}} : If we want to specify X, use . If we want to specify Y, use . ( but I think P31 is still vague) If we want to specify Z, use . ( Governor of X ) If we want to qualify the whole statement ( ), use . If we want to indicate that X, Y or Z is ""being"" W for some kind of purpose ( , author pseudonyms), use . (Is one property enough? Or is it still vague so that we need three properties?) Totally we need four (or six) new property to indicate this. -- ( ) @ : Your new properties are very unclear to me. Please provide example statements using these new properties. I see the vast majority of instances of being replaced with , a very small number being replaced with or similar, and I don't see a need for any other new properties. If you can identify statements currently using that cannot be replaced with or , I'd like to see them. -- ( ) @ : I'm collecting the current usage of the property. It is much more complex than I have thought. I will post it here once I have done the work.-- ( ) For author pseudonyms, WikiProject Books is recommending using , which might work for other cases where the value in question is actually a name. On the P1810 talk page I have suggested using P1810 as a qualifier to show the preferred name for something in an external database that we have an ID for -- see for example for how different databases prefer to name the same artist. ( ) @ : Your new properties are very unclear to me. Please provide example statements using these new properties. I see the vast majority of instances of being replaced with , a very small number being replaced with or similar, and I don't see a need for any other new properties. If you can identify statements currently using that cannot be replaced with or , I'd like to see them. -- ( ) @ : I'm collecting the current usage of the property. It is much more complex than I have thought. I will post it here once I have done the work. -- ( ) For author pseudonyms, WikiProject Books is recommending using , which might work for other cases where the value in question is actually a name. On the P1810 talk page I have suggested using P1810 as a qualifier to show the preferred name for something in an external database that we have an ID for -- see for example for how different databases prefer to name the same artist. ( ) For author pseudonyms, WikiProject Books is recommending using , which might work for other cases where the value in question is actually a name. On the P1810 talk page I have suggested using P1810 as a qualifier to show the preferred name for something in an external database that we have an ID for -- see for example for how different databases prefer to name the same artist. ( ) How is used externally? ( ) I am not sure how the following couple of current uses would fit the cases above , where the qualifier clause indicates the whole structure of local government that both X and Z were elements of, under which relation P131 held. 10166561 10173048 , where the qualifier clause indicates the whole structure of local government that both X and Z were elements of, under which relation P131 held. 10166561 10173048 Does work for this case? Or do we risk simply transferring all the ambiguity of and dumping it on , if we stretch and stretch the uses of that property ? ( ) For your Glasgow example, I'd use and maybe add a . For your Bedfordshire examples, I'd use or , or even turn it around and use as the qualifier: 10166561 10173048 -- ( ) @ : I think the latter would be very counter-intuitive for anyone trying to write searches. For a property that's almost always used as an external ID to not be present as an ID, but as a qualifier on something else, would (I suspect) almost always be missed. is an interesting idea, but I think it's value should usually be a question not an answer. As for I get a bad feeling every time I see it used for something which is not a physical part, or at least a subdivision (of events in time). Applied to a county I would expect P518 to have the value of a geographical area. Perhaps we need a property ""applies to facet"", or ""applies to aspect"". ( ) @ : Valid point about the latter. As for , I've never seen it as limited to geographic or temporal use, and I don't think it would need to be altered to serve this purpose, but I wouldn't oppose a property like you suggest. -- ( ) Sorry, I meant to write 518 instead of 1013. (I think you did too). Hope I wasn't too confusing! I've gone back and changed it. ( ) That makes more sense. I can see that case for 518; I still think 1013 would be a valid alternative. -- ( ) For your Glasgow example, I'd use and maybe add a . For your Bedfordshire examples, I'd use or , or even turn it around and use as the qualifier: 10166561 10173048 10166561 10173048 -- ( ) @ : I think the latter would be very counter-intuitive for anyone trying to write searches. For a property that's almost always used as an external ID to not be present as an ID, but as a qualifier on something else, would (I suspect) almost always be missed. is an interesting idea, but I think it's value should usually be a question not an answer. As for I get a bad feeling every time I see it used for something which is not a physical part, or at least a subdivision (of events in time). Applied to a county I would expect P518 to have the value of a geographical area. Perhaps we need a property ""applies to facet"", or ""applies to aspect"". ( ) @ : Valid point about the latter. As for , I've never seen it as limited to geographic or temporal use, and I don't think it would need to be altered to serve this purpose, but I wouldn't oppose a property like you suggest. -- ( ) Sorry, I meant to write 518 instead of 1013. (I think you did too). Hope I wasn't too confusing! I've gone back and changed it. ( ) That makes more sense. I can see that case for 518; I still think 1013 would be a valid alternative. -- ( ) @ : I think the latter would be very counter-intuitive for anyone trying to write searches. For a property that's almost always used as an external ID to not be present as an ID, but as a qualifier on something else, would (I suspect) almost always be missed. is an interesting idea, but I think it's value should usually be a question not an answer. As for I get a bad feeling every time I see it used for something which is not a physical part, or at least a subdivision (of events in time). Applied to a county I would expect P518 to have the value of a geographical area. Perhaps we need a property ""applies to facet"", or ""applies to aspect"". ( ) @ : Valid point about the latter. As for , I've never seen it as limited to geographic or temporal use, and I don't think it would need to be altered to serve this purpose, but I wouldn't oppose a property like you suggest. -- ( ) Sorry, I meant to write 518 instead of 1013. (I think you did too). Hope I wasn't too confusing! I've gone back and changed it. ( ) That makes more sense. I can see that case for 518; I still think 1013 would be a valid alternative. -- ( ) @ : Valid point about the latter. As for , I've never seen it as limited to geographic or temporal use, and I don't think it would need to be altered to serve this purpose, but I wouldn't oppose a property like you suggest. -- ( ) Sorry, I meant to write 518 instead of 1013. (I think you did too). Hope I wasn't too confusing! I've gone back and changed it. ( ) That makes more sense. I can see that case for 518; I still think 1013 would be a valid alternative. -- ( ) Sorry, I meant to write 518 instead of 1013. (I think you did too). Hope I wasn't too confusing! I've gone back and changed it. ( ) That makes more sense. I can see that case for 518; I still think 1013 would be a valid alternative. -- ( ) That makes more sense. I can see that case for 518; I still think 1013 would be a valid alternative. -- ( ) @ : Actually this one is a classic or use case. is an item for ""interim court clerk"", not ""interim status"". But I've also seen other use cases of so it's a good idea to add it to the table. ( ) shows 159 professions (""W"") on 822 items (""X"") that can be migrated. There are another ~300 other statements of a similar structure which we can deal with after I migrate all of those 159 professions from to . ( ) shows 159 professions (""W"") on 822 items (""X"") that can be migrated. There are another ~300 other statements of a similar structure which we can deal with after I migrate all of those 159 professions from to . ( ) @ : Good luck with trying to port anything to . The folks that maintain got very angry when I . I think is being used for ""maximum"", ""minimum"", ""upper bound"", ""lower bound"". ( ) @ : I though that might happen, so I've switched to using for those. I don't think generally works for the job – take : is not a part or aspect of ""80"", nor a part or aspect of (""the lower bound of Grenfell Tower fire"" is ambiguous, since it's used for both dead and injured). For ""de facto"" and ""interim"", I think works well. ( ) @ : I think you're right that isn't correct in this case. I've been wondering what ""applies to part"" means - is it part of the subject, part of the object, or part of the relationship? The description says it's part of the subject. In fact when I started going through the use cases of P794, I realised we needed three new properties. Two of them we have already proposed: and . We really need a third one for ""applies to aspect"", alias ""status of statement"" - ""maximum"", ""minimum"", ""interim"" etc. It's like but it's part of the relationship not part of the item, and like but qualifies the accuracy of the statement, not the accuracy of the sourcing. I'm quite busy today so won't be writing the proposal yet, but will try to do over this weekend. ( ) I don't know, I think that may be slicing use cases too thinly. I've already expanded the description of to cover ""aspects"" and the description of to cover things like minima and maxima, I think works well for statuses like ""interim"" and ""acting"", and I think currently covers the accuracy of the statement as well as the accuracy of the sourcing. Can you give an example of a case where none of those existing properties works? ( ) @ : I though that might happen, so I've switched to using for those. I don't think generally works for the job – take : is not a part or aspect of ""80"", nor a part or aspect of (""the lower bound of Grenfell Tower fire"" is ambiguous, since it's used for both dead and injured). For ""de facto"" and ""interim"", I think works well. ( ) @ : I think you're right that isn't correct in this case. I've been wondering what ""applies to part"" means - is it part of the subject, part of the object, or part of the relationship? The description says it's part of the subject. In fact when I started going through the use cases of P794, I realised we needed three new properties. Two of them we have already proposed: and . We really need a third one for ""applies to aspect"", alias ""status of statement"" - ""maximum"", ""minimum"", ""interim"" etc. It's like but it's part of the relationship not part of the item, and like but qualifies the accuracy of the statement, not the accuracy of the sourcing. I'm quite busy today so won't be writing the proposal yet, but will try to do over this weekend. ( ) I don't know, I think that may be slicing use cases too thinly. I've already expanded the description of to cover ""aspects"" and the description of to cover things like minima and maxima, I think works well for statuses like ""interim"" and ""acting"", and I think currently covers the accuracy of the statement as well as the accuracy of the sourcing. Can you give an example of a case where none of those existing properties works? ( ) @ : I think you're right that isn't correct in this case. I've been wondering what ""applies to part"" means - is it part of the subject, part of the object, or part of the relationship? The description says it's part of the subject. In fact when I started going through the use cases of P794, I realised we needed three new properties. Two of them we have already proposed: and . We really need a third one for ""applies to aspect"", alias ""status of statement"" - ""maximum"", ""minimum"", ""interim"" etc. It's like but it's part of the relationship not part of the item, and like but qualifies the accuracy of the statement, not the accuracy of the sourcing. I'm quite busy today so won't be writing the proposal yet, but will try to do over this weekend. ( ) I don't know, I think that may be slicing use cases too thinly. I've already expanded the description of to cover ""aspects"" and the description of to cover things like minima and maxima, I think works well for statuses like ""interim"" and ""acting"", and I think currently covers the accuracy of the statement as well as the accuracy of the sourcing. Can you give an example of a case where none of those existing properties works? ( ) I don't know, I think that may be slicing use cases too thinly. I've already expanded the description of to cover ""aspects"" and the description of to cover things like minima and maxima, I think works well for statuses like ""interim"" and ""acting"", and I think currently covers the accuracy of the statement as well as the accuracy of the sourcing. Can you give an example of a case where none of those existing properties works? ( ) Many uses of this property with value , , etc should be removed by spliting the item to new items Usage of this property as a qualifier of should be replaced by another value of The property is also uses with meaning ""scope of example"" ( ). This can either be removed or replaced by a new property. Minor point, but I am a little confused when you're talking about ""W is a subclass of Y"", when Y appears to be a property. ( ) This is somewhat another kind of subproperty, where is used like and . -- ( ) I have made a couple of tweaks to the table . I hope these are all right. ( ) Here's a query for the most commons classes of X, Z, W, with an example of X : tinyurl.com/zn6rj8z I haven't gone through the whole list yet, but we should perhaps list all the types of proposed ""specifically"" replacements, and make sure we're happy with them, eg ""specifically"" (70 similar uses) There's also quite a lot of potential ""has role"" replacements, where the role would be quite generic eg ""antagonist"" etc, for the purpose of the character's appearance in the film. But that may be okay. ( ) Minor point, but I am a little confused when you're talking about ""W is a subclass of Y"", when Y appears to be a property. ( ) This is somewhat another kind of subproperty, where is used like and . -- ( ) This is somewhat another kind of subproperty, where is used like and . -- ( ) I have made a couple of tweaks to the table . I hope these are all right. ( ) Here's a query for the most commons classes of X, Z, W, with an example of X : tinyurl.com/zn6rj8z I haven't gone through the whole list yet, but we should perhaps list all the types of proposed ""specifically"" replacements, and make sure we're happy with them, eg ""specifically"" (70 similar uses) ""specifically"" (70 similar uses) There's also quite a lot of potential ""has role"" replacements, where the role would be quite generic eg ""antagonist"" etc, for the purpose of the character's appearance in the film. But that may be okay. ( ) @ , : Thanks for that detailed tableǃ I would like to see how many instances of each usage there are, to illuminate the evaluation of the need for new properties. As for specific rows: , , – I see as reasonably suited to each of these roles. In particular, I would not use for . If the concern is that is sometimes referring to the subject, and sometimes to the object, then we could split it into ""subject has role"" and ""object has role"" (what you're calling ""specifically""). , , – these qualifications don't make any sense to me, and don't seem to add any real information – could they just be dropped? , – maybe the two new properties you're suggesting, ""under the name of"" and ""originally as"", could be one? Or maybe not, just spitballing. – I would use here. , , – I see as reasonably suited to each of these roles. In particular, I would not use for . If the concern is that is sometimes referring to the subject, and sometimes to the object, then we could split it into ""subject has role"" and ""object has role"" (what you're calling ""specifically""). , , – these qualifications don't make any sense to me, and don't seem to add any real information – could they just be dropped? , – maybe the two new properties you're suggesting, ""under the name of"" and ""originally as"", could be one? Or maybe not, just spitballing. – I would use here. Basically, I think there may be a need for a couple of new properties, but I think their description and scope need more fleshing out, and we need to look first to existing properties that may be able to do the job without overly stretching their scope. -- ( ) Agreed. Clearly ""subject has role"" and ""object has role"" are not the same thing, For example if we didn't have and but have and / , you may represent the relationship of and as , with qualifier ""subject has role"" or ""object has role"" (though we mean the latter if we use ). Currently ""subject has role"" is represented by either or , and ""object has role"" is represented by five different properties ( , , , and ), we should clean them up. Maybe itself also needs discussion.-- ( ) Agreed. Clearly ""subject has role"" and ""object has role"" are not the same thing, For example if we didn't have and but have and / , you may represent the relationship of and as , with qualifier ""subject has role"" or ""object has role"" (though we mean the latter if we use ). Currently ""subject has role"" is represented by either or , and ""object has role"" is represented by five different properties ( , , , and ), we should clean them up. Maybe itself also needs discussion. -- ( ) Here is an updated query for the most common joint combinations of Y and (class of W): tinyurl.com/hdx3axc . For each it gives an example X and corresponding example W. (Thanks due to for clueing me into the use of ""named subqueries"" through ). Also this alternative ordering of the same query, showing all the classes of W for a particular Y together: tinyurl.com/hn8fey9 Splitting ""as"" and ""has role"" into ""subject has role"" and ""object has role"" could go a long way towards clarifying most of these. It tends to follow fairly closely whether Y is one-to-many or many-to-one. In turn the uses on ""subject has role"" and ""object has role"" could then be examined to see if any uses could or should be further cascaded down to more specific properties. ( ) Later we may want to write a new help page indicating the differents between them and how to use them. -- ( ) Later we may want to write a new help page indicating the differents between them and how to use them.-- ( ) As we're agreed, I've created . -- ( ) If you believe the data that's contained should be moved depending on circumstance to different more specific properties, first move the data and then come back when the property is empty. As long as it isn't [MASK] . ( ) [MASK] agree with ChristianKl. ( ) [MASK] in the short term but deprecate . I've updated a few items of the table to show where they should go. ( ) Delete Too hard to translate in some asian languages. -- ( ) Without understanding all of the technicalities above, I thought of using this property to better reflect the parameter ""founded"" in some infoboxes. "" :1647"" is not much of information actually. Was it then founded as a populated place, a village, a city with certain status or whatever? A single entity can be founded several times in that aspect. A city can be burned and founded again! I agree, that this is very difficult to turn into descent language, but I think it at least makes sense semantically. -- 16:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)~ Just to let you all know that I'm working on these and have built a tool to gradually migrate them. ( ) There seems to be a lot of Pokemon using P31 + P794 to indicate type changes: @ , , , : We're now getting to the long tail of unusual use cases (see status report below). Can you help finding appropriate qualifiers to migrate the remaining statements? ( ) Sure thing. I'll add use cases I come across to the table if they don't seem to match anything there already. ( ) @ , , , : I've come across a few more cases that fit the ""identity of subject in relation to statement"" mold, so I've gone ahead and , though I'm thinking it might be met by modifying the description of or . ( ) @ : Thanks so much for proposing the ""identity of subject"" property. I think we have slightly different views on where we should draw the boundary between this new property and , though we agree on a large proportion of use cases where it is clear that we need a new qualifier for this purpose. ( ) Yes, by all means, adjust the boundaries as needed. You have my approval to edit the proposal itself as you see fit. ( ) @ : While we're on the case, I've proposed too. ( ) @ : So, to clarify, it looks like you want these new properties to only take items that refer specifically to the subject/object in question, right? And for cases like , where the ""identity"" is generic, you want to use / ? That's fine with me if that's the case, just want to clarify. ( ) @ : I think so, except when is more appropriate! ( ) I think will be another appropriate use of the new property. is an academic qualification and is a more specific form of it. ( ) There seems to be a lot of Pokemon using P31 + P794 to indicate type changes: @ , , , : We're now getting to the long tail of unusual use cases (see status report below). Can you help finding appropriate qualifiers to migrate the remaining statements? ( ) Sure thing. I'll add use cases I come across to the table if they don't seem to match anything there already. ( ) @ , , , : I've come across a few more cases that fit the ""identity of subject in relation to statement"" mold, so I've gone ahead and , though I'm thinking it might be met by modifying the description of or . ( ) @ : Thanks so much for proposing the ""identity of subject"" property. I think we have slightly different views on where we should draw the boundary between this new property and , though we agree on a large proportion of use cases where it is clear that we need a new qualifier for this purpose. ( ) Yes, by all means, adjust the boundaries as needed. You have my approval to edit the proposal itself as you see fit. ( ) Sure thing. I'll add use cases I come across to the table if they don't seem to match anything there already. ( ) @ , , , : I've come across a few more cases that fit the ""identity of subject in relation to statement"" mold, so I've gone ahead and , though I'm thinking it might be met by modifying the description of or . ( ) @ : Thanks so much for proposing the ""identity of subject"" property. I think we have slightly different views on where we should draw the boundary between this new property and , though we agree on a large proportion of use cases where it is clear that we need a new qualifier for this purpose. ( ) Yes, by all means, adjust the boundaries as needed. You have my approval to edit the proposal itself as you see fit. ( ) @ : Thanks so much for proposing the ""identity of subject"" property. I think we have slightly different views on where we should draw the boundary between this new property and , though we agree on a large proportion of use cases where it is clear that we need a new qualifier for this purpose. ( ) Yes, by all means, adjust the boundaries as needed. You have my approval to edit the proposal itself as you see fit. ( ) Yes, by all means, adjust the boundaries as needed. You have my approval to edit the proposal itself as you see fit. ( ) @ : While we're on the case, I've proposed too. ( ) @ : So, to clarify, it looks like you want these new properties to only take items that refer specifically to the subject/object in question, right? And for cases like , where the ""identity"" is generic, you want to use / ? That's fine with me if that's the case, just want to clarify. ( ) @ : I think so, except when is more appropriate! ( ) @ : So, to clarify, it looks like you want these new properties to only take items that refer specifically to the subject/object in question, right? And for cases like , where the ""identity"" is generic, you want to use / ? That's fine with me if that's the case, just want to clarify. ( ) @ : I think so, except when is more appropriate! ( ) @ : I think so, except when is more appropriate! ( ) I think will be another appropriate use of the new property. is an academic qualification and is a more specific form of it. ( ) Delete - too language dependent to be genuinely semantic. Thanks to everybody involved in the migration, that seems to be a lot of work. − ( ) Anyway, is there anyone who knows Armenian to modify , the only one template which is still using p794? -- ( ) Gave it a shot with Google Translate – they were using for a parameter ""function"" of a military unit; I changed it to use . ( ) Gave it a shot with Google Translate – they were using for a parameter ""function"" of a military unit; I changed it to use . ( ) @ : I wrote a PAWS tool to do this. More details here: -- ( ) For Pokémons, is enough, I boldly changed only one remain property namespace usage (in , which psst is a qualifier value of ) to two values and . The is the last one I'm interesting, because that usage (in ) isn't a qualifier but used as source?! -- ( ) [MASK] per this was as a generic qualifier. From the discussion at and the subsequent edits, it appears that even for people who regularly edit this group of qualifier, it's not possible to determine the exact qualifier reliably. As the information included as value still needs to be in Wikidata in a structured way, there is still a need for a generic qualifier. Obviously, if/when a better qualifier is identified, values can be moved there. To query both, use ""|"". --- The ""generic qualifier"" is problematic precisely because it can mean so many different things, and relies on human intelligence to determine which meaning applies, and I think there's broad agreement that this is a problem. Fortunately, the vast majority of use cases have been migrated to more precise properties with no real disagreement. The fact that the few remaining use cases have caused minor disagreement does not justify giving up on the whole endeavor and leaving this ""generic (read vague) qualifier"" to re-accrue uses of the types that have already been migrated to better properties. I'm absolutely sure we'll come together on the handling of the few remaining cases, and make sure the descriptions of the various qualifiers don't leave room for ambiguity – if the process that's been working well for nearly a year is allowed a very reasonable amount more time to wrap up. ( ) Anyway the ""To query both, use ""|"""" can sometimes result (e.g. some template arguments just ended as patchwork because of your ""|"" usage in WQS codes). -- ( ) The ""generic qualifier"" is problematic precisely because it can mean so many different things, and relies on human intelligence to determine which meaning applies, and I think there's broad agreement that this is a problem. Fortunately, the vast majority of use cases have been migrated to more precise properties with no real disagreement. The fact that the few remaining use cases have caused minor disagreement does not justify giving up on the whole endeavor and leaving this ""generic (read vague) qualifier"" to re-accrue uses of the types that have already been migrated to better properties. I'm absolutely sure we'll come together on the handling of the few remaining cases, and make sure the descriptions of the various qualifiers don't leave room for ambiguity – if the process that's been working well for nearly a year is allowed a very reasonable amount more time to wrap up. ( ) Anyway the ""To query both, use ""|"""" can sometimes result (e.g. some template arguments just ended as patchwork because of your ""|"" usage in WQS codes). -- ( ) @ , : You voted to [MASK] the property till it is empty. is empty. What is your verdict? -- ( ) I'm okay with deleting it now. ( ) I'm okay with deleting it now. ( ) It's really unfortunate how this was handled. This was [MASK] before a correct replacement was found. Now we have many statements moved to qualifiers people agree that they are wrong: . The correct approach would be move them back and delete later if possible. --- That's just a complete mischaracterization of a very deliberative process. Replacements were found for all use cases, 99% of the time with no controversy at all. In the tiny subset where there was disagreement, no one said that the qualifiers being used were wrong , only that another qualifier might be better (which can still be addressed), and no one but you expressed the thought that the old, generic qualifier would be better, even temporarily. So no, this property was absolutely not ""[MASK] before a correct replacement was found"", and it was [MASK] after extremely thorough discussion and solid consensus. ( ) I don't recall anyone supporting the solution of using at . Unfortunately I didn't check last month if the contributor had fixed all uses after some were actually moved to a suitable qualifiers. Given this negligent approach, I'm not really confident that the reminder of the changes have been done correctly. --- If you want to query uses of and make sure they're all to your approval, go ahead. Or talk to @ : directly and tell him how ""negligent"" you think he is, and then see if he's interested in helping you. Whining and being dishonest about a very decisive closure you don't happen to like is accomplishing nothing but making yourself undesirable to interact with. ( ) That's just a complete mischaracterization of a very deliberative process. Replacements were found for all use cases, 99% of the time with no controversy at all. In the tiny subset where there was disagreement, no one said that the qualifiers being used were wrong , only that another qualifier might be better (which can still be addressed), and no one but you expressed the thought that the old, generic qualifier would be better, even temporarily. So no, this property was absolutely not ""[MASK] before a correct replacement was found"", and it was [MASK] after extremely thorough discussion and solid consensus. ( ) I don't recall anyone supporting the solution of using at . Unfortunately I didn't check last month if the contributor had fixed all uses after some were actually moved to a suitable qualifiers. Given this negligent approach, I'm not really confident that the reminder of the changes have been done correctly. --- If you want to query uses of and make sure they're all to your approval, go ahead. Or talk to @ : directly and tell him how ""negligent"" you think he is, and then see if he's interested in helping you. Whining and being dishonest about a very decisive closure you don't happen to like is accomplishing nothing but making yourself undesirable to interact with. ( ) I don't recall anyone supporting the solution of using at . Unfortunately I didn't check last month if the contributor had fixed all uses after some were actually moved to a suitable qualifiers. Given this negligent approach, I'm not really confident that the reminder of the changes have been done correctly. --- If you want to query uses of and make sure they're all to your approval, go ahead. Or talk to @ : directly and tell him how ""negligent"" you think he is, and then see if he's interested in helping you. Whining and being dishonest about a very decisive closure you don't happen to like is accomplishing nothing but making yourself undesirable to interact with. ( ) If you want to query uses of and make sure they're all to your approval, go ahead. Or talk to @ : directly and tell him how ""negligent"" you think he is, and then see if he's interested in helping you. Whining and being dishonest about a very decisive closure you don't happen to like is accomplishing nothing but making yourself undesirable to interact with. ( ) Oppose If there's clear replacement then use that replacement, no more harrasement, otherwise I just will make a fire request aganist your administrator right. -- ( ) Anyway, if you would love to open a ≥1km high discussion thread, please do so on rather than here, thank you for regarding. -- ( ) Could you give a few examples of the incorrect you see? ❪ ❫ @ : please see above. There is a query for them on the talk page of . The contributor who converted them almost immediately realized his error and, as I saw them doing some correctly, I assumed initially that everything had been fixed. Unfortunately, this hasn't moved since and it would be bad practice if we would let them linger there a further couple of months, until an acceptable alternative was determined. --- @ : How do you think about them? -- ( ) Thanks for pinging me. Let's continue the discussion at . ( ) Whatever change may be decided in 6 months, we still need to clean up this part. As you did the bulk edits, it's expected that you'd clean it up. If you can't do it or don't have the time to do it, please say so. --- I'm of the opinion that we're better off parking these statements with a sub-optimal qualifier than to return them to P794. I disagree with your description that I ""realized his error"", but I accept that you and a few other editors disagree with me and some other participants of the discussion above who desired to move those qualifiers to , and offered to move the qualifiers again when a better choice of P than both P794 and P1480 is agreed upon . ( ) @ : please see above. There is a query for them on the talk page of . The contributor who converted them almost immediately realized his error and, as I saw them doing some correctly, I assumed initially that everything had been fixed. Unfortunately, this hasn't moved since and it would be bad practice if we would let them linger there a further couple of months, until an acceptable alternative was determined. --- @ : How do you think about them? -- ( ) Thanks for pinging me. Let's continue the discussion at . ( ) Whatever change may be decided in 6 months, we still need to clean up this part. As you did the bulk edits, it's expected that you'd clean it up. If you can't do it or don't have the time to do it, please say so. --- I'm of the opinion that we're better off parking these statements with a sub-optimal qualifier than to return them to P794. I disagree with your description that I ""realized his error"", but I accept that you and a few other editors disagree with me and some other participants of the discussion above who desired to move those qualifiers to , and offered to move the qualifiers again when a better choice of P than both P794 and P1480 is agreed upon . ( ) @ : How do you think about them? -- ( ) Thanks for pinging me. Let's continue the discussion at . ( ) Whatever change may be decided in 6 months, we still need to clean up this part. As you did the bulk edits, it's expected that you'd clean it up. If you can't do it or don't have the time to do it, please say so. --- I'm of the opinion that we're better off parking these statements with a sub-optimal qualifier than to return them to P794. I disagree with your description that I ""realized his error"", but I accept that you and a few other editors disagree with me and some other participants of the discussion above who desired to move those qualifiers to , and offered to move the qualifiers again when a better choice of P than both P794 and P1480 is agreed upon . ( ) Thanks for pinging me. Let's continue the discussion at . ( ) Whatever change may be decided in 6 months, we still need to clean up this part. As you did the bulk edits, it's expected that you'd clean it up. If you can't do it or don't have the time to do it, please say so. --- Whatever change may be decided in 6 months, we still need to clean up this part. As you did the bulk edits, it's expected that you'd clean it up. If you can't do it or don't have the time to do it, please say so. --- I'm of the opinion that we're better off parking these statements with a sub-optimal qualifier than to return them to P794. I disagree with your description that I ""realized his error"", but I accept that you and a few other editors disagree with me and some other participants of the discussion above who desired to move those qualifiers to , and offered to move the qualifiers again when a better choice of P than both P794 and P1480 is agreed upon . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Relations_Ontology_ID_(P3590): no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) Comment @ : what do you think, as property proposer? It does seem to me like this is a bit redundant. ( ) My thought is that basically all external ID properties (for classes or properties) are potentially duplicates since you can add them as equivalent classes or equivalent properties respectively. They're functionally equivalent, for use in making SPARQL queries. One could add equivalent class statements to everything in Wikidata and make all external ID properties redundant. The only difference is that with the external ID, the format is consistent, whereas with the equivalent property purl, you can have multiple URI strings matching the same concept, which makes SPARQL queries inconsistent. For this reason I think the external ID property should stay. I'm not sure what makes this one special. I added the equivalent property statements while I was waiting for the RO property to be approved. ( ) What makes special is its application to Wikidata properties. I stumbled upon this when collecting : the only properties linking properties to external identifiers are and . The latter is an exception because it is part of the Wikidata ecosystem and because it makes 1-to-1 mappings but the former is for an external ontology . We have a large number of external ID properties but these are different. They link items to external databases, registries, authority files, classifications etc. but linking to external ontologies is a different case. Ontologies also have properties and these much less have simple equivalences in Wikidata. For this reason there are , , and . So is both insufficient to map Wikidata and Relations Ontology and it is an exception to the rule that ontologies and Wikidata are mapped with . Sure this rule can be discussed, right now it is just common practice as far as I have analyzed the use of -- ( ) What makes special is its application to Wikidata properties. I stumbled upon this when collecting : the only properties linking properties to external identifiers are and . The latter is an exception because it is part of the Wikidata ecosystem and because it makes 1-to-1 mappings but the former is for an external ontology . We have a large number of external ID properties but these are different. They link items to external databases, registries, authority files, classifications etc. but linking to external ontologies is a different case. Ontologies also have properties and these much less have simple equivalences in Wikidata. For this reason there are , , and . So is both insufficient to map Wikidata and Relations Ontology and it is an exception to the rule that ontologies and Wikidata are mapped with . Sure this rule can be discussed, right now it is just common practice as far as I have analyzed the use of -- ( ) [MASK] Just because you can fit this information into doesn't mean that there aren't cases when someone wants to specifically have the value. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Riigikogu_ID_(P4287): no consensus for deletion -- ( ) no consensus for deletion -- ( ) @ , , , , : Please provide any information about the permanently avaibility of the identifier. ( ) [MASK] Although it does seem that the Riigikogu website no longer shows the member's profile page when they're no longer a member (and thus we might want to change the ), these IDs can still be used to access information on what the member did whilst in office, e.g. their speeches ( , ), or questions ( , ). If a member leaves office, and then returns, they also appear to retain their earlier ID. -- ( ) I don't have special expertise here, but if the formatter URL can be changed to save this, that sounds like the best option. -- ( ) [MASK] per Oravrattas. Question @ : Can you fix the URL format string so that the IDs of former members of parliament will also lead to a valid link on the website? ( ) @ : sure, though it's not obvious to me which we should use. Is the idea simply that this should be any valid URL for people? Linking directly to, say, the person's speeches, might make it seem like that's what this property is about, rather than something more general. -- ( ) @ : sure, though it's not obvious to me which we should use. Is the idea simply that this should be any valid URL for people? Linking directly to, say, the person's speeches, might make it seem like that's what this property is about, rather than something more general. -- ( ) Delete . I've looked at the links that Oravrattas gave me and figured that while the identifier is stable, there doesn't seem to be a single formatter URL that works well for all current and former parliamentarians. Given that these IDs are actually longer than the member's names (I wonder if they're just hashes of the member's name) I'm becoming convinced that this ID isn't particularly useful for Wikidata. ( ) Neither string length nor lack of a formatter URL is a good reason to delete a valid identifier property. Neither string length nor lack of a formatter URL is a good reason to delete a valid identifier property. So you can still use this id after member has left, but I doubt if you should use it. The id seems to be hash of a the member's name or something similar indeed. For instance, first one of speech links above returns speeches attributed to ""Juhan Parts"" and ""Majandus- ja kommunikatsiooniminister Juhan Parts"" (Juhan Parts, the minister). Most of this person's speeches however are attributed as ""J. Parts"", and these are not returned as given hash is apparently equalent to ""Juhan Parts"". So, it seems that Riigikogu site doesn't use this id or hash as a real identifier. Speech entries or questions entries are not attached to particular person with particluar identifier. Should there be speeches attributed to different persons with the same name, then using the same id'd probably return speeches for both. The property has clear value whilst someone is still in office, and still has at least some value after they leave. That some speeches by a person aren't found by the ID doesn't seem like sufficient reason to delete the property. To the best of my knowledge there have never been two Riigikogu members with the same name. Should this ever happen, I strongly suspect that they would be aware of it, and capable of allocating a unique ID to the second person. Again, a fear that perhaps, in the future, an identifier might turn out to not be unique, does not seem like a suitable reason to remove a property that is currently useful. -- ( ) The property has clear value whilst someone is still in office, and still has at least some value after they leave. That some speeches by a person aren't found by the ID doesn't seem like sufficient reason to delete the property. To the best of my knowledge there have never been two Riigikogu members with the same name. Should this ever happen, I strongly suspect that they would be aware of it, and capable of allocating a unique ID to the second person. Again, a fear that perhaps, in the future, an identifier might turn out to not be unique, does not seem like a suitable reason to remove a property that is currently useful. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P3484_(P3484): consensus for deletion -- ( ) consensus for deletion -- ( ) Ping @ : as original proposer and @ : as creator of the property. - ( ) Delete there was an existing ontology, used massively, combining with qualifier and the reason. One year later, this property still has no uses, and everyone working on names kept the existing system. -- ( ) @ : Delete if you want, but I object vehemently to this being called ""on the sly"". I am not a property creator. I proposed a property where properties are proposed ; it got consensus there and was created. I didn't even know at the time that there was a WikiProject to inform...and if informing WikiProjects is a policy, it's not one I've seen before - if it's unwritten but you expect people to follow it, write it down!! If it is written down, I apologize, but it isn't exactly obvious to find: it's certainly nowhere to be seen on , or , or , or ... and while you're writing down guidance, please grab from your more mature sister project. ( ) Delete do you really call consensus the 1 (one) positive vote you got, after 9 days ? without any notificztion to that has been working on names for years, now ? - not easy to find ? even if you don't know about the project, the general use is to ask on Project Chat about what to use, or if there are already existing properties, before proposing the creation of a new property, which generally results in someone pointing to the appropriate project. You did not ask about anything, made a proposal, got the creation with 1 vote , without bothering whether other people could be concerned… and this property is clearly NOT USED, except on the very specific item you used as example. This is not collaborative work ... and this property, as it is, is useless and unused. -- ( ) Again, I didn't make the property, and I didn't decide what level of consensus was needed! Take that up with . (But yes, a decision with no opposing voices is a consensus, by definition, even if a provisional one – another thing your sister projects settled a long time ago.) But again, more about this mysterious ""general use"". Where the hell is any of this written down? If someone with a decade on Wikipedia can't see what's expected, how on earth is a total new person supposed to figure your project out?? I thought hostility to new users was bad on Wikipedia, but this project takes the cake. Not only are your procedures all of the form ""we don't say so, but everyone knows it"" - but when someone doesn't know it, the immediate assumption is that they're malicious! (See: ""sly"") You could not possibly shoot the viability of your project in the foot any harder than by acting like you are. ( ) I didn't tell you are a property creator. My problem is more with the actual creator of the property (who created it rather quickly with only one vote) than with your proposal. As for the Wikiprojects, they are mentioned in the . If you come from another Wikimedia project, the weight given to consensus on wikiprojects can indeed be confusing, but as a very generalist project in multiple language, they provide a very efficient way to notify all people working on a particular topic. As for the part you ""object vehemently"": English is not my native language, so the expression may have stronger undertone than what I intended (I had to use Linguee to translate it to English) - what I wanted to say that it went under the radar. - ( ) Appreciated. For future, yes, the word ""sly"" almost always implies intent to deceive. ( ) If someone with a decade on Wikipedia can't see what's expected, how on earth is a total new person supposed to figure your project out?? … well, like on any project : Ask the Project chat (whatever it is called on any project), which you did not ! -- ( ) @ : ( ) 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Now you're going in circles: How could anyone know there was a question to be asked in the first place? Nothing I've ever come across would suggest this particular question! In fact, I still have not been shown where this ""ask a WikiProject first"" rule is written down, because it isn't, anywhere . I dare you to acknowledge that simple fact. Your project's documentation is embarrassingly lacking, and you're doubling down on defending the indefensible. I've pointed to at least four places where this supposedly well-known guidance should appear explicitly; you could apply your combative energy to making sure it does, instead of attacking people for not being mind-readers. That's assuming your goal here is to make a better project, instead of making yourself feel smart while driving valuable contributors away as fast as possible. ( ) Again, I didn't make the property, and I didn't decide what level of consensus was needed! Take that up with . (But yes, a decision with no opposing voices is a consensus, by definition, even if a provisional one – another thing your sister projects settled a long time ago.) But again, more about this mysterious ""general use"". Where the hell is any of this written down? If someone with a decade on Wikipedia can't see what's expected, how on earth is a total new person supposed to figure your project out?? I thought hostility to new users was bad on Wikipedia, but this project takes the cake. Not only are your procedures all of the form ""we don't say so, but everyone knows it"" - but when someone doesn't know it, the immediate assumption is that they're malicious! (See: ""sly"") You could not possibly shoot the viability of your project in the foot any harder than by acting like you are. ( ) I didn't tell you are a property creator. My problem is more with the actual creator of the property (who created it rather quickly with only one vote) than with your proposal. As for the Wikiprojects, they are mentioned in the . If you come from another Wikimedia project, the weight given to consensus on wikiprojects can indeed be confusing, but as a very generalist project in multiple language, they provide a very efficient way to notify all people working on a particular topic. As for the part you ""object vehemently"": English is not my native language, so the expression may have stronger undertone than what I intended (I had to use Linguee to translate it to English) - what I wanted to say that it went under the radar. - ( ) Appreciated. For future, yes, the word ""sly"" almost always implies intent to deceive. ( ) If someone with a decade on Wikipedia can't see what's expected, how on earth is a total new person supposed to figure your project out?? … well, like on any project : Ask the Project chat (whatever it is called on any project), which you did not ! -- ( ) @ : ( ) 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Now you're going in circles: How could anyone know there was a question to be asked in the first place? Nothing I've ever come across would suggest this particular question! In fact, I still have not been shown where this ""ask a WikiProject first"" rule is written down, because it isn't, anywhere . I dare you to acknowledge that simple fact. Your project's documentation is embarrassingly lacking, and you're doubling down on defending the indefensible. I've pointed to at least four places where this supposedly well-known guidance should appear explicitly; you could apply your combative energy to making sure it does, instead of attacking people for not being mind-readers. That's assuming your goal here is to make a better project, instead of making yourself feel smart while driving valuable contributors away as fast as possible. ( ) I didn't tell you are a property creator. My problem is more with the actual creator of the property (who created it rather quickly with only one vote) than with your proposal. As for the Wikiprojects, they are mentioned in the . If you come from another Wikimedia project, the weight given to consensus on wikiprojects can indeed be confusing, but as a very generalist project in multiple language, they provide a very efficient way to notify all people working on a particular topic. As for the part you ""object vehemently"": English is not my native language, so the expression may have stronger undertone than what I intended (I had to use Linguee to translate it to English) - what I wanted to say that it went under the radar. - ( ) Appreciated. For future, yes, the word ""sly"" almost always implies intent to deceive. ( ) If someone with a decade on Wikipedia can't see what's expected, how on earth is a total new person supposed to figure your project out?? … well, like on any project : Ask the Project chat (whatever it is called on any project), which you did not ! -- ( ) @ : ( ) 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Now you're going in circles: How could anyone know there was a question to be asked in the first place? Nothing I've ever come across would suggest this particular question! In fact, I still have not been shown where this ""ask a WikiProject first"" rule is written down, because it isn't, anywhere . I dare you to acknowledge that simple fact. Your project's documentation is embarrassingly lacking, and you're doubling down on defending the indefensible. I've pointed to at least four places where this supposedly well-known guidance should appear explicitly; you could apply your combative energy to making sure it does, instead of attacking people for not being mind-readers. That's assuming your goal here is to make a better project, instead of making yourself feel smart while driving valuable contributors away as fast as possible. ( ) Appreciated. For future, yes, the word ""sly"" almost always implies intent to deceive. ( ) Appreciated. For future, yes, the word ""sly"" almost always implies intent to deceive. ( ) If someone with a decade on Wikipedia can't see what's expected, how on earth is a total new person supposed to figure your project out?? … well, like on any project : Ask the Project chat (whatever it is called on any project), which you did not ! -- ( ) @ : ( ) 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Now you're going in circles: How could anyone know there was a question to be asked in the first place? Nothing I've ever come across would suggest this particular question! In fact, I still have not been shown where this ""ask a WikiProject first"" rule is written down, because it isn't, anywhere . I dare you to acknowledge that simple fact. Your project's documentation is embarrassingly lacking, and you're doubling down on defending the indefensible. I've pointed to at least four places where this supposedly well-known guidance should appear explicitly; you could apply your combative energy to making sure it does, instead of attacking people for not being mind-readers. That's assuming your goal here is to make a better project, instead of making yourself feel smart while driving valuable contributors away as fast as possible. ( ) @ : ( ) 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Now you're going in circles: How could anyone know there was a question to be asked in the first place? Nothing I've ever come across would suggest this particular question! In fact, I still have not been shown where this ""ask a WikiProject first"" rule is written down, because it isn't, anywhere . I dare you to acknowledge that simple fact. Your project's documentation is embarrassingly lacking, and you're doubling down on defending the indefensible. I've pointed to at least four places where this supposedly well-known guidance should appear explicitly; you could apply your combative energy to making sure it does, instead of attacking people for not being mind-readers. That's assuming your goal here is to make a better project, instead of making yourself feel smart while driving valuable contributors away as fast as possible. ( ) Delete . Property created without consensus, duplicates the existing common usage without a ""good selling point"". ( ) Comment why was this requested without any intent of using it? @ : --- @ : I didn't request it, I just commented the one time. It sounded like the proposer had a use case for it, but if there's not many places it would help or there's a suitable alternative I don't have a problem with deleting it. This isn't an area I have worked in at all. ( ) @ : I didn't request it, I just commented the one time. It sounded like the proposer had a use case for it, but if there's not many places it would help or there's a suitable alternative I don't have a problem with deleting it. This isn't an area I have worked in at all. ( ) Delete Humanization. -- ( ) [MASK] . This will probably become superfluous when the Lexeme data-type comes in and we can actually store etymological information property. But in the meantime this property expresses a different logical relation from - the surnames are different in their current forms but have branched from the same surname. @ : What do you mean by humanization? ( ) @ : the surnames are different in their current forms but have branched from the same surname we have a policy, though undocumented anywhere (why?!), that linking items that about family names or first names with disambiguation page items must be: 1. each other; 2. try to find, judge and merge likely links to their corresponding items, to make such items are between 2~3; 3. apply qualifier, using either or value. Anyway, the lexeme features are to be provided by , which therefore that extension can allow such links, in either way, I suggest you to withdraw your vote [MASK]. -- ( ) Withdrawing my [MASK] vote because I trust other discussant's opinions that we already have a better way to store this information. ( ) @ : the surnames are different in their current forms but have branched from the same surname we have a policy, though undocumented anywhere (why?!), that linking items that about family names or first names with disambiguation page items must be: 1. each other; 2. try to find, judge and merge likely links to their corresponding items, to make such items are between 2~3; 3. apply qualifier, using either or value. Anyway, the lexeme features are to be provided by , which therefore that extension can allow such links, in either way, I suggest you to withdraw your vote [MASK]. -- ( ) Withdrawing my [MASK] vote because I trust other discussant's opinions that we already have a better way to store this information. ( ) Delete Seems not to be needed. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P4877: consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete − ( ) [MASK] but with largely modification , the name ""print run"" can be by theorical useful for printer cartridges, e.g. I would propose to describe ""HP 88A"" 1500 pages. -- ( ) changed to delete as I can't see any senses to do so. -- ( ) changed to delete as I can't see any senses to do so. -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Comment I'll support deletion as long serves as print run. Now if you try to use it with there's a constraint violation, because is not an instance of ""product"" or ""model"". Class of should be added to ""type constraint"". ( ) Comment should be modified to be useful to (for example) and all subclasses of (newspapers, daily newspapers), as well. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: on_focus_list_of_Wikimedia_project_(P5008): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) The (tough) decision was made after a discussion with 22(!) participants, maybe one of the largest number of participants in the creation of properties. Speedy [MASK] This is a disruptive and bad-faith nomination, and an attempt to overturn the due process at , from which the property was correctly created within the last two hours, by an uninvolved contributor. It seems that ""This is a highly controversial property"" means ""I don't like it"". [MASK] let's rephrase that as ""the output of the discussion was not what BrillLyle wanted"". Bad faith nomination. ( ) [MASK] ( ) delete as not yet By counting votes of that proposal, 11 ""support""s, 7 ""oppose""s and 6 ""comment""s makes it only 45% support, thus I'd love to say it's too premature to have this property. -- ( ) That is not a vote; the closer's job is to weigh the arguments and represent the emerging consensus, not count supports and opposes. That said; your maths is wrong; more than one person made multiple ""oppose"" !votes (and when I asked BrillLyle to strike one of hers, she did nothing). @ , : agree or not? -- ( ) Anyway, re-counted: 11s/5o/6c = 50% support. -- ( ) I think you will find that 11s/5o is 68.75% support (i.e. greater than 2:1); but it is still not a vote. @ : No need to hunt, counting style different, as I used to count such Comment as Neutral . -- ( ) No; you counted them as the opposite of ""support"" - in effect, as ""oppose"". IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) That is not a vote; the closer's job is to weigh the arguments and represent the emerging consensus, not count supports and opposes. That said; your maths is wrong; more than one person made multiple ""oppose"" ! votes (and when I asked BrillLyle to strike one of hers, she did nothing). @ , : agree or not? -- ( ) Anyway, re-counted: 11s/5o/6c = 50% support. -- ( ) I think you will find that 11s/5o is 68.75% support (i.e. greater than 2:1); but it is still not a vote. @ : No need to hunt, counting style different, as I used to count such Comment as Neutral . -- ( ) No; you counted them as the opposite of ""support"" - in effect, as ""oppose"". IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) @ , : agree or not? -- ( ) Anyway, re-counted: 11s/5o/6c = 50% support. -- ( ) I think you will find that 11s/5o is 68.75% support (i.e. greater than 2:1); but it is still not a vote. @ : No need to hunt, counting style different, as I used to count such Comment as Neutral . -- ( ) No; you counted them as the opposite of ""support"" - in effect, as ""oppose"". IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) I think you will find that 11s/5o is 68.75% support (i.e. greater than 2:1); but it is still not a vote. @ : No need to hunt, counting style different, as I used to count such Comment as Neutral . -- ( ) No; you counted them as the opposite of ""support"" - in effect, as ""oppose"". IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) @ : No need to hunt, counting style different, as I used to count such Comment as Neutral . -- ( ) No; you counted them as the opposite of ""support"" - in effect, as ""oppose"". IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) No; you counted them as the opposite of ""support"" - in effect, as ""oppose"". IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) IMO Liuxinyu's count could fairly be reported as 50% support/23% oppose/27% comment. (I chose ""comments"" rather than ""neutral"" because comments are not necessarily neutral, or even relevant to the decision at hand). I agree with Andy that reporting ""only 45% support"" is often going to be interpreted as ""55% opposed"", which would leave people with the wrong impression. ( ) This property was requested for a specific purpose. It was neutered; it does not offer the usability that is needed. The point of the requested property is that it should provide protection against deletion and as that is not on offer; it follows that I no longer can support the use cases I had. So the question is who did you create if for and why should it be safe to develop a project. Thanks, ( ) How could and why should a property ""provide protection against deletion""? What nonsesne. Proof perfect that you do not understand what the property was intended for. Proof perfect why I will not use it. Thanks, ( ) @ : Proof perfect for not understanding ""why should"", as you did indeed state your reasons for ""why should"" in the property proposal; a search of the proposal didn't really turn up ""how could"", which you may wish to explain. ( ) How could and why should a property ""provide protection against deletion""? What nonsesne. Proof perfect that you do not understand what the property was intended for. Proof perfect why I will not use it. Thanks, ( ) @ : Proof perfect for not understanding ""why should"", as you did indeed state your reasons for ""why should"" in the property proposal; a search of the proposal didn't really turn up ""how could"", which you may wish to explain. ( ) Proof perfect that you do not understand what the property was intended for. Proof perfect why I will not use it. Thanks, ( ) @ : Proof perfect for not understanding ""why should"", as you did indeed state your reasons for ""why should"" in the property proposal; a search of the proposal didn't really turn up ""how could"", which you may wish to explain. ( ) @ : Proof perfect for not understanding ""why should"", as you did indeed state your reasons for ""why should"" in the property proposal; a search of the proposal didn't really turn up ""how could"", which you may wish to explain. ( ) [MASK] I really don't understand the arguments against this. If you don't like this property, don't use it; there are clearly some who wanted it from the discussion. ( ) [MASK] of course; the property proposal page contains 10 support and 5 oppose votes, which is a clear outcome. — ( ) I have started a thread at regarding these actions by ( • • ). -- ( ) @ : Please see the edit summary for my cleanup of links in that section of the noticeboard. ( ) @ : Thank you for the cleanup (I haven't had to post so many diffs crossing so many projects before.) Responding to an edit summary seems a little awkward, like I'm talking to voices that aren't there ;-) Did you see the Twitter link Multichill linked to? If you want to raise the issue, please do so in the discussion there. -- ( ) How does this not constitute a personal attack and harassment? Theredproject has a consistent pattern of abuse and nastiness -- as well as unethical dealings. But he's going to write me up and use the system against me. For all of his so-called contributions. This is unbelievable. For those who support him in doing this, please examine this. Ask yourself why Theredproject is so threatened by me, a lone editor, asking questions, objecting to having my efforts at WM NYC and in this GLAM outreach -- both highly positive and impactful work in fact -- why is he reacting this way? It is not okay. But yeah, go ahead and support this kind of lynch-mob mentality. He will use all my hard work for his own self-serving purposes and it will be supported and allowed. Scumbaggery at work. Be careful. If you make a misstep or question anything related to A+F they will come after you. -- Erika aka ( ) @ : Please see the edit summary for my cleanup of links in that section of the noticeboard. ( ) @ : Thank you for the cleanup (I haven't had to post so many diffs crossing so many projects before.) Responding to an edit summary seems a little awkward, like I'm talking to voices that aren't there ;-) Did you see the Twitter link Multichill linked to? If you want to raise the issue, please do so in the discussion there. -- ( ) How does this not constitute a personal attack and harassment? Theredproject has a consistent pattern of abuse and nastiness -- as well as unethical dealings. But he's going to write me up and use the system against me. For all of his so-called contributions. This is unbelievable. For those who support him in doing this, please examine this. Ask yourself why Theredproject is so threatened by me, a lone editor, asking questions, objecting to having my efforts at WM NYC and in this GLAM outreach -- both highly positive and impactful work in fact -- why is he reacting this way? It is not okay. But yeah, go ahead and support this kind of lynch-mob mentality. He will use all my hard work for his own self-serving purposes and it will be supported and allowed. Scumbaggery at work. Be careful. If you make a misstep or question anything related to A+F they will come after you. -- Erika aka ( ) @ : Thank you for the cleanup (I haven't had to post so many diffs crossing so many projects before.) Responding to an edit summary seems a little awkward, like I'm talking to voices that aren't there ;-) Did you see the Twitter link Multichill linked to? If you want to raise the issue, please do so in the discussion there. -- ( ) How does this not constitute a personal attack and harassment? Theredproject has a consistent pattern of abuse and nastiness -- as well as unethical dealings. But he's going to write me up and use the system against me. For all of his so-called contributions. This is unbelievable. For those who support him in doing this, please examine this. Ask yourself why Theredproject is so threatened by me, a lone editor, asking questions, objecting to having my efforts at WM NYC and in this GLAM outreach -- both highly positive and impactful work in fact -- why is he reacting this way? It is not okay. But yeah, go ahead and support this kind of lynch-mob mentality. He will use all my hard work for his own self-serving purposes and it will be supported and allowed. Scumbaggery at work. Be careful. If you make a misstep or question anything related to A+F they will come after you. -- Erika aka ( ) How does this not constitute a personal attack and harassment? Theredproject has a consistent pattern of abuse and nastiness -- as well as unethical dealings. But he's going to write me up and use the system against me. For all of his so-called contributions. This is unbelievable. For those who support him in doing this, please examine this. Ask yourself why Theredproject is so threatened by me, a lone editor, asking questions, objecting to having my efforts at WM NYC and in this GLAM outreach -- both highly positive and impactful work in fact -- why is he reacting this way? It is not okay. But yeah, go ahead and support this kind of lynch-mob mentality. He will use all my hard work for his own self-serving purposes and it will be supported and allowed. Scumbaggery at work. Be careful. If you make a misstep or question anything related to A+F they will come after you. -- Erika aka ( ) [MASK] I agree with ArthurPSmith: I don't understand the drama. If BLT people don't wanna use this property because some obscure reason I'm not able to grasp, and [MASK] insisting on using instead (is it because they think that one provides a protection against deletion ?)... then ... don't use P5008. End of story. strakhov ( ) [MASK] yet another bad faith and pointy action by BrillLyle. The property was created to solve a problem with the data modeling of the BLT project and other community activities -- lets try using it. ( ) [MASK] ""No consensus was reached"". If you see consensus as 100% of the people commenting is in favour of creating the property, then yes there is no consensus, but then there will be no consensus more often. Just 1 person needs to oppose for whatever reason and there won't be any consensus. But that's not how it works. Consensus is reached by weighing opinions and if the outcome is that the arguments in favour of creation are better than the arguments against, than there is consensus. ( ) [MASK] I have an immediate use for this property: I am going to be creating items for batches of books that particular batches of maps that I am uploading to Commons are taken from. The only thing linking these books is that some maps from them happen to be in the batch that I am working from. This property is exactly useful for that purpose, meaning that I will now be able to write easy queries and Listeria pages for that set of books, until I am satisfied with them, can untag this batch, and move the property on to the next batch. I don't even start to see why thinks this is objectionable, and frankly find it quite offensive -- whatever dramas she may have of her own -- if she thinks it's for her to shut down somebody else's intended workflow. ( ) Update: specifically, see item ( for list of uses), used so far eg to check all items have a ( tinyurl.com/ydasw7va ), and that they are all indeed ( tinyurl.com/ydaw2cxu ). I'm finding it's very handy to have the items tagged, making it so easy to run any new query over them that occurs to me. The next stage is to compare what's there to what I have extracted from VIAF: this now makes it so easy to write queries to extract all the items and all their property values. ( ) Update: specifically, see item ( for list of uses), used so far eg to check all items have a ( tinyurl.com/ydasw7va ), and that they are all indeed ( tinyurl.com/ydaw2cxu ). I'm finding it's very handy to have the items tagged, making it so easy to run any new query over them that occurs to me. The next stage is to compare what's there to what I have extracted from VIAF: this now makes it so easy to write queries to extract all the items and all their property values. ( ) [MASK] , I opposed the original proposal because I felt, and still do, that this new property was not necessary to resolve, and didn't fully address, the specific issues that prompted it regarding BLT... but the proposal appears to have taken a life of its own, and at face value now, it seems fine to me for its own purpose. I have to support given Jheald's plans to use it productively, but agree with ArthurPSmith's sentiment 'If you don't like this property, don't use it'. I hope everyone is aware and comfortable with the allowed value of this new list property as . @ : mentioned creating a new item ""Wikidata focus list"" for the value, like takes value , but that has not happened. I sympathise with @ : questioning the consensus as there were many viewpoints coming from different angles, and a lot to wade through. I'm not sure all the supports (or even the opposes) were entirely aligned with each other. The discussion didn't get into finessing implementation details, hence my slight concern that the current subject value was not as intended? I trust the editor(s) reviewed carefully before acting. ( ) : [MASK] there was a consensus. Cdlt, ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5070: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] I trust the judgment of the property creator, the arguments given were good enough to create the property. -- ( ) [MASK] obviously, and ping those involved: @ , , : ( ) [MASK] . Sigh . ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P558_(P558): consensus to delete , also per -- ( ) consensus to delete , also per -- ( ) Guys, I am fine with deleting once we move all the instances to the new property. Beforehand all the talk about deletion is premature. -- ( ) Delete AFTER the import to the new property, and after we notify the 6 language wikipedias that have templates that use this. ( ) We don't need such Flow-like property to hurt our ecosystem, just look forward to adding P5061. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P5100_(P5100): Delete And I marked ready also missing that template (and only skimming the discussion) - sorry! ( ) Speedy delete' This is routine housekeeping and does not need a long discussion. It is used in 2 item, someone can change them? -- ( ) Done. It is used in 2 item, someone can change them? -- ( ) Done. Done. Done [MASK] by Mahir256 -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5072: no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) To discuss property scope use the property talk page, not PfD. -- ( ) Obviously, we don't agree on that. There seems to be failure to follow the proposal when creating the property. --- , you are not giving enough details. Please, be specific. -- ( ) , you are not giving enough details. Please, be specific. -- ( ) Hi - I don't know if you followed my comment on that proposal, but everybody voting for it seemed to be thinking of it as a property to describe a scholarly presentation at a conference, and yet nobody provided a case of such as an example using wikidata items. The property now has as an example of a film presented at a film festival, which I believe we usually model with other properties; in any case that seems a very different domain. I'm not at all sure how this is going to be used now; nevertheless I oppose Jura's kneejerk deletionism for properties like this - let's at least give it a few months and see if anybody uses it and how. If it's barely used at the end of this year then yes I would support deletion. ( ) @ : Actually, we have no way of modelling films being presented at festivals, there was a to resolve that which was closed by Micru with a note to use this property. – ( ) That's correct. In my opinion there is no issue sharing the property as both relate of a work being presented in an event. -- ( ) Ah, ok, I stand corrected. That's fine then if it works for that purpose great. Not sure it will work for the other one anyway (there seemed some confusing about what exactly is presented in those other cases). ( ) @ : Actually, we have no way of modelling films being presented at festivals, there was a to resolve that which was closed by Micru with a note to use this property. – ( ) That's correct. In my opinion there is no issue sharing the property as both relate of a work being presented in an event.-- ( ) Ah, ok, I stand corrected. That's fine then if it works for that purpose great. Not sure it will work for the other one anyway (there seemed some confusing about what exactly is presented in those other cases). ( ) That's correct. In my opinion there is no issue sharing the property as both relate of a work being presented in an event. -- ( ) Ah, ok, I stand corrected. That's fine then if it works for that purpose great. Not sure it will work for the other one anyway (there seemed some confusing about what exactly is presented in those other cases). ( ) Ah, ok, I stand corrected. That's fine then if it works for that purpose great. Not sure it will work for the other one anyway (there seemed some confusing about what exactly is presented in those other cases). ( ) [MASK] The use of this property for films at a film festival seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the property proposer's intentions. Some people present a creative work at an event. The same logical (and human language) relation applies to both scholarly works presented at a conference and films presented at a festival. Unless we explicitly define otherwise, it is reasonable to [MASK] these as one property. ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P4839: no consensus for deletion -- ( ) no consensus for deletion -- ( ) @ Compare with place/Earth ( ), we do not break this down into place and Earth . I think the case is even better for since place/Earth is just a URL snippet while Entity[""Country"", ""Japan""] is the input form as given by the function InputForm. However, while the formatter URL works in the property examples of the , it does not work in the item pages such as . The examples also do not show up well in the because of the ] bracket and the property is not recognized as an identifier (not sure whether it should be considered as such). -- ( ) Datatype seems incorrect, in my opinion. These are all things that still need to be sorted out. Not sure if people read much of the proposal. It's not a property for languages as some assumed. --- [MASK] . Clear consensus for creation. Also @ , , , : from that discussion. [MASK] Jura's arguments make no sense to me. The consensus seemed clear other than his comments, which I simply do not follow. ( ) [MASK] I concur with Jura that we (or more specifically @ :) should cease using the property until format concerns are resolved, but I disagree with deleting the property entirely. We've discussed formats for some properties long after they've been created--heck, some properties are so underused that we could start a discussion for one's format with the most minimal of impacts. ( ) Maybe change the data type to external-id? -- ( ) @ : As far as I'm aware, data types can only be changed by deleting the property and re-creating it with the correct data type. ( Support deleting and recreating as external-id property.) -- ( ) @ : As far as I'm aware, data types can only be changed by deleting the property and re-creating it with the correct data type. ( Support deleting and recreating as external-id property.) -- ( ) Delete and recreate as external-id, since string datatype results many confusing in many wikis. -- ( ) @ , : Data type can be changed from string to external-id by the development team. -- ( ) @ , : Data type can be changed from string to external-id by the development team. -- ( ) Just to clarify: I do think this should eventually be created. The question is just with what format. And yes, I think we should avoid changing around formats once a property is created. I don't think we should oppose the creation of properties merely because the format isn't sorted out yet. --- [MASK] consensus for creation -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: units_used_for_this_property_(P2237): is deprecated and will be [MASK] . ( ) is deprecated and will be [MASK] . ( ) Should we also deprecate if we're deprecating P2237? ( ) @ : Agreed that should be deprecated too, as can be used with to specify either classes of unit items or just individual unit items. ( ) can also be deprecated and [MASK], as 'no value' can be used instead (and more correctly) to specify that property values should not have any units. ( ) Delete no longer needed as P2302 is active for properties. BTW, there seem to be some incorrect uses on items that would need to be fixed in any case: . --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: FIPS_5-2_(code_for_US_states)_(P883): Consensus to delete. - ( ) ) Consensus to delete. - ( ) ) Delete note that kawiki claims to be using it, so probably has a template that needs fixing. ( ) Delete − ( ) Just for the record, kawiki wasn't actually using it, it had already been removed in . - ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: MyDramaList_name_ID_(P3862): no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) [MASK] - ""usable as a source"" is not a requirement for a property on Wikidata. @ : from the original proposal discussion. Neither they, nor I, are spammers. [MASK] Banned on English Wikipedia doesn't mean banned on other WMF sites, even in the case that that is listed on . The English Wikipedia eventually doesn't allow using [[d:QXXX]] , but what happened? Its only result is that many new and brave Wikidata users no longer trust English Wikipedia. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: synonym_(P5190): clear consensus for deletion -- ( ) clear consensus for deletion -- ( ) Delete See for why. ( ) Delete but the proposal is still valid and the property should be re-created in some months when the datatype will be available. Cdlt, ( ) Delete ( ) Delete and undelete (with the right datatype) when Senses is ready. – ( | ) Delete -- ( ) We should put this On hold until Senses are live and we can fix this. ( ) Actually we can't fix it by putting it on hold, the property needs to be [MASK] and not created again until Senses are live - the property data type should be a Sense, but it's currently a Lexeme, which is just wrong. ( ) Delete AFAIU you cannot change the datatype of a created property, so ""on hold"" would not work. (echoing ArthurPSmith) — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5195: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) @ , , , , , : pinging those involved in the discussion. ( ) [MASK] I don't think ought to be considered an equivalent of , for example. So I don't see that a sitelink is the right tool here. ( ) for example is something I would think could be a sitelink for this sort of ""dataset"", but it's not an import page, it's a list page. And you can't have 2 sitelinks to the same wikimedia project, so what if we want to import that list (if it hasn't already been)? ( ) for example is something I would think could be a sitelink for this sort of ""dataset"", but it's not an import page, it's a list page. And you can't have 2 sitelinks to the same wikimedia project, so what if we want to import that list (if it hasn't already been)? ( ) [MASK] , it cannot be done with sitelinks, currently there is no way to know what data is being added from which sources, this property allows us to understand this. It will also allow people to collaborate on collating datasets on a subject and importing data from them into Wikidata. -- ( ) If you create an item for the dataset you are importing (as the not implemented sample on ), you can add a sitelink there. --- If you create an item for the dataset you are importing (as the not implemented sample on ), you can add a sitelink there. --- [MASK] Reason is illogical ( ) [MASK] as per the comments above sitelinks are not a good option for this. The main issue is that you can't have more than one link to Wikidata, but also there is no way to include any explanation with a sitelink to explain why it is there. Using a property automatically gives us a place to have the relevant info that editors will need to find when coming across this 'dataset import page' link for the first time. ( ) Time to close this as it ""does not have a snowball's chance in hell"" of passing. Note also the unanimous support in the recent property proposal. , you should stop making disruptive nominations like this. Also, for the record, [MASK] . Note also the unanimous support in the recent property proposal. , you should stop making disruptive nominations like this. Also, for the record, [MASK] . Delete Comment looks like it was create without a valid sample either. --- You are the nominator. As explained to you on multiple occasions previously, you should not ! vote on your own nomination. It was recommended to me to ignore your explanations. Possibly your confusing way of referring to your own reasoning isn't really helpful. Maybe it's your way to avoid addressing the question at hand. --- You are the nominator. As explained to you on multiple occasions previously, you should not !vote on your own nomination. It was recommended to me to ignore your explanations. Possibly your confusing way of referring to your own reasoning isn't really helpful. Maybe it's your way to avoid addressing the question at hand. --- It was recommended to me to ignore your explanations. Possibly your confusing way of referring to your own reasoning isn't really helpful. Maybe it's your way to avoid addressing the question at hand. --- Comment Looks like this is still used just once, not really in line with the proposal. Would be good to hear from users (like me) who hadn't participated in the discussion prior to creation at . --- [MASK] Jura1, please drop your titan arguments to throttle supporters, you should better make conflictions about the usage, rather than ""hey, this rabbit should be killed! / No, that shouldn't!"". -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: spectral_line_(P2224): conensus to delete -- ( ) conensus to delete -- ( ) Delete per nom. Also, the proponent, has not edited here since 2013. Delete and the property proposal didn't really receive any discussion either; looks like it was just auto-created after the Quantity datatype became available without any thought as to how it would be used. I can imagine the intent was to allow one to add (one at a time) each spectral line as a particular wavelength of absorption or emission, that would make some sense. However, I think a better solution for this is to use the tabular data format so you could list a collection of lines at once. Given this has never been used I don't think we need to [MASK] it around; a new proposal for this would hopefully be more fully fleshed out next time. ( ) Ok, that makes more sense. But it could get very long, so a table, an actual spectrum, or a link to a spectral database is probably preferable. -- ( ) Ok, that makes more sense. But it could get very long, so a table, an actual spectrum, or a link to a spectral database is probably preferable. -- ( ) Delete since we don't really know how to use it. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: SPARQL_endpoint_URL_(P5305): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Comment I was also surprised to see this property created at that stage. − ( ) Delete Yes, that's odd, not sure what the creator was basing this on... ( ) Comment (EC) Me as well. The property can get [MASK] now and undeleted in the case that the proposal discussion part 2 is in favor of it the way it was created. -- ( ) [MASK] . Wikimedia projects work on a combination of majority-vote and consensus-building. Unanimity is never a requirement for any decision. Furthermore, from my reading of the property proposal discussion, every editor agreed that a new property that encodes a URL is required; the only disagreement is whether the scope should be SPARQL endpoints only or API endpoints in general. Therefore I Strong oppose deletion and I think we should continue that discussion at . ( ) [MASK] Broadening scope is still possible, either by consensus at its talk page, or by a new property having as subproperty. IMHO there was clear consensus, first marking as ready is not necessary in this procedure. Perhaps indeed it would have been better that discussion about broadening be finished before creation, apologies for that. But I don't think (temporary) deletion yields benefits. ( ) [MASK] I agree with . A new property can be created and can be made as subproperty. There are arguments against having two properties, these were discussed before property creation. If the discussion leads to a more clear picture I'm fine being outvoted. To allow open discussion without deletion I temporarily renamed the property to ""SPARQL/API endpoint (experimental)"" until arguments have been exchanged. Is this a valid way to proceed? -- ( ) and has been reverting you - there does seem to be a lot of viewpoint pushing going on here at the moment. ( ) and has been reverting you - there does seem to be a lot of viewpoint pushing going on here at the moment. ( ) [MASK] , true the creation was a mistake, it was too early but I feel that the deletion would be a mistake too (we have more importnt and constructive things to do than deleting and recreating again the same properties). Cdlt, ( ) It's true there wasn't unanimous support for the proposal, but this isn't a requirement. Personally, I think the suggested alternative was already addressed in the proposal itself. Apparently it wasn't exactly successful in building a consistent list of such endpoints. --- The point is not whether the creation was formally right or wrong but which data model best fulfills our needs (while no agreement on ""our needs"" exists). I tried to further clarify my objection at , in the end the question is which use case should be weighted more: query SPARQL endpoints (specific) or query API endpoints with all protocols, including SPARQL (generic). Personally I prefer the second but it's not important enough to further discuss here, the Wikidata data model is inconsistent anway. So [MASK] this property if you like, but please don't create more protocol-specific endpoint properties -- ( ) The point is not whether the creation was formally right or wrong but which data model best fulfills our needs (while no agreement on ""our needs"" exists). I tried to further clarify my objection at , in the end the question is which use case should be weighted more: query SPARQL endpoints (specific) or query API endpoints with all protocols, including SPARQL (generic). Personally I prefer the second but it's not important enough to further discuss here, the Wikidata data model is inconsistent anway. So [MASK] this property if you like, but please don't create more protocol-specific endpoint properties -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: GHS_hazard_statement_(P728)_+_GHS_precautionary_statements_(P940): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Support Consensus was found in the WikiProject Chemistry and all use of these two properties were [MASK]. ( ) Support . Seems to be uncontroversial, procedural deprecation. ( ) Delete ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1675: no consensus for deletion -- ( ) no consensus for deletion -- ( ) Speedy delete Created by error. -- ( ) Weak oppose . The property creation proposal was clear about the purpose of this property. @ , , : Can you let us know whether you still intend to start using this property? ( ) Comment I don't think it was created by error either. It's just not used. I came across it when checking completeness of constraints on properties. --- [MASK] Seems valid per the property proposal discussion. @ : as the above ping is malformed. [MASK] This property is part of a set including , , , and . The discussions are at . I do not plan to use these numbers but the proposer shared supporting evidence that reputable organizations including and use the numbers. These were created in October 2014; I expect that if no one is using the properties then there are no plans in progress. Someone else might support deletion for non-use. Delete Unused. Can be replaced (even there is nothing to be replaced) with number probable (new) item. -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Projeto_Excelências_ID_(P2731): weak support for deletion -- ( ) weak support for deletion -- ( ) [MASK] The formatter URL no longer working as a result of the site’s closure does not mean it is no longer useful; there are discussions about around the time DMOZ shut down and we still have that property today. ( ) Comment I deprecated the formatter url, but it seems that this property hasn't really been put to use Delete --- Should we really delete a property because so far it hasn't been used much? Because the simple answer here would be to simply use it more. The point here is moot however since the database is down and we don't know the IDs anymore. ( ) @ : I think the situation would be different if there were 500 uses. Compare with below. --- Should we really delete a property because so far it hasn't been used much? Because the simple answer here would be to simply use it more. The point here is moot however since the database is down and we don't know the IDs anymore. ( ) @ : I think the situation would be different if there were 500 uses. Compare with below. --- @ : I think the situation would be different if there were 500 uses. Compare with below. --- Delete In this case, and unlike dmoz, as a backup site even doesn't exist, delete it won't make anything broken. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5047: no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) @ : We have: , , , etc. All linking to wikis and all with ExtID as datatype. Why is this suddenly a problem? -- ( ) Why sudden? I don't think we converted most of them to external-id. --- I have given you some examples, please provide sources that back your claim. -- ( ) I think you should be aware of the lengthy discussion about the conversion from string datatype to external-id. This one would be in the group we didn't convert. It's possible that some slipped through. Some users think a twitter hashtag should be an external id. If you want to present arguments when discussing properties, you really shouldn't be trying to assess consensus and closing the discussion all in the same post. This is disruptive and unproductive to the process as such. --- Why sudden? I don't think we converted most of them to external-id. --- I have given you some examples, please provide sources that back your claim. -- ( ) I think you should be aware of the lengthy discussion about the conversion from string datatype to external-id. This one would be in the group we didn't convert. It's possible that some slipped through. Some users think a twitter hashtag should be an external id. If you want to present arguments when discussing properties, you really shouldn't be trying to assess consensus and closing the discussion all in the same post. This is disruptive and unproductive to the process as such. --- I have given you some examples, please provide sources that back your claim. -- ( ) I think you should be aware of the lengthy discussion about the conversion from string datatype to external-id. This one would be in the group we didn't convert. It's possible that some slipped through. Some users think a twitter hashtag should be an external id. If you want to present arguments when discussing properties, you really shouldn't be trying to assess consensus and closing the discussion all in the same post. This is disruptive and unproductive to the process as such. --- I think you should be aware of the lengthy discussion about the conversion from string datatype to external-id. This one would be in the group we didn't convert. It's possible that some slipped through. Some users think a twitter hashtag should be an external id. If you want to present arguments when discussing properties, you really shouldn't be trying to assess consensus and closing the discussion all in the same post. This is disruptive and unproductive to the process as such. --- Another disruptive nomination of a newly-created proeprty. Speedy [MASK] . ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5047: still no support for deletion -- ( ) still no support for deletion -- ( ) Per Liuxinyu970226 above. --- I believe nobody commented on this nomination because none of the links was provided to back up the deletion. , Could you provide a link to the discussion where it was decided that wiki links should be string-datatype. ( ) I believe nobody commented on this nomination because none of the links was provided to back up the deletion. , Could you provide a link to the discussion where it was decided that wiki links should be string-datatype. ( ) Neutral I need to ping users who edited it: @ , , , , :, and users that joined that property proposal: @ , , : to hear if they still against deletion or not. -- ( ) Do you see any reason to discount the views expressed here earlier this month? The first nomination was disruptive; the second, doubly so. Do you see any reason to discount the views expressed here earlier this month? The first nomination was disruptive; the second, doubly so. [MASK] Seems fine as external id - see for example, 3 out of 4 identifiers are similar-looking strings, this doesn't look out of place at all there. ( ) @ : On the previous discussion you said ""I think the datatype question needs to be resolved first."", can you please explain what is the ""datatype question""? You also said: ""you really shouldn't be trying to assess consensus and closing the discussion all in the same post"", here I disagree because although you also belong to the group of property creators you seem to ignore the situation that to do what you propose takes too much energy and effort that might not be available. It definitely can be done in special circumstances (I have done it myself in the past) but definitely not for all property proposals, and also not for property proposals that had low participation as this one. Do you agree with that? -- ( ) Micru, I guess if Jura is saying that without deleting-recreating, there's unfortunatelly no way to change datatype? -- ( ) Micru, I guess if Jura is saying that without deleting-recreating, there's unfortunatelly no way to change datatype? -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Supermodels.nl_ID_(P3330): no consensus for deletion -- ( ) no consensus for deletion -- ( ) Delete The site has been inactive for over a year, I actually checked this once in a while. Currently it just adds noise and helps no-one. ( ) Comment the property seems to have a reasonable number of uses (500). Was it useful when it existed? --- I don't know. ( ) I don't know. ( ) [MASK] Just update or remove the formatter URL. The IDs are still useful data. What use to they have? They give you no information except a number of a dead URL. What can you do with that? ( ) See . OK. I see it can be theoretically useful, but how practical is it is the link doesnt work? ( ) I refer you to my initial response in this section. What use to they have? They give you no information except a number of a dead URL. What can you do with that? ( ) See . OK. I see it can be theoretically useful, but how practical is it is the link doesnt work? ( ) I refer you to my initial response in this section. See . OK. I see it can be theoretically useful, but how practical is it is the link doesnt work? ( ) I refer you to my initial response in this section. OK. I see it can be theoretically useful, but how practical is it is the link doesnt work? ( ) I refer you to my initial response in this section. I refer you to my initial response in this section. If we save the ID we can use it to recreate the URL and use the Wayback Machine. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: USGS-ANSS_event_page_(P5089): weak support for deletion -- ( ) weak support for deletion -- ( ) Delete − ( ) Comment @ : can you give examples? doesn't have a and the structure looks different in the ones I've seen. ( ) They seemed similar enough for me to suspect it, but I don't have definitive evidence they're the same. ( ) Identifiers on the USGS website consist of a network identifier and a network assigned code. The network identifier is often two characters long (as currently enforced by ) but also longer network ids like ""official"" (as in ) are possible, see . -- ( ) They seemed similar enough for me to suspect it, but I don't have definitive evidence they're the same. ( ) Identifiers on the USGS website consist of a network identifier and a network assigned code. The network identifier is often two characters long (as currently enforced by ) but also longer network ids like ""official"" (as in ) are possible, see . -- ( ) Identifiers on the USGS website consist of a network identifier and a network assigned code. The network identifier is often two characters long (as currently enforced by ) but also longer network ids like ""official"" (as in ) are possible, see . -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1676: no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Amphibian_Species_of_the_World_ID_(P5354): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) @ : Now I'm messy. I was put to be a URL, but who voted said that it can't be a URL and should be a External-ID (look the ). I call @ : for this discuss. Yet another disruptive deletion nomination. The proposal that passed was for an external-ID datatype, as clearly discussed on the proposal page. Therefore: Speedy [MASK] . You „ “ the wrong datatype after four votes. This is not an ID, but an URL. -- ( ) Please provide unequivocal evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything (your diff does not do that; and is not even one of my edits), or retract your allegation. Did you notified the four voters about the your applied datatype change? I can't see this at the proposal page. -- ( ) So, you have no evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything. Please now retract your false allegation. You „ “ the wrong datatype after four votes. This is not an ID, but an URL. -- ( ) Please provide unequivocal evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything (your diff does not do that; and is not even one of my edits), or retract your allegation. Did you notified the four voters about the your applied datatype change? I can't see this at the proposal page. -- ( ) So, you have no evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything. Please now retract your false allegation. Please provide unequivocal evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything (your diff does not do that; and is not even one of my edits), or retract your allegation. Did you notified the four voters about the your applied datatype change? I can't see this at the proposal page. -- ( ) So, you have no evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything. Please now retract your false allegation. Did you notified the four voters about the your applied datatype change? I can't see this at the proposal page. -- ( ) So, you have no evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything. Please now retract your false allegation. So, you have no evidence of me ""enforcing"" anything. Please now retract your false allegation. [MASK] . It's an identifier, it's external => external identifier is the right datatype. It does indeed have datatype ""External identifier"", so all is well, and no action or modification is needed. ( ) An ID should be immutable. That's not the case here. -- ( ) That's a secondary characteristic. For some IDs it's true, for others it isn't. If you want to record that the ID will never change, put a statement on the property page. ( ) Actually, it isn't. At least that was the outcome of the discussion when converting from string to external ids. So if these values aren't stable, it should either be string or url, but not external-id. --- It's not a position that survives contact with reality. This is an identifier, and its external. It's plainly more like the properties below the fold than those above it. It's useful to group it with the things it is link, and to de-clutter as much as we can the more general properties. So long as it is reasonably stable that is enough. Identifiers get merged or revised all the time. Some issuers will redirect the old values, some aren't so careful. Working recently on titles from the BHL ( ), I recently found 2276 titles with values stated at the BHL for which are plainly well-formed, yet are unrecognised by the Library of Congress tinyurl.com/ycmnhob6 . It would appear that these are old values that have since been retired, that are not redirected by the OPAC. Yet would we say that P1144 is not an external identifier? No, because that would be silly. Similarly, many many other external IDs we currently accept may not quite be 100% stable. Does that mean we're going to put them all back above the fold, and (in some cases) take away their linked-data fork? No, we are not. So my view is: whatever might or might not have said when external IDs were first being segregated as a separate group, that is no longer where we are now at, and the balance of advantage is to go with what is now current practice -- if it's an ID, and it's external, make it an external ID. ( ) I think you are still with the (unrelated) GUI issue. --- An ID should be immutable. That's not the case here. -- ( ) That's a secondary characteristic. For some IDs it's true, for others it isn't. If you want to record that the ID will never change, put a statement on the property page. ( ) Actually, it isn't. At least that was the outcome of the discussion when converting from string to external ids. So if these values aren't stable, it should either be string or url, but not external-id. --- It's not a position that survives contact with reality. This is an identifier, and its external. It's plainly more like the properties below the fold than those above it. It's useful to group it with the things it is link, and to de-clutter as much as we can the more general properties. So long as it is reasonably stable that is enough. Identifiers get merged or revised all the time. Some issuers will redirect the old values, some aren't so careful. Working recently on titles from the BHL ( ), I recently found 2276 titles with values stated at the BHL for which are plainly well-formed, yet are unrecognised by the Library of Congress tinyurl.com/ycmnhob6 . It would appear that these are old values that have since been retired, that are not redirected by the OPAC. Yet would we say that P1144 is not an external identifier? No, because that would be silly. Similarly, many many other external IDs we currently accept may not quite be 100% stable. Does that mean we're going to put them all back above the fold, and (in some cases) take away their linked-data fork? No, we are not. So my view is: whatever might or might not have said when external IDs were first being segregated as a separate group, that is no longer where we are now at, and the balance of advantage is to go with what is now current practice -- if it's an ID, and it's external, make it an external ID. ( ) I think you are still with the (unrelated) GUI issue. --- That's a secondary characteristic. For some IDs it's true, for others it isn't. If you want to record that the ID will never change, put a statement on the property page. ( ) Actually, it isn't. At least that was the outcome of the discussion when converting from string to external ids. So if these values aren't stable, it should either be string or url, but not external-id. --- It's not a position that survives contact with reality. This is an identifier, and its external. It's plainly more like the properties below the fold than those above it. It's useful to group it with the things it is link, and to de-clutter as much as we can the more general properties. So long as it is reasonably stable that is enough. Identifiers get merged or revised all the time. Some issuers will redirect the old values, some aren't so careful. Working recently on titles from the BHL ( ), I recently found 2276 titles with values stated at the BHL for which are plainly well-formed, yet are unrecognised by the Library of Congress tinyurl.com/ycmnhob6 . It would appear that these are old values that have since been retired, that are not redirected by the OPAC. Yet would we say that P1144 is not an external identifier? No, because that would be silly. Similarly, many many other external IDs we currently accept may not quite be 100% stable. Does that mean we're going to put them all back above the fold, and (in some cases) take away their linked-data fork? No, we are not. So my view is: whatever might or might not have said when external IDs were first being segregated as a separate group, that is no longer where we are now at, and the balance of advantage is to go with what is now current practice -- if it's an ID, and it's external, make it an external ID. ( ) I think you are still with the (unrelated) GUI issue. --- Actually, it isn't. At least that was the outcome of the discussion when converting from string to external ids. So if these values aren't stable, it should either be string or url, but not external-id. --- It's not a position that survives contact with reality. This is an identifier, and its external. It's plainly more like the properties below the fold than those above it. It's useful to group it with the things it is link, and to de-clutter as much as we can the more general properties. So long as it is reasonably stable that is enough. Identifiers get merged or revised all the time. Some issuers will redirect the old values, some aren't so careful. Working recently on titles from the BHL ( ), I recently found 2276 titles with values stated at the BHL for which are plainly well-formed, yet are unrecognised by the Library of Congress tinyurl.com/ycmnhob6 . It would appear that these are old values that have since been retired, that are not redirected by the OPAC. Yet would we say that P1144 is not an external identifier? No, because that would be silly. Similarly, many many other external IDs we currently accept may not quite be 100% stable. Does that mean we're going to put them all back above the fold, and (in some cases) take away their linked-data fork? No, we are not. So my view is: whatever might or might not have said when external IDs were first being segregated as a separate group, that is no longer where we are now at, and the balance of advantage is to go with what is now current practice -- if it's an ID, and it's external, make it an external ID. ( ) I think you are still with the (unrelated) GUI issue. --- It's not a position that survives contact with reality. This is an identifier, and its external. It's plainly more like the properties below the fold than those above it. It's useful to group it with the things it is link, and to de-clutter as much as we can the more general properties. So long as it is reasonably stable that is enough. Identifiers get merged or revised all the time. Some issuers will redirect the old values, some aren't so careful. Working recently on titles from the BHL ( ), I recently found 2276 titles with values stated at the BHL for which are plainly well-formed, yet are unrecognised by the Library of Congress tinyurl.com/ycmnhob6 . It would appear that these are old values that have since been retired, that are not redirected by the OPAC. Yet would we say that P1144 is not an external identifier? No, because that would be silly. Similarly, many many other external IDs we currently accept may not quite be 100% stable. Does that mean we're going to put them all back above the fold, and (in some cases) take away their linked-data fork? No, we are not. So my view is: whatever might or might not have said when external IDs were first being segregated as a separate group, that is no longer where we are now at, and the balance of advantage is to go with what is now current practice -- if it's an ID, and it's external, make it an external ID. ( ) I think you are still with the (unrelated) GUI issue. --- I think you are still with the (unrelated) GUI issue. --- @ : „contact with reality“ shows us: = via = Ergo the datatype should be URL. -- ( ) @ : „contact with reality“ shows us: = via = Ergo the datatype should be URL. -- ( ) @ : „contact with reality“ shows us: = via = = via = Ergo the datatype should be URL. -- ( ) [MASK] . I agree that the deletion nomination is somehow disruptive, as the datatype has been debated during the proposal. ( ) Comment the initial supporters of the url datatype didn't comment on the change of datatype ( ). It seems the creation process went fine. That said, this doesn't necessarily mean the datatype is the correct one. ""Anura/Leptodactylidae/Leiuperinae/Pseudopaludicola/Pseudopaludicola-restinga"" looks more like an url path than an actual identifier. --- Correct. is a taxonomic database. Until 22 March 2018 (for Leptolalax aerea ) was the correct URL to a taxon now named Leptobrachella aerea with the URL . -- ( ) Perhaps you mean , for , rather than the misleading, non-functioning, URL you gave? Correct. is a taxonomic database. Until 22 March 2018 (for Leptolalax aerea ) was the correct URL to a taxon now named Leptobrachella aerea with the URL . -- ( ) Perhaps you mean , for , rather than the misleading, non-functioning, URL you gave? Perhaps you mean , for , rather than the misleading, non-functioning, URL you gave? Sorry, my fault. But good to know they implemented . -- ( ) Sorry, my fault. But good to know they implemented . -- ( ) Sorry, my fault. But good to know they implemented . -- ( ) Sorry, my fault. But good to know they implemented . -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P5130_(P5130): consensus for deletion -- ( ) consensus for deletion -- ( ) Ping @ , , , , , : as people that contributed to the property proposal and commented on the property's talk page. ( ) Comment What I think it is if we could merge and . They have mostly the same definition, except that use a smaller unit. -- ( ) Comment . I'd rather delete , which matches with no simple concept in human daily life. Which island a thing is on is understandable. Which terrain feature it belongs to, well, I am not that sure. So let's move what should be back to and have the new specific properties populated. The older one was created a long time ago when we were OK with having unclear declarations under catch-all umbrellas. It is now a source of constraint violations and uncompleteness. ( ) Comment I Always saw as quite a simple concept as well as convenient. What exactly makes you see it as anything else? Can you point to examples of those ""constraint violations"" you talk about? -- ( ) Comment What I think it is if we could merge and . They have mostly the same definition, except that use a smaller unit. -- ( ) Comment . I'd rather delete , which matches with no simple concept in human daily life. Which island a thing is on is understandable. Which terrain feature it belongs to, well, I am not that sure. So let's move what should be back to and have the new specific properties populated. The older one was created a long time ago when we were OK with having unclear declarations under catch-all umbrellas. It is now a source of constraint violations and uncompleteness. ( ) Comment I Always saw as quite a simple concept as well as convenient. What exactly makes you see it as anything else? Can you point to examples of those ""constraint violations"" you talk about? -- ( ) Comment . I'd rather delete , which matches with no simple concept in human daily life. Which island a thing is on is understandable. Which terrain feature it belongs to, well, I am not that sure. So let's move what should be back to and have the new specific properties populated. The older one was created a long time ago when we were OK with having unclear declarations under catch-all umbrellas. It is now a source of constraint violations and uncompleteness. ( ) Comment I Always saw as quite a simple concept as well as convenient. What exactly makes you see it as anything else? Can you point to examples of those ""constraint violations"" you talk about? -- ( ) Comment I Always saw as quite a simple concept as well as convenient. What exactly makes you see it as anything else? Can you point to examples of those ""constraint violations"" you talk about?-- ( ) Delete is a more general property that can be used regardless if the object stand on an island, a peninsula, a hill, a mountain, a plain or whatever. The datamodel used on Wikidata today is unconsidered and uncoordinated. There are too many properties thoughtlessly created. Fewer and more general properties and better use of qualifires is the only way out of this swamp. / [MASK] I'm also not sure why it changed from ""landmass"" to ""island of location"", I assume this was to distinguish from . However, I believe those are really quite different concepts - a ""continent"" generally includes many islands in addition to the main land area (for example Long Island, Vancouver Island, etc. are surely all part of North America), and several ""continents"" may be located on one landmass (Europe and Asia most notably). I think this is definitely a useful property to have; it's sort of a complement to for example. ( ) @ : 'Watershed' is quite different, as you wouldn't normally include that in a string describing the location of somewhere (it's more likely to be a separate line in an infobox). Agree that this and 'continent' are different things, though. In a string of ""Located on , location, located in administrative area, country"", I'm worried that we'll have to check a huge number of X's, which will vary between topics, rather than just a single one as we currently do - and that makes things unnecessarily complex. Thanks. ( ) I'm not sure why you think every type of would always be useful in a location string, but this new property has been declared as a of , so perhaps your code should first just programmatically look up all subproperties of and use those? ( ) @ : I'm not sure Lua can even do that? Thanks. ( ) @ : 'Watershed' is quite different, as you wouldn't normally include that in a string describing the location of somewhere (it's more likely to be a separate line in an infobox). Agree that this and 'continent' are different things, though. In a string of ""Located on , location, located in administrative area, country"", I'm worried that we'll have to check a huge number of X's, which will vary between topics, rather than just a single one as we currently do - and that makes things unnecessarily complex. Thanks. ( ) I'm not sure why you think every type of would always be useful in a location string, but this new property has been declared as a of , so perhaps your code should first just programmatically look up all subproperties of and use those? ( ) @ : I'm not sure Lua can even do that? Thanks. ( ) I'm not sure why you think every type of would always be useful in a location string, but this new property has been declared as a of , so perhaps your code should first just programmatically look up all subproperties of and use those? ( ) @ : I'm not sure Lua can even do that? Thanks. ( ) @ : I'm not sure Lua can even do that? Thanks. ( ) Comment @ : is located on who is a . Why can not be used both for St. Peter Church in Rome and for who uses . Why is two different Properties and needed for two equal ? Both items do have . Retorically what about all the churches of Greenland or ? Breg ( ) The new property is a subproperty of . So they may not use the same location property but they both use the same property tree. On top of that, and as a sidenote, may have an value if one really wants this to happen – is an uncertain candidate – but nobody should normally want to document this. So there is no decisive structural difference in the way we deal with the two churches, actually. And eventually, would there be one, would it be that scandalous? That is on a small island may make a difference in its geography and history and that is precisely what the new property helps people consider and check. ( ) @ : So for I can use since the Property {{P|hill of Location}} do not excist and can not be for St. Peters Church untill it is created. Having an property for an man made geographical item located on an island must for the sake of good order also inflict that a man made geographical item located on a hill also must have its own property, not to say if an item is located on a mountain it really must have its own property helping people consider and check. The new property is a subproperty of . So they may not use the same location property but they both use the same property tree. On top of that, and as a sidenote, may have an value if one really wants this to happen – is an uncertain candidate – but nobody should normally want to document this. So there is no decisive structural difference in the way we deal with the two churches, actually. And eventually, would there be one, would it be that scandalous? That is on a small island may make a difference in its geography and history and that is precisely what the new property helps people consider and check. ( ) @ : So for I can use since the Property {{P|hill of Location}} do not excist and can not be for St. Peters Church untill it is created. Having an property for an man made geographical item located on an island must for the sake of good order also inflict that a man made geographical item located on a hill also must have its own property, not to say if an item is located on a mountain it really must have its own property helping people consider and check. @ : So for I can use since the Property {{P|hill of Location}} do not excist and can not be for St. Peters Church untill it is created. Having an property for an man made geographical item located on an island must for the sake of good order also inflict that a man made geographical item located on a hill also must have its own property, not to say if an item is located on a mountain it really must have its own property helping people consider and check. There are already other subproperties to . These are , , , . They are very useful. ( ) And further will be needed... Untill those propeties equal and to the same Level as are settled I propose that are [MASK], and a clear structure of how man made geographical objects location should be described by properties in air, land, sea and space. Breg ( ) And further will be needed... Untill those propeties equal and to the same Level as are settled I propose that are [MASK], and a clear structure of how man made geographical objects location should be described by properties in air, land, sea and space. Breg ( ) Delete The rationale for making or keeping this is very weak. Delete , is more than enough. Cdlt, ( ) Meanwhile this property has accumulated 8,901 statements using it, like - people seem to find it useful, do we really need to delete? ( ) Kindly observe that for the is created by who originaly proposed the property. Adding a new property to an item during the discussion of delation of the said property do not justify the need of the property. In addition| {P|706}} is removed. @ :. Of the 8901 statements, how many is created by the same user, and how many is created by Quick statements and how many have been removed at the same time? ( ) Delete , use . - ( ) Delete . is better. • ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1962_(P1962): consensus to merge with P859 -- ( ) consensus to merge with P859 -- ( ) Ping editors involved with either property discussion: @ , , , , , : -- ( ) Support merging these two. There is no need to limit use to any specific set of fields; any item for which this kind of relationship exists should be able to use it. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Merge:_P4237_(P4237)_and_Protected_Buildings_Register_in_Finland_ID_(P5310): consensus to merge -- ( ) consensus to merge -- ( ) Delete yes, looks like a duplicate and P4237 is unused (well it had a few uses but those seem to have been switched to 5310 already?) Thanks for noticing this problem. ( ) Support , Delete . ( ) Delete . I have created to prevent new duplicates. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: item_for_this_sense_(P5137): Property has been kept. Senses have been released so there's no longer a reason to delete. - ( ) Property has been kept. Senses have been released so there's no longer a reason to delete. - ( ) Not quite like. P5190 was incorrectly defined and created with the wrong datatype. Apparently P5137 can be used in a couple of weeks. --- @ : According to Léa the Senses will be available in at least 3 months. I think it is a long time to wait with this property created and not be able to use it. For that reason Delete -- ( ) I think it was maximum, not ""at least"". --- @ : According to Léa the Senses will be available in at least 3 months. I think it is a long time to wait with this property created and not be able to use it. For that reason Delete -- ( ) I think it was maximum, not ""at least"". --- I think it was maximum, not ""at least"". --- On hold . Judging from how long these deletion discussions often take, we may as well [MASK] this property in limbo until Senses are released and then start using it. ( ) And now senses are scheduled to be available in 1 month (October 20 2018) and people are already using this property in preparation by adding values on lexemes directly (to be moved to senses when available) - I think this deletion discussion should just be closed! ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4570_(P4570): Consensus to delete this property after all its uses have been moved to the new property . -- ( ) Consensus to delete this property after all its uses have been moved to the new property .-- ( ) Ping I forgot: @ :-- ( ) Support — ( ) Comment Similarly as the nominated property , the proposed property would also be useful for structural items (those which are really structural items, i.e. used in large number by other items). I don’t think the proposed one’s scope should be limited to properties. — ( ) The current property is not restricted to structural items, but we could limit the new property to structural items and properties if you think that it is a valid scope.-- ( ) “Structural item” is unfortunately not a well-defined term. I think of items such as which could be maintained by , not but items about individual physicists with backlinks, which many of us consider to be “structural items” as well. — ( ) The current property is not restricted to structural items, but we could limit the new property to structural items and properties if you think that it is a valid scope. -- ( ) “Structural item” is unfortunately not a well-defined term. I think of items such as which could be maintained by , not but items about individual physicists with backlinks, which many of us consider to be “structural items” as well. — ( ) “Structural item” is unfortunately not a well-defined term. I think of items such as which could be maintained by , not but items about individual physicists with backlinks, which many of us consider to be “structural items” as well. — ( ) Conditional support On the condition that the new property proposal passes and we migrate all existing uses of this property to the new property. ( ) There is no need for a new proposal in the case of datatype changes. If this PfD passes, then the steps outlined above will be implemented. -- ( ) There is no need for a new proposal in the case of datatype changes. If this PfD passes, then the steps outlined above will be implemented.-- ( ) [MASK] This property is dedicated to Wikidata projects related to different themes. Delete , I hate to admit that why @ : can't just interwiki link such projects. -- ( ) Delete , I think it makes much more sense to have an Item data type instead of URL. Hmmm, would replace this? Hmmm, would replace this? ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1432_(P1432): consensus to delete. Please migrate content. Once done, ask for deletion of property. ----- consensus to delete. Please migrate content. Once done, ask for deletion of property. ----- Delete : If we [MASK] items for songs and singles separate (which I support) it makes little sense to use . To use qualifiers to identify A- and B-sides is a good idea. - ( ) Delete Better to use qualifiers on -- ( ) An example of a version of a single with an A-side and a B-side is . ( ) [MASK] B-sides charted separately from their respective A-sides before 1969. See The Beatles' #1 singles for one obvious example of this. - ( ) @ : I think that's irrelevant. This deletion nomination is about how B-sides are shown to relate to their A-sides, and the property's deletion would not negatively affect chart data. If the single charted (as opposed to the songs) then the chart data can go on the single's item, and if the songs charted separately (as they do now on most charts) then the chart data can go on the songs' items. Usually charts are consistent about this, as far as I'm aware; so other than the issue of singles almost always being conflated with songs in the current data structure (i.e. there being only one item for both the song and the single), there shouldn't be any major problems with this. ( ) @ : Wouldn't it remove confusion in the reader's mind to see that a famous A-side charted separately from its famous B-side, and to see this through the B-side property? - ( ) @ : Is Wikidata even meant to be read? I guess its primary purpose is to be a database. If the data exists in the tracklist stored on the single's item then it doesn't necessarily need to be added anywhere else. Regardless, since it seems very common to state the track number as a qualifier in a statement, I extended this when I was editing items like / by adding qualifiers like → (and → , although those two songs are each other's A-sides on their single and thus could not have used anyway). I think this additional qualifier is sufficient to indicate that a single has more than one track. Why (and how) would you indicate chart positions through the B-side property? I don't think it would be feasible or technically possible, given the limitations of qualifiers, although maybe I'm taking you too literally. In any case, if the property's purpose is cosmetic rather than functional then it doesn't really need to exist. ( ) @ : I think that's irrelevant. This deletion nomination is about how B-sides are shown to relate to their A-sides, and the property's deletion would not negatively affect chart data. If the single charted (as opposed to the songs) then the chart data can go on the single's item, and if the songs charted separately (as they do now on most charts) then the chart data can go on the songs' items. Usually charts are consistent about this, as far as I'm aware; so other than the issue of singles almost always being conflated with songs in the current data structure (i.e. there being only one item for both the song and the single), there shouldn't be any major problems with this. ( ) @ : Wouldn't it remove confusion in the reader's mind to see that a famous A-side charted separately from its famous B-side, and to see this through the B-side property? - ( ) @ : Is Wikidata even meant to be read? I guess its primary purpose is to be a database. If the data exists in the tracklist stored on the single's item then it doesn't necessarily need to be added anywhere else. Regardless, since it seems very common to state the track number as a qualifier in a statement, I extended this when I was editing items like / by adding qualifiers like → (and → , although those two songs are each other's A-sides on their single and thus could not have used anyway). I think this additional qualifier is sufficient to indicate that a single has more than one track. Why (and how) would you indicate chart positions through the B-side property? I don't think it would be feasible or technically possible, given the limitations of qualifiers, although maybe I'm taking you too literally. In any case, if the property's purpose is cosmetic rather than functional then it doesn't really need to exist. ( ) @ : Wouldn't it remove confusion in the reader's mind to see that a famous A-side charted separately from its famous B-side, and to see this through the B-side property? - ( ) @ : Is Wikidata even meant to be read? I guess its primary purpose is to be a database. If the data exists in the tracklist stored on the single's item then it doesn't necessarily need to be added anywhere else. Regardless, since it seems very common to state the track number as a qualifier in a statement, I extended this when I was editing items like / by adding qualifiers like → (and → , although those two songs are each other's A-sides on their single and thus could not have used anyway). I think this additional qualifier is sufficient to indicate that a single has more than one track. Why (and how) would you indicate chart positions through the B-side property? I don't think it would be feasible or technically possible, given the limitations of qualifiers, although maybe I'm taking you too literally. In any case, if the property's purpose is cosmetic rather than functional then it doesn't really need to exist. ( ) @ : Is Wikidata even meant to be read? I guess its primary purpose is to be a database. If the data exists in the tracklist stored on the single's item then it doesn't necessarily need to be added anywhere else. Regardless, since it seems very common to state the track number as a qualifier in a statement, I extended this when I was editing items like / by adding qualifiers like → (and → , although those two songs are each other's A-sides on their single and thus could not have used anyway). I think this additional qualifier is sufficient to indicate that a single has more than one track. Why (and how) would you indicate chart positions through the B-side property? I don't think it would be feasible or technically possible, given the limitations of qualifiers, although maybe I'm taking you too literally. In any case, if the property's purpose is cosmetic rather than functional then it doesn't really need to exist. ( ) Good discussion, to [MASK] it separated is a good idea! However Wikipedia often mixes song and single, see . So is the Wikipedia article going to linked to the song or single. I would suggest to connect to the song, as they are the more important entity. ( ) @ : Yes, the sitelinks would remain with the song, unless an article is explicitly about all songs on a single for whatever reason. (I've done this for the items that I've worked on, such as / / / and / / / / .) This approach is also the most logical where a song has multiple single releases (e.g. ). ( ) @ : Yes, the sitelinks would remain with the song, unless an article is explicitly about all songs on a single for whatever reason. (I've done this for the items that I've worked on, such as / / / and / / / / .) This approach is also the most logical where a song has multiple single releases (e.g. ). ( ) Delete ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1688_(P1688): Done Consensus to delete -- ( ) Done Consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete per ValterVB (property migrated). -- Delete . It makes sense. ( ) Delete , per nomination. ( ) . Comment @ , , : Sorry I forgot... -- ( ) Delete , taking on trust that values have been migrated as stated. Could someone post a link to where the Ukrainian Wikipedia (which is using this property) was notified? - ( ) @ , , , , :@ , : let's just ping them here. -- ( ) @ , , , , :@ , : let's just ping them here. -- ( ) Delete per ValterVB. Possibly as ID episode\song in pop-anime. But I think it is better to create such ID. -- ( ) Delete ( ) Delete , per nomination. Delete per above, let's snowball close and delete it! -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: AfroMoths_ID_(P6093): Withdrawn . -- ( ) Withdrawn . -- ( ) @ : [MASK] . We may still use the permalink that is provided on any entry. has to be set to http://www.afromoths.net/species_by_code/$1 and the stable ID for would then be 02STRTAV . ( ) @ : Thank you. I changed the , and the and corrected all uses accordingly. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: candidacy_in_election_(P3602): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) I think such elections are called general elections. Not all countries just elect a single candidate per electoral district. --- @ : I don't understand the relevance. Whether a single candidate or a group of candidates voted as a single option, we're only going to have one item listed as candidate, otherwise we wouldn't be able to list things like number of votes, right? -- ( ) Some systems are more complicated. Anyways, I don't see an advantage in not having this property. --- I'm new to election-related editing. Please consider . I don't know the best way to model it in Wikidata, but it is commonly spoken of as the Vermont 2018 general election. The offices to be filled include 1 representative in Congress, the governor, several state-wide offices, around 5 offices in each of 14 counties, and justices of the peace in every town. There are nearly 2000 justices of the peace. I asked at project chat just now about how to handle this. ( ) @ : I don't understand the relevance. Whether a single candidate or a group of candidates voted as a single option, we're only going to have one item listed as candidate, otherwise we wouldn't be able to list things like number of votes, right? -- ( ) Some systems are more complicated. Anyways, I don't see an advantage in not having this property. --- I'm new to election-related editing. Please consider . I don't know the best way to model it in Wikidata, but it is commonly spoken of as the Vermont 2018 general election. The offices to be filled include 1 representative in Congress, the governor, several state-wide offices, around 5 offices in each of 14 counties, and justices of the peace in every town. There are nearly 2000 justices of the peace. I asked at project chat just now about how to handle this. ( ) Some systems are more complicated. Anyways, I don't see an advantage in not having this property. --- I'm new to election-related editing. Please consider . I don't know the best way to model it in Wikidata, but it is commonly spoken of as the Vermont 2018 general election. The offices to be filled include 1 representative in Congress, the governor, several state-wide offices, around 5 offices in each of 14 counties, and justices of the peace in every town. There are nearly 2000 justices of the peace. I asked at project chat just now about how to handle this. ( ) I'm new to election-related editing. Please consider . I don't know the best way to model it in Wikidata, but it is commonly spoken of as the Vermont 2018 general election. The offices to be filled include 1 representative in Congress, the governor, several state-wide offices, around 5 offices in each of 14 counties, and justices of the peace in every town. There are nearly 2000 justices of the peace. I asked at project chat just now about how to handle this. ( ) Neutral This kind of property, to me, may or maynot be useful. But I'd love to know if there are overlapped properties or not. -- ( ) [MASK] I observe that there are many interrelated election items and properties, many of which are absent for many elections and candidates. By having inverse properties, readers will find it easier to navigate when the set of ideal information is incomplete, and editors will find it easier to navigate while finding omissions and filling them. Also, this property is displayed for a candidate in the interactive interface if one clicks in the ""show derived statements"" box, provided the appropriate ""candidate"" property has been added to an election item. If this property were [MASK], wouldn't this feature stop working? ( ) [MASK] Inverse of property is good only for elections with low number of candidates (like presidential elections), but very impractical for elections with high number of candidates (general elections, local elections). For these is the only way to record such information.-- ( ) [MASK] had thousands of candidates. In theory we could create individual items for each constituency in each election, and if we want to be able to generate tables such as those on , I suspect we might want to go down that route eventually, but I suspect it's going to be quite some time before we do that consistently enough. -- ( ) [MASK] Allows organizing information.-- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5733: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Comment @ : Please give examples or a link to the discussion. @ : Example: Note when playing the media after opening song there's a url linking to a fansub site on screen. ( ) @ : Example: Note when playing the media after opening song there's a url linking to a fansub site on screen. ( ) [MASK] Copyright problems are not this wiki concerned, if you have other reasons to nominate deletion than copyright, let's continue. -- ( ) Or to put this in another way: I was anticipating to be able to reuse data from links via this identifier to help fill information and claims at wikidata. However with pirate=unofficial content being included in resources available via this identifier, some parameters that would have been made available via this identifier might no longer be certain to be true, and an originally anticipated purpose of the identifier to enable linking from wikipedia articles via the identifier to legitimate platforms that host content about related articles could not be automatically achieved, and thus losing part of the value of the property. ( ) Or to put this in another way: I was anticipating to be able to reuse data from links via this identifier to help fill information and claims at wikidata. However with pirate=unofficial content being included in resources available via this identifier, some parameters that would have been made available via this identifier might no longer be certain to be true, and an originally anticipated purpose of the identifier to enable linking from wikipedia articles via the identifier to legitimate platforms that host content about related articles could not be automatically achieved, and thus losing part of the value of the property. ( ) Delete per C933103. ( ) [MASK] The usefulness of this and similar sites seems to me to be greater than the problems involved. -- ( ) [MASK] Per Liuxinyu970226 and Spinoziano. -- [MASK] Wether it ""supports"" piracy or not, it's all goes down to the content platform, not Wikimedia. ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Soundex_(P3878): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Will SPARQL provide a function for this? -- ( ) That's nothing impossible in providing such an extension function (in the Callimachus project they have keyword:soundex, we can have e.g. wikibase:soundex). I don't know how deep in the database interface levels it can be put, but the developers can be contacted to ask for it if it is needed (that is probable). This is longer to wait for but way more flexible then introducing any property, and, the main thing, duplicating data is evil. ( ) Would you do the necessary to implement it and come back to us once it's done? --- That's nothing impossible in providing such an extension function (in the Callimachus project they have keyword:soundex, we can have e.g. wikibase:soundex). I don't know how deep in the database interface levels it can be put, but the developers can be contacted to ask for it if it is needed (that is probable). This is longer to wait for but way more flexible then introducing any property, and, the main thing, duplicating data is evil. ( ) Would you do the necessary to implement it and come back to us once it's done? --- Would you do the necessary to implement it and come back to us once it's done? --- [MASK] Calculating anything in SPARQL is a phenomenally bad move, to be avoided if at all possible. The whole reason SPARQL can be efficient is that it is based on fast indexed lookup searches. That's not possible with calculated values. ( ) [MASK] Wikidata isn't a purely relational database and the data doesn't have to be normalized - we have bots that can run simple calculations and [MASK] things synchronized if that's appropriate. In general I'm sympathetic to avoiding duplication of data, but I think in this case it's a useful property to have even if easily calculated. A more valid concern I think would be if the way this is used does not fit in with wikidata internationalization (does the property only work for some languages or its value is ambiguous due to language differences?) but I don't think that's what's being argued here. ( ) [MASK] per Jheald and ArthurPSmith − ( ) Comment In fact there is an internationalization concern. Soundex is only applicable to the English language. There are other phonetic algorithms optimized for other languages, e. g. for German or . Shouldn't there be a more general solution then? -- ( ) Delete I don't think this is a good fit for Wikidata as it can be calculated easily, is only applicable to the English language and will always be less accurate and incomplete than a calculated version. -- ( ) [MASK] per ArthurPSmith -- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): Consensus to merge , excluding usage on ""television series"" and ""films"" items. The property should be relabeled to reflect the tighter scope. Consensus to merge , excluding usage on ""television series"" and ""films"" items. The property should be relabeled to reflect the tighter scope. The following discussion is closed. Consensus to merge . (See below to discuss topics related to the upcoming migration, don't start any mass changes yet .) ( ) Consensus to merge . (See below to discuss topics related to the upcoming migration, don't start any mass changes yet .) ( ) [MASK] , See . -- ( ) The original language can be inferred from , no need to duplicate the statement. -- ( ) The original language can be inferred from , no need to duplicate the statement. -- ( ) Validate the property isn't being used in other projects (using {{ }} ) and if it is leave a message in Village pump of those projects! Please link to announcement in ruwiki, bawiki, cawiki, eswiki... ( ) @ : This proposal only affects templates using P364 and P407 concurrently. I checked in advanced the templates and found only templates using either P364 or P407. Therefore, the impact on Wikipedia is marginal and informing template editors once a decision is taken here is more purposeful. -- ( ) : Thanks, but I think you should involve WP communities early in such discussions as decisions here affects their templates and it may be hard to find all uses in templates/modules. For example use both of them so may give here good input. ( ) To repeat myself, the decision here will only affect templates marginally. In one would simply need to remove either line 483 or 484. Inviting the whole ruwiki community to discuss about this single line is excessively. -- ( ) : Thanks, but I think you should involve WP communities early in such discussions as decisions here affects their templates and it may be hard to find all uses in templates/modules. For example use both of them so may give here good input. ( ) To repeat myself, the decision here will only affect templates marginally. In one would simply need to remove either line 483 or 484. Inviting the whole ruwiki community to discuss about this single line is excessively. -- ( ) To repeat myself, the decision here will only affect templates marginally. In one would simply need to remove either line 483 or 484. Inviting the whole ruwiki community to discuss about this single line is excessively. -- ( ) Support , I dont see heavy reason to [MASK] them apart. - ( ) [MASK] Although the rationale is rational, unfortunately both properties are heavily used (50+ templates each). Deleting without fixing all using templates is very negatively affecting reputation of Wikidata on the projects - already very negative experience with ill-fated deployment. -- ( ) @ : Fixing the templates is straightforward and fast done. With brother/sister there is the issue that templates are using brother AND sister. Lua functions have to be written to combine and to get the old values back. With P364 and P407 this is different. There are only templates using either P364 or P407 or P364 with fallback to P407 (like in ). Fixing all templates can be done within minutes by a single user and no modules have to be programmed.-- ( ) @ : Fixing the templates is straightforward and fast done. With brother/sister there is the issue that templates are using brother AND sister. Lua functions have to be written to combine and to get the old values back. With P364 and P407 this is different. There are only templates using either P364 or P407 or P364 with fallback to P407 (like in ). Fixing all templates can be done within minutes by a single user and no modules have to be programmed. -- ( ) Delete I don't see a need for two properties here. However, the work to migrate everything to (which I assume is the one that should remain) should be done before P364 is [MASK]! ( ) Question @ : What's about ? The best is to move everything to the new property. I am in favor of the merge but as a third property was created we need to take it into account. ( ) Delete I never understand the difference between this two properties. ( ) Delete as per nomination. Due to heavy usage of both this needs merging. Delete . I never understood the difference. ( ) Delete idem Thierry Caro and Tubezlob. -- ( ) [MASK] Deleting the property can create problems when we describe literary works. For instance, if we want to say that exists in . In this instance we can use to say it is originally in and to say it exists in and . Usually we would not like to split between and versions as this will result in missing language link on Wikipedia between similar topics. As another example consider that is a Danish book (edition) which contains original poems in Danish (and a Danish dialect) as well as translations of English poems to Danish. — ( ) @ : You first example is typically something which has to follow the . With your example how can you specify that the Danish version was first performed in XXXX and Norwegian version was performed for the first time in YYYY if everything is mixed in the same item ? And you are wrong about the lost link between both versions between one will be defined as translation of the other. For book we have the relation, so perhaps we need a more specific property or a generalization of to include songs but the same principle can be applied. Your second example is wrong too. Even if you have have only one edition of a book, you need to create 2 items: one for the work and one of the edition. In the work you specify the language and this is the original language, then for the edition, you specify the languages as Danish, English and Danish dialect. Using information from both work and edition you can determine again what is the original labguage and what are the translations with only one property language. A strict aplication of the can handle all your cases. This just implies the creation of the correct items and to link them with the appropriate relations. ( ) @ : It is more complex than your explanation. For , we would like to have the Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia page linked as well as the Wikisource. And indeed that is what is the case for now: You have a and two Norwegian versions, e.g., , as well as a edition. If we start to split the Wikidata item for the Danish and Norwegian versions we loose the language links. The Wikipedia pages essential describe the same thing: A poem written by H.C. Andersen and translated to Norwegian. For , there is a problem that it is a work containing translations along with original Danish poems, so the work is written in Danish and a Danish dialect, while the original language is Danish, the Danish dialect and English. This work is not an edition of any English book. — ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) @ : You first example is typically something which has to follow the . With your example how can you specify that the Danish version was first performed in XXXX and Norwegian version was performed for the first time in YYYY if everything is mixed in the same item ? And you are wrong about the lost link between both versions between one will be defined as translation of the other. For book we have the relation, so perhaps we need a more specific property or a generalization of to include songs but the same principle can be applied. Your second example is wrong too. Even if you have have only one edition of a book, you need to create 2 items: one for the work and one of the edition. In the work you specify the language and this is the original language, then for the edition, you specify the languages as Danish, English and Danish dialect. Using information from both work and edition you can determine again what is the original labguage and what are the translations with only one property language. A strict aplication of the can handle all your cases. This just implies the creation of the correct items and to link them with the appropriate relations. ( ) @ : It is more complex than your explanation. For , we would like to have the Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia page linked as well as the Wikisource. And indeed that is what is the case for now: You have a and two Norwegian versions, e.g., , as well as a edition. If we start to split the Wikidata item for the Danish and Norwegian versions we loose the language links. The Wikipedia pages essential describe the same thing: A poem written by H.C. Andersen and translated to Norwegian. For , there is a problem that it is a work containing translations along with original Danish poems, so the work is written in Danish and a Danish dialect, while the original language is Danish, the Danish dialect and English. This work is not an edition of any English book. — ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) @ : It is more complex than your explanation. For , we would like to have the Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia page linked as well as the Wikisource. And indeed that is what is the case for now: You have a and two Norwegian versions, e.g., , as well as a edition. If we start to split the Wikidata item for the Danish and Norwegian versions we loose the language links. The Wikipedia pages essential describe the same thing: A poem written by H.C. Andersen and translated to Norwegian. For , there is a problem that it is a work containing translations along with original Danish poems, so the work is written in Danish and a Danish dialect, while the original language is Danish, the Danish dialect and English. This work is not an edition of any English book. — ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) Delete overkill and confusing.   — [MASK] . Someone can explain how manage the original language of a movie and the dubbed version? I mean ""Gone with the Wind"" must have =English but if we create the Italian dubbed version (""Via col vento"") we must use =Italian. With 2 property we can do a query like: ""all the audiovisual work"" with ""Original language"" in English and dubbed/translate in Croatian. -- ( ) @ : Please have a look at the reference in movie structure: . So from that structure, you can see that each dubbed movie has a dedicated item which is different from the original one and then there is a link from the dubbed movie item with the original movie item using the property . So you can extract the original language from the original movie item using this relation. This is the principle of the FRBR system. ( ) @ : I created and . How is in this case and needed? -- ( ) @ : How we can connect with and without SPARQL that don't work in template/infobox? -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) Comment I don't understand why translation of movies or audio-books should be different from textual mediums. looks fine to me. ( ) @ : Please have a look at the reference in movie structure: . So from that structure, you can see that each dubbed movie has a dedicated item which is different from the original one and then there is a link from the dubbed movie item with the original movie item using the property . So you can extract the original language from the original movie item using this relation. This is the principle of the FRBR system. ( ) @ : I created and . How is in this case and needed? -- ( ) @ : How we can connect with and without SPARQL that don't work in template/infobox? -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) @ : How we can connect with and without SPARQL that don't work in template/infobox? -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) Comment I don't understand why translation of movies or audio-books should be different from textual mediums. looks fine to me. ( ) merge both of them with & Delete , per Snipre. Strakhov ( ) Comment I think we had this discussion before and ended up keeping both properties. This seems to create some problems for written works and books they are published in, but it's needed for films. There was a lengthy discussion about this on the Wikiproject for the later. As for written works, it's seems odd that the situation couldn't be resolved with the existing structure (try subproperties) and why it would be resolved by merely deleting it. Merely citing some abstract approach one might not have read or be able to apply to a random book on Wikidata isn't really going to help us on everything. Maybe we need a new WikiProject that tries to actually create items for written works in a consistent way. Neutral on its uses on written works. [MASK] for films. --- @ : ""Maybe we need a new WikiProject that tries to actually create items for written works in a consistent way"": we have which proposes a coherent system, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. We just need to stop discussing and start to use the model with deletion of unnecessary properties which just create confusion. ( ) Maybe you could outline your plans there and detail what items you want to create and what currently prevents you from creating new items: . Your activity seems somewhat limited. If you need to be reassured about , it's ok in terms of what we expect you to do when creating items. Don't hesitate to create a few more. If you have specific questions about the item, I'd be happy to help. --- @ : Could you please link to the lengthy discussion where it was concluded that P364/P407 are needed for films? Could you justify this statement by considering that the FRBR system is used on more items than the mingle-mangle with P364/P407. -- ( ) @ : ""Maybe we need a new WikiProject that tries to actually create items for written works in a consistent way"": we have which proposes a coherent system, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. We just need to stop discussing and start to use the model with deletion of unnecessary properties which just create confusion. ( ) Maybe you could outline your plans there and detail what items you want to create and what currently prevents you from creating new items: . Your activity seems somewhat limited. If you need to be reassured about , it's ok in terms of what we expect you to do when creating items. Don't hesitate to create a few more. If you have specific questions about the item, I'd be happy to help. --- Maybe you could outline your plans there and detail what items you want to create and what currently prevents you from creating new items: . Your activity seems somewhat limited. If you need to be reassured about , it's ok in terms of what we expect you to do when creating items. Don't hesitate to create a few more. If you have specific questions about the item, I'd be happy to help. --- @ : Could you please link to the lengthy discussion where it was concluded that P364/P407 are needed for films? Could you justify this statement by considering that the FRBR system is used on more items than the mingle-mangle with P364/P407. -- ( ) [MASK] per all ""[MASK]"" above, it's still not safely to split movie items only because of FRBR. -- ( ) == Active users == , mostly focus on media historiography and works from the Global South Notified -- ( ) @ : ""it's still not safely to split movie items only because of FRBR"". It is not a question of FRBR, it is a question of logic: if you have a dubbed movie, in which item do you find the list of the actors of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original actor""; in which item do you find the original release date of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original publication date""; in which item do you find the original title of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original title""; so why do you need an original language property in the dubbed movie item when you look for 90% of the data of the original movie in the item of the original movie ? What you are doing is just data duplication leading to potential errors due to unsynchronization. I think you don't understand the features of a database where 1) the data structure has to be always the same in order to create efficent queries (so you have to create the whole set of original properties (original title, original director,...) and you copy everything in the dubbed movie item or you separate all the data in the respective items without duplicating statements), 2) data should not be duplicated in order to avoid contradictions when somebody corrects one statement or not the others. WD is a database, not an WP article where all the data you want are in the same item. ( ) @ : ""it's still not safely to split movie items only because of FRBR"". It is not a question of FRBR, it is a question of logic: if you have a dubbed movie, in which item do you find the list of the actors of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original actor""; in which item do you find the original release date of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original publication date""; in which item do you find the original title of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original title""; so why do you need an original language property in the dubbed movie item when you look for 90% of the data of the original movie in the item of the original movie ? What you are doing is just data duplication leading to potential errors due to unsynchronization. I think you don't understand the features of a database where 1) the data structure has to be always the same in order to create efficent queries (so you have to create the whole set of original properties (original title, original director,...) and you copy everything in the dubbed movie item or you separate all the data in the respective items without duplicating statements), 2) data should not be duplicated in order to avoid contradictions when somebody corrects one statement or not the others. WD is a database, not an WP article where all the data you want are in the same item. ( ) Delete We don't need two properties either for films as all known movie databases use a single value ""language"". ( ) @ : You mean some may store language once with the film and once for translated titles with the same property? Unfortunately we can't do that. --- We don't need a property for translated titles. ( ) We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- @ : You mean some may store language once with the film and once for translated titles with the same property? Unfortunately we can't do that. --- We don't need a property for translated titles. ( ) We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- We don't need a property for translated titles. ( ) We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- migrate P407 and P364, [MASK] P2439 because 1. queries would be easier with one property (P2439). 2. information about edition or translation should be separated from work item (= original work) per every edition or translation. should have ""in French"" value, while only with ""in Russian"" value. it is possible to access any edition using and properties, not just translations. ""language-related"" properties doesn't solve it as well as direct ""edition of""/""editions:"" links. ( ) The following discussion is closed. The fate of this property has not been determined. Feel free to start another dicussion or request later. ( ) The fate of this property has not been determined. Feel free to start another dicussion or request later. ( ) @ : Do we reaaly need a discussion about the fate of ? This is clear that this property should be merged with the future unique property. ( ) No, it's not mandatory at the moment. But I thought we could benefit from the current attention and make a decision on it as well. ( ) No, it's not mandatory at the moment. But I thought we could benefit from the current attention and make a decision on it as well. ( ) The following discussion is closed. (original language) is going to be [MASK]. ( ) (original language) is going to be [MASK]. ( ) The labelling of the new property has to simplified: the current one is just creating confusion if the contributor want to specify the language of something which is not a work or a name, or something the contributor can't assimilate to a work or a name. Whats should he do ? Looking for another property ? Proposing the creation of a new property ? The best to simplify the future unique property with ""language"" only. The best is to delete original language, with the following rules if in one item the property ""original language"" is used: convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found delete it otherwise convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found delete it otherwise ( ) [MASK] and delete since P407 is slightly more used than P364 and it has a wider formulation. -- ( ) announce the migration in copy over all values of ""original language"" to ""language of work or name"" but don't yet delete the ""original language"" statements fix all templates remove all ""original language"" statements and delete property I can help with all steps including fixing the templates on other projects -- ( ) Agree with this steps. Just to avoid error: we [MASK] and delete , correct? -- ( ) @ : Nope, the opposite (discussed in the ). ( ) Agree with this steps. Just to avoid error: we [MASK] and delete , correct? -- ( ) @ : Nope, the opposite (discussed in the ). ( ) @ : Nope, the opposite (discussed in the ). ( ) @ : Your proposition will create multiple opposing statements in the same item: what happens if one item about an edition has one statement and one statement ? With your scenario, you will just create 2 statements for and one will be wrong. You can't separate the conversion and the deletion process announce the migration in launch the migration with the following analysis: if in one item the property ""original language"" is used: convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found in the item delete it otherwise announce the migration in launch the migration with the following analysis: if in one item the property ""original language"" is used: convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found in the item delete it otherwise if in one item the property ""original language"" is used: convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found in the item delete it otherwise convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found in the item delete it otherwise No need of fixing templates to perform that action. Templates can be fixed later without any lost if the correct work/edition model was used in WD. If someone created the edition item without the work item, no template fixing will solve the data lost because you will need to create the work item first. So the problem is not template fixing but incorrect data modeling in WD. ( ) @ , , : Do you think we can proceed now for property merge ? ( ) Your approach looks good to me, I think we are mostly ready. ( ) Your approach looks good to me, I think we are mostly ready. ( ) I added ""(DEPRECATED)"" mark to just now. -- ( ) It seems the situation on books is a thoroughly confused and no basic statistics on it's status are available. See . Before doing an merges, one should ensure an action plan is available to clean this up. Otherwise the merger just confuses the situation further. It appears that the scheme suggested at can't be implemented in practice and a new approach may be needed, possibly with enhanced Wikibase features for relevant Wikidata items. --- If missing statistics are indeed bothering you, here you have it: Items with P364 OR P407 statements: 1.337.876 Items with P364 AND P407 statements: 13.674 Items with identical P364 and P407 values: 12.171 biggest classes: : 3558, : 1922, : 1842, : 1087, : 1006, : 534 Items with conflicting P364 and P407 values: 1.503 biggest classes: : 256, : 243, : 209, : 186, : 155, : 66, : 46, : 43, : 36 -- ( ) The problem is not the number of items as such, but the relevancy of the language statement to the group of items. For films, things are clear, but might get messed up if you merge. For books, I don't think we have a clear vision what we want and how we get there. Merely stating some have P364 or P407, some sort of identifier about a random edition and sitelinks to a Wikipedia article about the work will make us loose information. --- If missing statistics are indeed bothering you, here you have it: Items with P364 OR P407 statements: 1.337.876 Items with P364 AND P407 statements: 13.674 Items with identical P364 and P407 values: 12.171 biggest classes: : 3558, : 1922, : 1842, : 1087, : 1006, : 534 Items with conflicting P364 and P407 values: 1.503 biggest classes: : 256, : 243, : 209, : 186, : 155, : 66, : 46, : 43, : 36 -- ( ) Items with P364 OR P407 statements: 1.337.876 Items with P364 AND P407 statements: 13.674 Items with identical P364 and P407 values: 12.171 biggest classes: : 3558, : 1922, : 1842, : 1087, : 1006, : 534 Items with conflicting P364 and P407 values: 1.503 biggest classes: : 256, : 243, : 209, : 186, : 155, : 66, : 46, : 43, : 36 Items with identical P364 and P407 values: 12.171 biggest classes: : 3558, : 1922, : 1842, : 1087, : 1006, : 534 biggest classes: : 3558, : 1922, : 1842, : 1087, : 1006, : 534 Items with conflicting P364 and P407 values: 1.503 biggest classes: : 256, : 243, : 209, : 186, : 155, : 66, : 46, : 43, : 36 biggest classes: : 256, : 243, : 209, : 186, : 155, : 66, : 46, : 43, : 36 -- ( ) The problem is not the number of items as such, but the relevancy of the language statement to the group of items. For films, things are clear, but might get messed up if you merge. For books, I don't think we have a clear vision what we want and how we get there. Merely stating some have P364 or P407, some sort of identifier about a random edition and sitelinks to a Wikipedia article about the work will make us loose information. --- For books, the problem may be that many items for editions don't have an item for the work. For all values with ""original language of work"" (P364) such items would need to be created. --- Jura convinced me that the situation around books should get more attention. I found many cases of items containing data about both work and the edition. (Well, they mostly seem to represent editions, eg. they have but they also contain data about the original work, eg. or . Perhaps a bot could help here.) Nevertheless, the property should be marked as deprecated, so that we have additional means of preventing arbitrary new usages. ( ) I'm fine with doing this for books (as it's already done), but if we mark it as such for any item, people may start introducing incorrect data for other items. For books, I think a plan should be worked out how to split these items if people are actually interested in using the model proposed at its WikiProject. An alternative solution may be to develop a property datatype that could more easily hold information for various ISBN. --- Jura convinced me that the situation around books should get more attention. I found many cases of items containing data about both work and the edition. (Well, they mostly seem to represent editions, eg. they have but they also contain data about the original work, eg. or . Perhaps a bot could help here.) Nevertheless, the property should be marked as deprecated, so that we have additional means of preventing arbitrary new usages. ( ) I'm fine with doing this for books (as it's already done), but if we mark it as such for any item, people may start introducing incorrect data for other items. For books, I think a plan should be worked out how to split these items if people are actually interested in using the model proposed at its WikiProject. An alternative solution may be to develop a property datatype that could more easily hold information for various ISBN. --- I'm fine with doing this for books (as it's already done), but if we mark it as such for any item, people may start introducing incorrect data for other items. For books, I think a plan should be worked out how to split these items if people are actually interested in using the model proposed at its WikiProject. An alternative solution may be to develop a property datatype that could more easily hold information for various ISBN. --- > various ISBN ISBN doesn't exist in 300BCE . This would take far more time than current properties with multiple items and not necessary better than current 629+747+language 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC) > various ISBN ISBN doesn't exist in 300BCE . This would take far more time than current properties with multiple items and not necessary better than current 629+747+language 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC) > various ISBN ISBN doesn't exist in 300BCE . This would take far more time than current properties with multiple items and not necessary better than current 629+747+language 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC) > various ISBN ISBN doesn't exist in 300BCE . This would take far more time than current properties with multiple items and not necessary better than current 629+747+language 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC) > various ISBN ISBN doesn't exist in 300BCE . This would take far more time than current properties with multiple items and not necessary better than current 629+747+language 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC) So how do we handle collected translations, where there is an original language, but NOT an original work? In particular it is common for translators to publish the surviving plays of Pautus as a collection, or the surviving fragments of Cratinus, but these items never had an original ""work"" to come from. The modern translation(s) are collected as a volume that is a translation, but not of any particular work. -- ( ) So how do we handle collected translations, where there is an original language, but NOT an original work? In particular it is common for translators to publish the surviving plays of Pautus as a collection, or the surviving fragments of Cratinus, but these items never had an original ""work"" to come from. The modern translation(s) are collected as a volume that is a translation, but not of any particular work. -- ( ) Use properties that don't assume any works: 04:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Use properties that don't assume any works: 04:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC) It looks like we still lack a status and a clear plan for books. This is really problematic as it has a negative impact on other fields. --- From my own experience, the biggest problems I run into involve dealing with translations of works, and dealing with collected works. Most of the decisions and properties have been made assuming (incorrectly) that (a) there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come, (b) that translations never have intermediary translations. They also fail to account for (c) editions of translations (a book that is a translation or contains translations, which book is then printed in editions), and (d) collections of works, which may exist in editions, and whose components are themselves translations and/or editions. -- ( ) From my own experience, the biggest problems I run into involve dealing with translations of works, and dealing with collected works. Most of the decisions and properties have been made assuming (incorrectly) that (a) there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come, (b) that translations never have intermediary translations. They also fail to account for (c) editions of translations (a book that is a translation or contains translations, which book is then printed in editions), and (d) collections of works, which may exist in editions, and whose components are themselves translations and/or editions. -- ( ) that's why several users voted to [MASK] only most generic property ( ) a, b - remove 364 (and possibly 407) c - not relevant here, use and d - use P629 and P747 and P2439 in any possible combination. @ : any single example when many items with P629 and P747 and P2439 not able to represent information? ( ) that's why several users voted to [MASK] only most generic property ( ) a, b - remove 364 (and possibly 407) c - not relevant here, use and d - use P629 and P747 and P2439 in any possible combination. @ : any single example when many items with P629 and P747 and P2439 not able to represent information? ( ) that's why several users voted to [MASK] only most generic property ( ) a, b - remove 364 (and possibly 407) c - not relevant here, use and d - use P629 and P747 and P2439 in any possible combination. @ : any single example when many items with P629 and P747 and P2439 not able to represent information? ( ) I think the biggest challenge we face here is the casual dismissal of issues without meaningful discussion. D1gggg, I have to say I don't have much confidence in your suggestions, because it's clear from other edits that you don't know much about library data or the Wikidata properties you're using. You've added entirely the wrong property on more than one occasion, have altered project pages without consensus, and fail to sign your posts frequently. This shows unfamiliarity with the system. So, I will need to hear from more people with greater experience. Your responses above also show that you either do not understand the issues involved, or have not thought about the consequences. How will the data represent the ""original language"" in a situation like ""c"", which you claim is ""not relevant here""? If we have editions of translations of works, that whatever system is retrieving the data to get the original language, it will have to know somehow to climb more than one step back to get that data. -- ( ) I think the biggest challenge we face here is the casual dismissal of issues without meaningful discussion. D1gggg, I have to say I don't have much confidence in your suggestions, because it's clear from other edits that you don't know much about library data or the Wikidata properties you're using. You've added entirely the wrong property on more than one occasion, have altered project pages without consensus, and fail to sign your posts frequently. This shows unfamiliarity with the system. So, I will need to hear from more people with greater experience. Your responses above also show that you either do not understand the issues involved, or have not thought about the consequences. How will the data represent the ""original language"" in a situation like ""c"", which you claim is ""not relevant here""? If we have editions of translations of works, that whatever system is retrieving the data to get the original language, it will have to know somehow to climb more than one step back to get that data. -- ( ) I think the biggest challenge we face here is the casual dismissal of issues without meaningful discussion. D1gggg, I have to say I don't have much confidence in your suggestions, because it's clear from other edits that you don't know much about library data or the Wikidata properties you're using. You've added entirely the wrong property on more than one occasion, have altered project pages without consensus, and fail to sign your posts frequently. This shows unfamiliarity with the system. So, I will need to hear from more people with greater experience. Your responses above also show that you either do not understand the issues involved, or have not thought about the consequences. How will the data represent the ""original language"" in a situation like ""c"", which you claim is ""not relevant here""? If we have editions of translations of works, that whatever system is retrieving the data to get the original language, it will have to know somehow to climb more than one step back to get that data. -- ( ) I think the biggest challenge we face here is the casual dismissal of issues without meaningful discussion. D1gggg, I have to say I don't have much confidence in your suggestions, because it's clear from other edits that you don't know much about library data or the Wikidata properties you're using. You've added entirely the wrong property on more than one occasion, have altered project pages without consensus, and fail to sign your posts frequently. This shows unfamiliarity with the system. So, I will need to hear from more people with greater experience. Your responses above also show that you either do not understand the issues involved, or have not thought about the consequences. How will the data represent the ""original language"" in a situation like ""c"", which you claim is ""not relevant here""? If we have editions of translations of works, that whatever system is retrieving the data to get the original language, it will have to know somehow to climb more than one step back to get that data. -- ( ) @ : The proposed system isn't a problem for translated editions: 1) ""there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come"". The model used for book is FRBR which is quite widely used. If we decide to use this system, we have to create the corresponding structure so if for one item about a translation we don't have to create one item which will be the work one. But for that we have start the migration in order to avoid people to continue to use the wrong model. 2) The current system with 2 language properties doens't help you to model the case you mentioned: A is a transaltion edition in French of B B is a transaltion edition in German of C C is the first edition in the original language English What is the original langauge for A ? German or English ? That's why the current system is wrong, because it collects data from different items in one item instead of keeping data separetely in the correct items and to use link between items to extract the data you need. We miss probably a property for items about translated editions which allow to identify which is the edition (in the original lnaguage or not) used as reference for the translation but this problem is not relevant for our present languages problem as the original langague property doesn't help you to solve the problem of intermediary translations. For the two last points you mentioned there is a need for additional properties but at the end having 2 languages properties don't help you to solve the problem you mention. I think your points should be discuss with the project but not here in that discussion unless you can show how 2 languages properties can help to solve the problems you mentioned. ( ) @ : I don't think you've understood some of the issues I raised: 1) There will NOT always be an ""original work"". And there is a real problem using translation/edition interchangeably. These two problems create most of the issues I have dealing with translations. Perhaps I need an actual example: A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. So, is B a ""work"" because it has multiple editions? Or is it an ""edition"" because it is a translation of another author's works? And to return to the issue at hand: C, D, E, F, G, H, & J were are all originally written in ancient Greek , but as works they have no language at all. Only specific editions will be written or published in a particular language; even the first edition published or written. And any bot or tool that pulls data from this structure (by the current proposal) would run into difficulties, since, A and B are in English , and if A is an ""edition"" of B, how will it be indicated that English is not the original language when the data is extracted? We have a three-tiered hierarchy in these situations, but our model assumes that the hierarchy always has only two levels. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : The proposed system isn't a problem for translated editions: 1) ""there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come"". The model used for book is FRBR which is quite widely used. If we decide to use this system, we have to create the corresponding structure so if for one item about a translation we don't have to create one item which will be the work one. But for that we have start the migration in order to avoid people to continue to use the wrong model. 2) The current system with 2 language properties doens't help you to model the case you mentioned: A is a transaltion edition in French of B B is a transaltion edition in German of C C is the first edition in the original language English What is the original langauge for A ? German or English ? That's why the current system is wrong, because it collects data from different items in one item instead of keeping data separetely in the correct items and to use link between items to extract the data you need. We miss probably a property for items about translated editions which allow to identify which is the edition (in the original lnaguage or not) used as reference for the translation but this problem is not relevant for our present languages problem as the original langague property doesn't help you to solve the problem of intermediary translations. For the two last points you mentioned there is a need for additional properties but at the end having 2 languages properties don't help you to solve the problem you mention. I think your points should be discuss with the project but not here in that discussion unless you can show how 2 languages properties can help to solve the problems you mentioned. ( ) @ : I don't think you've understood some of the issues I raised: 1) There will NOT always be an ""original work"". And there is a real problem using translation/edition interchangeably. These two problems create most of the issues I have dealing with translations. Perhaps I need an actual example: A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. So, is B a ""work"" because it has multiple editions? Or is it an ""edition"" because it is a translation of another author's works? And to return to the issue at hand: C, D, E, F, G, H, & J were are all originally written in ancient Greek , but as works they have no language at all. Only specific editions will be written or published in a particular language; even the first edition published or written. And any bot or tool that pulls data from this structure (by the current proposal) would run into difficulties, since, A and B are in English , and if A is an ""edition"" of B, how will it be indicated that English is not the original language when the data is extracted? We have a three-tiered hierarchy in these situations, but our model assumes that the hierarchy always has only two levels. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : The proposed system isn't a problem for translated editions: 1) ""there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come"". The model used for book is FRBR which is quite widely used. If we decide to use this system, we have to create the corresponding structure so if for one item about a translation we don't have to create one item which will be the work one. But for that we have start the migration in order to avoid people to continue to use the wrong model. 2) The current system with 2 language properties doens't help you to model the case you mentioned: A is a transaltion edition in French of B B is a transaltion edition in German of C C is the first edition in the original language English What is the original langauge for A ? German or English ? That's why the current system is wrong, because it collects data from different items in one item instead of keeping data separetely in the correct items and to use link between items to extract the data you need. We miss probably a property for items about translated editions which allow to identify which is the edition (in the original lnaguage or not) used as reference for the translation but this problem is not relevant for our present languages problem as the original langague property doesn't help you to solve the problem of intermediary translations. For the two last points you mentioned there is a need for additional properties but at the end having 2 languages properties don't help you to solve the problem you mention. I think your points should be discuss with the project but not here in that discussion unless you can show how 2 languages properties can help to solve the problems you mentioned. ( ) @ : I don't think you've understood some of the issues I raised: 1) There will NOT always be an ""original work"". And there is a real problem using translation/edition interchangeably. These two problems create most of the issues I have dealing with translations. Perhaps I need an actual example: A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. So, is B a ""work"" because it has multiple editions? Or is it an ""edition"" because it is a translation of another author's works? And to return to the issue at hand: C, D, E, F, G, H, & J were are all originally written in ancient Greek , but as works they have no language at all. Only specific editions will be written or published in a particular language; even the first edition published or written. And any bot or tool that pulls data from this structure (by the current proposal) would run into difficulties, since, A and B are in English , and if A is an ""edition"" of B, how will it be indicated that English is not the original language when the data is extracted? We have a three-tiered hierarchy in these situations, but our model assumes that the hierarchy always has only two levels. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : The proposed system isn't a problem for translated editions: 1) ""there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come"". The model used for book is FRBR which is quite widely used. If we decide to use this system, we have to create the corresponding structure so if for one item about a translation we don't have to create one item which will be the work one. But for that we have start the migration in order to avoid people to continue to use the wrong model. 2) The current system with 2 language properties doens't help you to model the case you mentioned: A is a transaltion edition in French of B B is a transaltion edition in German of C C is the first edition in the original language English What is the original langauge for A ? German or English ? That's why the current system is wrong, because it collects data from different items in one item instead of keeping data separetely in the correct items and to use link between items to extract the data you need. We miss probably a property for items about translated editions which allow to identify which is the edition (in the original lnaguage or not) used as reference for the translation but this problem is not relevant for our present languages problem as the original langague property doesn't help you to solve the problem of intermediary translations. For the two last points you mentioned there is a need for additional properties but at the end having 2 languages properties don't help you to solve the problem you mention. I think your points should be discuss with the project but not here in that discussion unless you can show how 2 languages properties can help to solve the problems you mentioned. ( ) @ : I don't think you've understood some of the issues I raised: 1) There will NOT always be an ""original work"". And there is a real problem using translation/edition interchangeably. These two problems create most of the issues I have dealing with translations. Perhaps I need an actual example: A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. So, is B a ""work"" because it has multiple editions? Or is it an ""edition"" because it is a translation of another author's works? And to return to the issue at hand: C, D, E, F, G, H, & J were are all originally written in ancient Greek , but as works they have no language at all. Only specific editions will be written or published in a particular language; even the first edition published or written. And any bot or tool that pulls data from this structure (by the current proposal) would run into difficulties, since, A and B are in English , and if A is an ""edition"" of B, how will it be indicated that English is not the original language when the data is extracted? We have a three-tiered hierarchy in these situations, but our model assumes that the hierarchy always has only two levels. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : The proposed system isn't a problem for translated editions: 1) ""there will always be an ""original work"" from which a translation/edition will come"". The model used for book is FRBR which is quite widely used. If we decide to use this system, we have to create the corresponding structure so if for one item about a translation we don't have to create one item which will be the work one. But for that we have start the migration in order to avoid people to continue to use the wrong model. 2) The current system with 2 language properties doens't help you to model the case you mentioned: A is a transaltion edition in French of B B is a transaltion edition in German of C C is the first edition in the original language English A is a transaltion edition in French of B B is a transaltion edition in German of C C is the first edition in the original language English What is the original langauge for A ? German or English ? That's why the current system is wrong, because it collects data from different items in one item instead of keeping data separetely in the correct items and to use link between items to extract the data you need. We miss probably a property for items about translated editions which allow to identify which is the edition (in the original lnaguage or not) used as reference for the translation but this problem is not relevant for our present languages problem as the original langague property doesn't help you to solve the problem of intermediary translations. For the two last points you mentioned there is a need for additional properties but at the end having 2 languages properties don't help you to solve the problem you mention. I think your points should be discuss with the project but not here in that discussion unless you can show how 2 languages properties can help to solve the problems you mentioned. ( ) @ : I don't think you've understood some of the issues I raised: 1) There will NOT always be an ""original work"". And there is a real problem using translation/edition interchangeably. These two problems create most of the issues I have dealing with translations. Perhaps I need an actual example: A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. So, is B a ""work"" because it has multiple editions? Or is it an ""edition"" because it is a translation of another author's works? And to return to the issue at hand: C, D, E, F, G, H, & J were are all originally written in ancient Greek , but as works they have no language at all. Only specific editions will be written or published in a particular language; even the first edition published or written. And any bot or tool that pulls data from this structure (by the current proposal) would run into difficulties, since, A and B are in English , and if A is an ""edition"" of B, how will it be indicated that English is not the original language when the data is extracted? We have a three-tiered hierarchy in these situations, but our model assumes that the hierarchy always has only two levels. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : I don't think you've understood some of the issues I raised: 1) There will NOT always be an ""original work"". And there is a real problem using translation/edition interchangeably. These two problems create most of the issues I have dealing with translations. Perhaps I need an actual example: A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. A is the ""edition"" item for the 4th edition of Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". B is the ""translation"" data item for Swanwick's ""Tragedies of Sophocles"". But B is a translation of C, D, E, F, G, H, & J, which are all separate data items for the ""works"" by Sophocles in the original ancient Greek. So, is B a ""work"" because it has multiple editions? Or is it an ""edition"" because it is a translation of another author's works? And to return to the issue at hand: C, D, E, F, G, H, & J were are all originally written in ancient Greek , but as works they have no language at all. Only specific editions will be written or published in a particular language; even the first edition published or written. And any bot or tool that pulls data from this structure (by the current proposal) would run into difficulties, since, A and B are in English , and if A is an ""edition"" of B, how will it be indicated that English is not the original language when the data is extracted? We have a three-tiered hierarchy in these situations, but our model assumes that the hierarchy always has only two levels. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : What's ""translation"" data ? I think you are not able to describe your problem. Is it book, an eletronic file, a scroll or different parts of a scroll or even different parts from different scrolls ? Data doesn't mean any thing at that level. ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : You misunderstood. I did not say ""translation data"", I said ""translation data item"": A data item for the translation . The translation is a translation/work, and has four editions. Works are never physical objects, only specific editions of works have physical forms. The work itself can appear in any form: printed, electronic text file, audio recording, or performance. So it makes no sense to ask whether the translation is a book, file, scroll, etc. This is the fundamental problem in dealing with books that I [MASK] trying to point out. Our labelling is fuzzy concerning the distinction between works, translation, editions, etc. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? Then a book can't be a translation of several other books: it can contain translated parts from other books/documents but in that case, if the translated book is composed of several translations coming from different document, it is a new work compared to those documents, because the choice of the translations is a creative choice. I don't see any difficulty to treat your case, what is missing in your case is a link to other documents as , or . A compilation of works is a new work. ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : RE: So again what is B ? What is C ? Books ? Scroll ? I say again: C is a work; it is not an instance of that work, but a work itself. It is not a scroll, nor a book, nor anything physical. To ask whether it is a book or scroll, etc. it to completely fail to understand what a work is. Only the editions of works can be a book, scroll, performance, etc. B is a translation of C, and this is where we run into specifics of the problem. If a translation is treated as an edition , then it must have specific edition data such as a year of publication, but if translations are treated like works , then the translation can exist in multiple editions (as it often does), but in that case it is not a book, scroll, etc. as works have no physical form. This is in fact why translations are troublesome to enter. If I have a translation that exists in different editions as a book, as a chapter, as the right-hand pages of a book, or as an audio file, then the data item for the translation cannot be specified to exist in any particular form. So, again, B is not a book or scroll or anything you could hold or point to; it is a translation. Likewise, C is not a physical object, but is the original work. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difficulty. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : The main problem is you don't used usual WD terminology with your ""edition data item"" or ""work data item"". We just use work item or edition item. In WD, an item is a collection of data, so when you say ""edition data item"", this gives something like ""a collection of data about data of an edition"". If you use your own definitions then don't be surprised to be not understandable. And finally your problem is you don't do any difference between a book which is a translation of a work and a book which contains a translation of a work. In the second case the book contains more than the translation of the work so it can be considered only as translation of that work but is something different so you need another property to link the book to the different works it contains typically ""has part"". This solves the problem of antologies or other collections you mentioned in the first time. Still stays the question of a new edition of a previous translation. In that case just take the FRBR model and consider that the edition definition corresponds to the manifestation definition of the FRBR model and we don't use the expression level of that model. So example: A is a work, B is the 1st edition in the original language, C is a translation of the 1st edition In a logical scheme C is not a translaion of the work, but a translation of an edition in the original language. In your system you should create an additional item D which is the work of the translation and represents this system with: D is a translation of A, C is a translation of B, B is an edition of A and C is an edition of D. And then you need a aditional property to link C and A. But this latter link is what most of people working with WD want to have. This creates more complexity for a minimal added value. So in WD, if you have W is a work, X is the 1st edition of W in the original language, Y is a translation of X and Z is a reedition of Y, then X, Y, Z and edition of W and to create the link between X, Y, Z you need new properties like ""translated from"" (Y translated from X) and ""reedition of"" (Z is a reedition of Y). In WD we choose to [MASK] the system simple and to avoid to create to many abstract items like the ones you mentioned (translation defined as work). So is the WD system clear for you ? ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : I'm sorry that you still don't understand. You're giving examples that have no application for the works I have to deal with. In your example, you say that ""B (or X) is the 1st edition in the original language"", but there lies one of the problems with the translations of classical literature: there is no 1st edition available anywhere. What we have are dozens of edited editions in the original language that have been reconstructed from medieval or Renaissance manuscripts, where these various editions and manuscripts all differ from each other. Sometimes, a translator will rely on a particular original language edition, but most often they will not. So there is no means of tying most translations to any specific edition printed in the original language. With that link in the chain broken, your entire proposal falls apart at the very first link. So, no the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it, and that is why I have raised the issue of dealing with translations. -- ( ) @ : I understood your problem: WD community doesn't model the data in order to fit your problem because your translation problem is not relevant for the community objectives. Do you understand that there are different ways to model data and you choose the one which fit the objectives you want to reach ? WD model currently doesn't take care about the sequence of the translations or if a translation was based on two or three originals which were partially recovered. ONCE AGAIN, WD doesn't care about the relations between the different editions or translations. perhaps later we will try to do solve the problem you mentioned and we will create new properties to be able to create that relations. You don't understand that WD is a top level ontology and not a specialized ontology: we are not describing only books but animals, planets and comics. We want to reach a certain level of details but without having to deal with a heavy model with data relevant only to specialists. Saying that ""the WD system is neither clear nor usable as you have described it"" just indicates you don't know the purposes of WD concerning bibliographical data: citation. So we choose an appropriate model for that. If you want to be useful for this community try to understand what are the objectives of WD, which are perhaps not the same like yours. And if you really want to propose a new model which is able to solve the problem you mentioned, don't spent time here: go to , propose your model there and convince people to use it. Currently I am trying to apply the model described on that and which was accepted by a relative majority of the WD community, so if you don't like it please go there and try to change it there. You will save your time and the time of other contributors. ( ) {@ : No, you didn't understand my problem, and as I pointed out, the model you propose above demonstrates strongly that you do not understand. Claiming that you understood all along, and claiming that I am the one who does not is simply avoiding the discussion by moving the goalposts and does not advance the discussion. Right now, there is no model for translations at which is part of the reason I have my problem and am trying to get it addressed and solved. But each time I state the problem, people (such as yourself) first claim there is no problem, then claim that the problem is easily solved, and finally admit that the problem exists and is not easily solved, but then claim instead that it is not important after all. Look back through your own comments above, and this same pattern of response occurs. If you cannot see a solution, that is fine, but please do not simply dismiss the issue on false pretense. -- ( ) {@ : No, you didn't understand my problem, and as I pointed out, the model you propose above demonstrates strongly that you do not understand. Claiming that you understood all along, and claiming that I am the one who does not is simply avoiding the discussion by moving the goalposts and does not advance the discussion. Right now, there is no model for translations at which is part of the reason I have my problem and am trying to get it addressed and solved. But each time I state the problem, people (such as yourself) first claim there is no problem, then claim that the problem is easily solved, and finally admit that the problem exists and is not easily solved, but then claim instead that it is not important after all. Look back through your own comments above, and this same pattern of response occurs. If you cannot see a solution, that is fine, but please do not simply dismiss the issue on false pretense. -- ( ) How would we describe (regardless of whether it is a work or a ) without both and ? — ( ) Should I copy suggestions from Snipre that is archived above? -- ( ) @ : IMHO, I have an idea that describe that thing that without but with , and perhaps no splitting needed: 1. Allowing loop-back value of (i.e. adding ) (note that is such allowed in sovereign states items), with qualifiers: a. (may only available after description re-designing, or maybe new datatype needed) b. (ditto, :p) c. 2. PRIORITY: Preferred rank 3. PRIORITY: Normal rank Should I copy suggestions from Snipre that is archived above? -- ( ) @ : IMHO, I have an idea that describe that thing that without but with , and perhaps no splitting needed: 1. Allowing loop-back value of (i.e. adding ) (note that is such allowed in sovereign states items), with qualifiers: a. (may only available after description re-designing, or maybe new datatype needed) b. (ditto, :p) c. a. (may only available after description re-designing, or maybe new datatype needed) b. (ditto, :p) c. 2. PRIORITY: Preferred rank 3. PRIORITY: Normal rank We need to make sure that we don't loose any information. Until a clear plan is available, the best approach is to continue as of now, as said: no large scale changes should be made before. --- @ : It still needs your suggestion to resolve problems here. -- ( ) I added to all works it compromises by using . This allows now to exactly determine which parts of the collection have original language Danish and which parts are translations from English. -- ( ) @ : Pasleim solved partially the problem: the final step is to delete the original language statements which just means nothing in that case. The English versions of the poem were translated from Danish or from Jutlandic dialect but not from Danish AND Jutlandic dialect. I am quite confident to think that in reality the original version of the poems is in Jutlandic dialect which were translated in Danish. But the current data structure doesn't provide any corretc information about the relation and just add confusion because we mix data: we mix data about the book with data about the poems. Each time you go further into the details you have to create item and not adding more and more informations in the general items. Just take the example of a village: you don't add data about the village in the country item where the village is located in. If the original language is different for each poem, the current statment current statement Original language = Danish/Jutlandic dialect is wrong because it is imprecise. That's why you shouldn't not mix data: the book is in English/Danish/Jutlandic dialect, that's a fact. Then for the original language we have to create an new item for the document which was used as original text or at least to provide the correct process: the poems author wrote them in one language and then translated them in another language, so be accurate and provide the correct sequence. And if you don't know the correct sequence don't write wrong information. ( ) @ : That approach only works when there is only one document which was used as original text, and when we know exactly which document that is. For translations of whole books written in the modern era, that is usually possible, but it is not possible for most older texts where all the available source texts were used, or where the ""original"" is either not identified or never existed in written form. Even for a well known work like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , there is no single source text used for modern editions or translations. All modern English editions of the play are amalgamations of several early texts, and translators seldom identify which edition(s) they worked from. -- ( ) @ : ""That approach only works...when we know exactly which document that is."" If you don't know exactly, don't write unsourced information. If an Italian translation of an older Greek document is not known has being translated from the original Greek document in Greek, don't write that the original version form of the Italian translation is Greek, because the translation was perhaps done from Latin. WD doesn't deal with some hypothetical possibilities but with facts. So if you don't know what was the original version used for a transaltion, don't add wrong information. ( ) @ : Unfortunately, we still have some editors making major changes to many entries, such as User:Pasleim. -- ( ) @ : I'm cleaning up items which mix work with edition/translation. You can not abuse this discussion here to stop the whole . -- ( ) @ : The resolution of the problems of edition / translation are part of the ongoing discussion. No resolution has been adopted by consensus in the discussion. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is not if work items should be separated from edition/translation or how to discriminate an edition from a translation but how to merge into . As pointed out above by , the problem are items constaining data both about work and edition/translation. A way has to be found how to separate these items. My constructive answer to this problem was to separate them manually... -- ( ) The topic of discussion is the removal / merger of a property associated with books. Refusing to discuss points pertaining to that discussion and removal / merger is not helpful. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : It still needs your suggestion to resolve problems here. -- ( ) I added to all works it compromises by using . This allows now to exactly determine which parts of the collection have original language Danish and which parts are translations from English. -- ( ) @ : Pasleim solved partially the problem: the final step is to delete the original language statements which just means nothing in that case. The English versions of the poem were translated from Danish or from Jutlandic dialect but not from Danish AND Jutlandic dialect. I am quite confident to think that in reality the original version of the poems is in Jutlandic dialect which were translated in Danish. But the current data structure doesn't provide any corretc information about the relation and just add confusion because we mix data: we mix data about the book with data about the poems. Each time you go further into the details you have to create item and not adding more and more informations in the general items. Just take the example of a village: you don't add data about the village in the country item where the village is located in. If the original language is different for each poem, the current statment current statement Original language = Danish/Jutlandic dialect is wrong because it is imprecise. That's why you shouldn't not mix data: the book is in English/Danish/Jutlandic dialect, that's a fact. Then for the original language we have to create an new item for the document which was used as original text or at least to provide the correct process: the poems author wrote them in one language and then translated them in another language, so be accurate and provide the correct sequence. And if you don't know the correct sequence don't write wrong information. ( ) @ : That approach only works when there is only one document which was used as original text, and when we know exactly which document that is. For translations of whole books written in the modern era, that is usually possible, but it is not possible for most older texts where all the available source texts were used, or where the ""original"" is either not identified or never existed in written form. Even for a well known work like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , there is no single source text used for modern editions or translations. All modern English editions of the play are amalgamations of several early texts, and translators seldom identify which edition(s) they worked from. -- ( ) @ : ""That approach only works...when we know exactly which document that is."" If you don't know exactly, don't write unsourced information. If an Italian translation of an older Greek document is not known has being translated from the original Greek document in Greek, don't write that the original version form of the Italian translation is Greek, because the translation was perhaps done from Latin. WD doesn't deal with some hypothetical possibilities but with facts. So if you don't know what was the original version used for a transaltion, don't add wrong information. ( ) I added to all works it compromises by using . This allows now to exactly determine which parts of the collection have original language Danish and which parts are translations from English. -- ( ) @ : Pasleim solved partially the problem: the final step is to delete the original language statements which just means nothing in that case. The English versions of the poem were translated from Danish or from Jutlandic dialect but not from Danish AND Jutlandic dialect. I am quite confident to think that in reality the original version of the poems is in Jutlandic dialect which were translated in Danish. But the current data structure doesn't provide any corretc information about the relation and just add confusion because we mix data: we mix data about the book with data about the poems. Each time you go further into the details you have to create item and not adding more and more informations in the general items. Just take the example of a village: you don't add data about the village in the country item where the village is located in. If the original language is different for each poem, the current statment current statement Original language = Danish/Jutlandic dialect is wrong because it is imprecise. That's why you shouldn't not mix data: the book is in English/Danish/Jutlandic dialect, that's a fact. Then for the original language we have to create an new item for the document which was used as original text or at least to provide the correct process: the poems author wrote them in one language and then translated them in another language, so be accurate and provide the correct sequence. And if you don't know the correct sequence don't write wrong information. ( ) @ : That approach only works when there is only one document which was used as original text, and when we know exactly which document that is. For translations of whole books written in the modern era, that is usually possible, but it is not possible for most older texts where all the available source texts were used, or where the ""original"" is either not identified or never existed in written form. Even for a well known work like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , there is no single source text used for modern editions or translations. All modern English editions of the play are amalgamations of several early texts, and translators seldom identify which edition(s) they worked from. -- ( ) @ : ""That approach only works...when we know exactly which document that is."" If you don't know exactly, don't write unsourced information. If an Italian translation of an older Greek document is not known has being translated from the original Greek document in Greek, don't write that the original version form of the Italian translation is Greek, because the translation was perhaps done from Latin. WD doesn't deal with some hypothetical possibilities but with facts. So if you don't know what was the original version used for a transaltion, don't add wrong information. ( ) @ : Pasleim solved partially the problem: the final step is to delete the original language statements which just means nothing in that case. The English versions of the poem were translated from Danish or from Jutlandic dialect but not from Danish AND Jutlandic dialect. I am quite confident to think that in reality the original version of the poems is in Jutlandic dialect which were translated in Danish. But the current data structure doesn't provide any corretc information about the relation and just add confusion because we mix data: we mix data about the book with data about the poems. Each time you go further into the details you have to create item and not adding more and more informations in the general items. Just take the example of a village: you don't add data about the village in the country item where the village is located in. If the original language is different for each poem, the current statment current statement Original language = Danish/Jutlandic dialect is wrong because it is imprecise. That's why you shouldn't not mix data: the book is in English/Danish/Jutlandic dialect, that's a fact. Then for the original language we have to create an new item for the document which was used as original text or at least to provide the correct process: the poems author wrote them in one language and then translated them in another language, so be accurate and provide the correct sequence. And if you don't know the correct sequence don't write wrong information. ( ) @ : That approach only works when there is only one document which was used as original text, and when we know exactly which document that is. For translations of whole books written in the modern era, that is usually possible, but it is not possible for most older texts where all the available source texts were used, or where the ""original"" is either not identified or never existed in written form. Even for a well known work like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , there is no single source text used for modern editions or translations. All modern English editions of the play are amalgamations of several early texts, and translators seldom identify which edition(s) they worked from. -- ( ) @ : ""That approach only works...when we know exactly which document that is."" If you don't know exactly, don't write unsourced information. If an Italian translation of an older Greek document is not known has being translated from the original Greek document in Greek, don't write that the original version form of the Italian translation is Greek, because the translation was perhaps done from Latin. WD doesn't deal with some hypothetical possibilities but with facts. So if you don't know what was the original version used for a transaltion, don't add wrong information. ( ) @ : That approach only works when there is only one document which was used as original text, and when we know exactly which document that is. For translations of whole books written in the modern era, that is usually possible, but it is not possible for most older texts where all the available source texts were used, or where the ""original"" is either not identified or never existed in written form. Even for a well known work like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , there is no single source text used for modern editions or translations. All modern English editions of the play are amalgamations of several early texts, and translators seldom identify which edition(s) they worked from. -- ( ) @ : ""That approach only works...when we know exactly which document that is."" If you don't know exactly, don't write unsourced information. If an Italian translation of an older Greek document is not known has being translated from the original Greek document in Greek, don't write that the original version form of the Italian translation is Greek, because the translation was perhaps done from Latin. WD doesn't deal with some hypothetical possibilities but with facts. So if you don't know what was the original version used for a transaltion, don't add wrong information. ( ) @ : ""That approach only works...when we know exactly which document that is."" If you don't know exactly, don't write unsourced information. If an Italian translation of an older Greek document is not known has being translated from the original Greek document in Greek, don't write that the original version form of the Italian translation is Greek, because the translation was perhaps done from Latin. WD doesn't deal with some hypothetical possibilities but with facts. So if you don't know what was the original version used for a transaltion, don't add wrong information. ( ) @ : Unfortunately, we still have some editors making major changes to many entries, such as User:Pasleim. -- ( ) @ : I'm cleaning up items which mix work with edition/translation. You can not abuse this discussion here to stop the whole . -- ( ) @ : The resolution of the problems of edition / translation are part of the ongoing discussion. No resolution has been adopted by consensus in the discussion. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is not if work items should be separated from edition/translation or how to discriminate an edition from a translation but how to merge into . As pointed out above by , the problem are items constaining data both about work and edition/translation. A way has to be found how to separate these items. My constructive answer to this problem was to separate them manually... -- ( ) The topic of discussion is the removal / merger of a property associated with books. Refusing to discuss points pertaining to that discussion and removal / merger is not helpful. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : I'm cleaning up items which mix work with edition/translation. You can not abuse this discussion here to stop the whole . -- ( ) @ : The resolution of the problems of edition / translation are part of the ongoing discussion. No resolution has been adopted by consensus in the discussion. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is not if work items should be separated from edition/translation or how to discriminate an edition from a translation but how to merge into . As pointed out above by , the problem are items constaining data both about work and edition/translation. A way has to be found how to separate these items. My constructive answer to this problem was to separate them manually... -- ( ) The topic of discussion is the removal / merger of a property associated with books. Refusing to discuss points pertaining to that discussion and removal / merger is not helpful. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : The resolution of the problems of edition / translation are part of the ongoing discussion. No resolution has been adopted by consensus in the discussion. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is not if work items should be separated from edition/translation or how to discriminate an edition from a translation but how to merge into . As pointed out above by , the problem are items constaining data both about work and edition/translation. A way has to be found how to separate these items. My constructive answer to this problem was to separate them manually... -- ( ) The topic of discussion is the removal / merger of a property associated with books. Refusing to discuss points pertaining to that discussion and removal / merger is not helpful. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is not if work items should be separated from edition/translation or how to discriminate an edition from a translation but how to merge into . As pointed out above by , the problem are items constaining data both about work and edition/translation. A way has to be found how to separate these items. My constructive answer to this problem was to separate them manually... -- ( ) The topic of discussion is the removal / merger of a property associated with books. Refusing to discuss points pertaining to that discussion and removal / merger is not helpful. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) The topic of discussion is the removal / merger of a property associated with books. Refusing to discuss points pertaining to that discussion and removal / merger is not helpful. -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) The topic of this discussion is the application of the model proposed on that , so if you want to discuss again the model itself go there. ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) No model is identified for translations at the location you have indicated, only models for ""editions"" that are used as sources. Wikisource data housed here for translations does not fall into that category, yet we are trying to house a wealth of translation data here. One cannot apply a model that does not exist. -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) Have you seen ? ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : Yes, but it does not provide the help needed for the large category of items in which I usually work, nor does it provide a useful example for translations or editions of translations. -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : Note that your undo actions are happened twice or three times, please do not violate 3RR, thx. -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : Please note that WD has no 3RR policy. In fact, several MW projects have no such rule. You are thinking of Wikipedia. -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : So you can legally do a lot of because you just want to [MASK] one property? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : Making comments ascribing invented motives and goals to other people will not solve anything, and can damage the community. Please do not make such comments. What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? The issue at hand is that, for some kinds of ""books"" and especially for their translations, we have no clearly defined model to work from, and so are trying to determine how best to proceed. Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. Despite the ongoing discussion, and stated desire to hold off on enacting change, some editors are going ahead and making large-scale changes on their own without waiting for the discussion to conclude. But I am instead waiting to enact changes, and am trying to get this discussion to resolve some of the long-standing issues tied into this property. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : What property do you think I want to [MASK]? It seems you haven't read any of the above discussion, have you? I read the entire PFD page carefully, that's the reason that I assume that you're edit-waring, as your edit comments like ""consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet"" no longer make sense for me to still AGF Discussion above has indicated that no large-scale action be taken yet, because we're still deciding what action to take. There's already consensus to drop P364 even for that Danish user, your ""aganist"" is too late. If you read all of the other discussion I've posted here, then that is what you'll find is going on. By watching out the , the 2 wikis that you are mostly editing are English Wiktionary and Wikisource, so can we concentrate on what's wrong within both English projects if one day we unfortunatelly [MASK] , instead of discussing some random ""large-scale changes"" which you even did? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) @ : We are getting way off topic, so I'll be brief: You're wrong on almost every point or assumption you state above, including which projects I've edited mostly. (I've edited heavily on wikispecies, for example, but that project doesn't seem to appear in the data when I follow the link.) So, instead of trying to pick apart other editors, let's stick to discussing the issue at hand, please? -- ( ) Thanks for this clarifications. My proposal how to deal with this case: only contains texts in Danish and Jutlandig. So those should be the only values of . No other language statements or qualifiers should be added. Since Digte 1906 is a collection of works, use to link to all poems resp. translated poems it contains. Create for each translated poem an own item as well as for each original poem. On the item about the translated poem use to indicate the language of the translation; on the item about the orignal poem use to indicate the original language. The translated poem can be linked with the original poem with . is used to show in which works a poem was published. This property can have many values. No distinction is made between the work in which the poem was first published and subsequent works. If a poem was put to music, create an own item for the song and use to link the song with the poem. If a work gets slightly extended, one has to decide if it's just a new edition or if it's a new work. No hard rule is applicable here. For a new edition, use to link to the original version. If you decide it is a new work, you can use instead . -- ( ) But what should be done if a translated poem has multiple editions? I'm seeking clarification regarding you point above: ""Create for each translated poem an own item as well as for each original poem. On the item about the translated poem use to indicate the language of the translation; on the item about the orignal poem use to indicate the original language. The translated poem can be linked with the original poem with ."" Are we going to use on the translation and then again on the edition of the translation, so that we have an ""edition or translation of an edition or translation""? And for each item in such a situation, what should be used for ? Current practice in this regard leaves much to be desired. And with regard to the issue of ""original language"", it means that we end up with a situation in which the ""original"" language is not one tier above the edition, but two steps back. And I have situations analogous to Digte in which I fear we would have three steps. How will those who are making use of the data going to know the ""original"" language when the information may be one, two, or three data items away instead of a consistent number? Without a specific property to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) @ : Your comments here gave me those panoramas: We must discuss in conjunction with when talking about his (really?), we must discuss in conjunction with (2nd really?), we must discuss your heart in conjunction with (biggest REALLY?) mass edits can be happened in any conditions, and are those hurting you and you must ""undo, revert, restore...""? e.g. Zhuyifei1999 made to tool maintainers of our new , so in your logic those recommendations must also be reverted? Anything is already big-rock-defined here. No more harassments to my Echo notifications, thx. -- ( ) @ : I do not understand how your examples or discussion pertains to the topic being discussed. Your response does not address or solve any issue under consideration, and only distracts from the core problem. I ask again to the community: How will those who are making use of the data know the ""original"" language when the information is not on the data item, and that information may be one, two, or three data items away (instead of a consistent number), and has no property or qualifier to identify the original language? Without a specific marker to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) If you have a chain of 4 works/editions, how would you do it with the current system? We only have properties ""language of work"", ""language of original work"" but no property ""language of original work of original work"" and ""language of original work of original work of original work"". -- ( ) only contains texts in Danish and Jutlandig. So those should be the only values of . No other language statements or qualifiers should be added. Since Digte 1906 is a collection of works, use to link to all poems resp. translated poems it contains. Create for each translated poem an own item as well as for each original poem. On the item about the translated poem use to indicate the language of the translation; on the item about the orignal poem use to indicate the original language. The translated poem can be linked with the original poem with . is used to show in which works a poem was published. This property can have many values. No distinction is made between the work in which the poem was first published and subsequent works. If a poem was put to music, create an own item for the song and use to link the song with the poem. If a work gets slightly extended, one has to decide if it's just a new edition or if it's a new work. No hard rule is applicable here. For a new edition, use to link to the original version. If you decide it is a new work, you can use instead . -- ( ) But what should be done if a translated poem has multiple editions? I'm seeking clarification regarding you point above: ""Create for each translated poem an own item as well as for each original poem. On the item about the translated poem use to indicate the language of the translation; on the item about the orignal poem use to indicate the original language. The translated poem can be linked with the original poem with ."" Are we going to use on the translation and then again on the edition of the translation, so that we have an ""edition or translation of an edition or translation""? And for each item in such a situation, what should be used for ? Current practice in this regard leaves much to be desired. And with regard to the issue of ""original language"", it means that we end up with a situation in which the ""original"" language is not one tier above the edition, but two steps back. And I have situations analogous to Digte in which I fear we would have three steps. How will those who are making use of the data going to know the ""original"" language when the information may be one, two, or three data items away instead of a consistent number? Without a specific property to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) @ : Your comments here gave me those panoramas: We must discuss in conjunction with when talking about his (really?), we must discuss in conjunction with (2nd really?), we must discuss your heart in conjunction with (biggest REALLY?) mass edits can be happened in any conditions, and are those hurting you and you must ""undo, revert, restore...""? e.g. Zhuyifei1999 made to tool maintainers of our new , so in your logic those recommendations must also be reverted? Anything is already big-rock-defined here. No more harassments to my Echo notifications, thx. -- ( ) @ : I do not understand how your examples or discussion pertains to the topic being discussed. Your response does not address or solve any issue under consideration, and only distracts from the core problem. I ask again to the community: How will those who are making use of the data know the ""original"" language when the information is not on the data item, and that information may be one, two, or three data items away (instead of a consistent number), and has no property or qualifier to identify the original language? Without a specific marker to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) If you have a chain of 4 works/editions, how would you do it with the current system? We only have properties ""language of work"", ""language of original work"" but no property ""language of original work of original work"" and ""language of original work of original work of original work"". -- ( ) But what should be done if a translated poem has multiple editions? I'm seeking clarification regarding you point above: ""Create for each translated poem an own item as well as for each original poem. On the item about the translated poem use to indicate the language of the translation; on the item about the orignal poem use to indicate the original language. The translated poem can be linked with the original poem with ."" ""Create for each translated poem an own item as well as for each original poem. On the item about the translated poem use to indicate the language of the translation; on the item about the orignal poem use to indicate the original language. The translated poem can be linked with the original poem with ."" Are we going to use on the translation and then again on the edition of the translation, so that we have an ""edition or translation of an edition or translation""? And for each item in such a situation, what should be used for ? Current practice in this regard leaves much to be desired. And with regard to the issue of ""original language"", it means that we end up with a situation in which the ""original"" language is not one tier above the edition, but two steps back. And I have situations analogous to Digte in which I fear we would have three steps. How will those who are making use of the data going to know the ""original"" language when the information may be one, two, or three data items away instead of a consistent number? Without a specific property to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) @ : Your comments here gave me those panoramas: We must discuss in conjunction with when talking about his (really?), we must discuss in conjunction with (2nd really?), we must discuss your heart in conjunction with (biggest REALLY?) mass edits can be happened in any conditions, and are those hurting you and you must ""undo, revert, restore...""? e.g. Zhuyifei1999 made to tool maintainers of our new , so in your logic those recommendations must also be reverted? Anything is already big-rock-defined here. No more harassments to my Echo notifications, thx. -- ( ) @ : I do not understand how your examples or discussion pertains to the topic being discussed. Your response does not address or solve any issue under consideration, and only distracts from the core problem. I ask again to the community: How will those who are making use of the data know the ""original"" language when the information is not on the data item, and that information may be one, two, or three data items away (instead of a consistent number), and has no property or qualifier to identify the original language? Without a specific marker to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) If you have a chain of 4 works/editions, how would you do it with the current system? We only have properties ""language of work"", ""language of original work"" but no property ""language of original work of original work"" and ""language of original work of original work of original work"". -- ( ) @ : Your comments here gave me those panoramas: We must discuss in conjunction with when talking about his (really?), we must discuss in conjunction with (2nd really?), we must discuss your heart in conjunction with (biggest REALLY?) mass edits can be happened in any conditions, and are those hurting you and you must ""undo, revert, restore...""? e.g. Zhuyifei1999 made to tool maintainers of our new , so in your logic those recommendations must also be reverted? Anything is already big-rock-defined here. No more harassments to my Echo notifications, thx. -- ( ) @ : I do not understand how your examples or discussion pertains to the topic being discussed. Your response does not address or solve any issue under consideration, and only distracts from the core problem. I ask again to the community: How will those who are making use of the data know the ""original"" language when the information is not on the data item, and that information may be one, two, or three data items away (instead of a consistent number), and has no property or qualifier to identify the original language? Without a specific marker to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) If you have a chain of 4 works/editions, how would you do it with the current system? We only have properties ""language of work"", ""language of original work"" but no property ""language of original work of original work"" and ""language of original work of original work of original work"". -- ( ) @ : I do not understand how your examples or discussion pertains to the topic being discussed. Your response does not address or solve any issue under consideration, and only distracts from the core problem. I ask again to the community: How will those who are making use of the data know the ""original"" language when the information is not on the data item, and that information may be one, two, or three data items away (instead of a consistent number), and has no property or qualifier to identify the original language? Without a specific marker to identify the original language, what can we do to clarify that information for users of WD? -- ( ) If you have a chain of 4 works/editions, how would you do it with the current system? We only have properties ""language of work"", ""language of original work"" but no property ""language of original work of original work"" and ""language of original work of original work of original work"". -- ( ) If you have a chain of 4 works/editions, how would you do it with the current system? We only have properties ""language of work"", ""language of original work"" but no property ""language of original work of original work"" and ""language of original work of original work of original work"". -- ( ) This discussion is related to a more global concept than the FRBR system: data duplication have to be avoided and data have to be saved in the more related item. These principles are important for bots, queries and automatic data extraction like the one for infoboxes in order to have general rules allowing codes reusability. We shouldn't not have a special way to store data for book and another for movies. WD is one database and we have to have general rules independent of the topics. ( ) I demonstrated the FRBR system for movies on and . Till now, no member of the WikiProject Movie could show me how to express the data I added to this items without the FRBR system. I understand this as a silent agreement to the FRBR system. -- ( ) Sorry, but I can't still see any problem. This and implies to me that there is a consensus regarding items for dubbed edition items. Please explain in detail to me as a non-involved person where you see problem. ( ) We don't create such items in general. It seems that even the person who first sought help on how to create one isn't actually interested, or, at least, isn't able to create any. I don't have any real explanation for this inability. Maybe you can help us? Is this a specific contribution pattern that should be investigated? In general, the core of the information on films is held on the main item. This includes the original language and one or several other languages. In general, there can be several dubbings and subtitlings of films in one language, but they still share core elements of the film. Similarly, there is now the possibility to link several items about posters and scripts of the film. The idea seems to have been to adopt a solution that is proposed for books, but it appears it isn't working there either, so maybe it's better to consider the outcome of this as potentially desirable for textual work, but currently lacking a practical migration plan. If you see one for books, I'd be interested. --- We – who? Me either? the person who first sought help – @ : could you comment? the core of the information on films is held on the main item – we aren't going to delete it, are we? there can be several dubbings and subtitlings of films in one language – imagine having all of them stored in a single item... it isn't working there either – where not? Finally, do you have an example of item which would suffer from a significant (if any) data loss during the migration? Anyway, it sounds to me that you don't like the whole work-edition distinction, which was, however, approved in 2013. ( ) I think any item that currently has its original work language determined will suffer. Maybe the migration plan for books can help sort this out, but looking at what does and how they implemented it, it's just . . maybe you should read what active participants there write about it. In any case, you are actually deleting information, if there is no clear plan where the same information will be held afterwards. --- @ : Can you give me a movie example which splitting is not possible? -- ( ) Looking only at items that use P31=film, there are currently about 200,000 of these with information about 470,000 different language versions. Some maybe up to 60 different ones. Obviously, we could created 270,000 new items, but these wouldn't be easy to maintain nor use by Wikipedia with the current tools. The confusion we currently have for books may spread further. --- Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) We don't create such items in general. It seems that even the person who first sought help on how to create one isn't actually interested, or, at least, isn't able to create any. I don't have any real explanation for this inability. Maybe you can help us? Is this a specific contribution pattern that should be investigated? In general, the core of the information on films is held on the main item. This includes the original language and one or several other languages. In general, there can be several dubbings and subtitlings of films in one language, but they still share core elements of the film. Similarly, there is now the possibility to link several items about posters and scripts of the film. The idea seems to have been to adopt a solution that is proposed for books, but it appears it isn't working there either, so maybe it's better to consider the outcome of this as potentially desirable for textual work, but currently lacking a practical migration plan. If you see one for books, I'd be interested. --- We – who? Me either? the person who first sought help – @ : could you comment? the core of the information on films is held on the main item – we aren't going to delete it, are we? there can be several dubbings and subtitlings of films in one language – imagine having all of them stored in a single item... it isn't working there either – where not? Finally, do you have an example of item which would suffer from a significant (if any) data loss during the migration? Anyway, it sounds to me that you don't like the whole work-edition distinction, which was, however, approved in 2013. ( ) I think any item that currently has its original work language determined will suffer. Maybe the migration plan for books can help sort this out, but looking at what does and how they implemented it, it's just . . maybe you should read what active participants there write about it. In any case, you are actually deleting information, if there is no clear plan where the same information will be held afterwards. --- @ : Can you give me a movie example which splitting is not possible? -- ( ) Looking only at items that use P31=film, there are currently about 200,000 of these with information about 470,000 different language versions. Some maybe up to 60 different ones. Obviously, we could created 270,000 new items, but these wouldn't be easy to maintain nor use by Wikipedia with the current tools. The confusion we currently have for books may spread further. --- Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) We – who? Me either? the person who first sought help – @ : could you comment? the core of the information on films is held on the main item – we aren't going to delete it, are we? there can be several dubbings and subtitlings of films in one language – imagine having all of them stored in a single item... it isn't working there either – where not? Finally, do you have an example of item which would suffer from a significant (if any) data loss during the migration? Anyway, it sounds to me that you don't like the whole work-edition distinction, which was, however, approved in 2013. ( ) I think any item that currently has its original work language determined will suffer. Maybe the migration plan for books can help sort this out, but looking at what does and how they implemented it, it's just . . maybe you should read what active participants there write about it. In any case, you are actually deleting information, if there is no clear plan where the same information will be held afterwards. --- @ : Can you give me a movie example which splitting is not possible? -- ( ) Looking only at items that use P31=film, there are currently about 200,000 of these with information about 470,000 different language versions. Some maybe up to 60 different ones. Obviously, we could created 270,000 new items, but these wouldn't be easy to maintain nor use by Wikipedia with the current tools. The confusion we currently have for books may spread further. --- Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) I think any item that currently has its original work language determined will suffer. Maybe the migration plan for books can help sort this out, but looking at what does and how they implemented it, it's just . . maybe you should read what active participants there write about it. In any case, you are actually deleting information, if there is no clear plan where the same information will be held afterwards. --- @ : Can you give me a movie example which splitting is not possible? -- ( ) Looking only at items that use P31=film, there are currently about 200,000 of these with information about 470,000 different language versions. Some maybe up to 60 different ones. Obviously, we could created 270,000 new items, but these wouldn't be easy to maintain nor use by Wikipedia with the current tools. The confusion we currently have for books may spread further. --- Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) @ : Can you give me a movie example which splitting is not possible? -- ( ) Looking only at items that use P31=film, there are currently about 200,000 of these with information about 470,000 different language versions. Some maybe up to 60 different ones. Obviously, we could created 270,000 new items, but these wouldn't be easy to maintain nor use by Wikipedia with the current tools. The confusion we currently have for books may spread further. --- Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) Looking only at items that use P31=film, there are currently about 200,000 of these with information about 470,000 different language versions. Some maybe up to 60 different ones. Obviously, we could created 270,000 new items, but these wouldn't be easy to maintain nor use by Wikipedia with the current tools. The confusion we currently have for books may spread further. --- Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) Could you please give a source for your numbers? So far I was assuming there are 189,000 movies with language information holding information about 203,000 different language versions . Those 11,000 items holding information about multiple languages are typical movies produced in multiple languages e.g. . However, those do not suffer from the migration. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) I may found an example that not suitable for splitting: ( K. ( ) Notified for more help on it) To the best of my knowledge, most of non-Japanese articles that linked by this item, are describing both Japanese and their dub works (*not only describing dubs in their own language, but also other lingua franca), so is it fairy to split it to 60 items? While it's technically possible, there will mostly have opposite voice from at least ja, ko and zhwiki as P407 value would be polluted. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) The statements on have up to four qualifier. How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing? How do you plan to add publisher, publishing date, original network, website and translator of the dubbings? With qualifiers some of the data could be stored. But qualifiers on qualifiers do not exist so you will never be able to add all information if you don't split the item. A Wikipedia article describing both the original and the dub work can stay on the current item. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) Hello, Spanish Wikipedia user here. I'm not sure about the politics on different Wikipedias, I think the only thing I know is that in the English Wikipedia you use to translate the main article name to it's translation, in the case of Japanese animes and mangas (Blue Exorcist, The Qwaser of Stigmata, Attack on Titan, Future Diary, ...) but anything else. Talking about Wikipedia in Spanish, I'm truly not concerned about everything, because, for example, we [MASK] the original Japanese titles on manga and anime articles, and in character names too, but there are cases in which, for some reason, the original name is replaced by a translated one (who the heck is Elsa Scarlet?), and that is defended by many users, some of them also participants of WikiProject Anime and Manga. I don't know if there will be a poll for using original names, but if so I'll be so happy, I've succeeded deleting that article for my memory, but every time I see things like Elsa Scarlet I got a mindblow and my body gets possessed. Ok, enough jokes, coming back to reality, there's also a lot of politics on Spanish Wikipedia concerning translations and original titles, for example, we use to [MASK] the original name in its foreign language in movies, but for some reason we translate the title of books, so it's very confusing. -- ( ) ""applies to country"" ""applies to language"" Which is way worse than to use separate items with direct statements. ( ) The current solution for films works, includes information about 500,000 language versions and can accommodate additional elements (as illustrated with dubbings, film posters etc.). Unfortunately, we still don't have a plan for books (see section above). We should probably just close the section about movies and, if ever a solution is found for books, rename the property to limit it to films. --- Oppose , see what Snipe said carefully "" in order to have general rules allowing codes reusability. We shouldn't not have a special way to store data for book and another for movies. WD is one database and we have to have general rules independent of the topics"". Language of creative works applies to many concepts, far beyond ""books and/or movies"" It would be unproductive to create sets of specific properties for every of domain to perform same tasks. @ : please provide an example how movie would be different from book? Why separate items would be wrong for movies? This question was raised several times, please address it. ( ) The current solution for films works, but the one for books doesn't. Maybe you can provide a set of working samples for books. This was raised several times, but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. You mention elsewhere that we should follow some other website that would only have one for films, but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme. I don't quite see how the current approach doesn't allow you to map the properties to these three. If there are specific queries you have problems with, try . --- @ : The current solution for films works under which signal system? ? ? ? ? ? ... but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. Huh? There's no entity books in your neighborhood? but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme This could be intractable as I expanded this section to include ACG stuffs, but then your answer of ""How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing?"" from Pasleim is still missing, which could give me this daydream: the Marvel has actors from Cameroon from Tonga from Saint Helena... and they use Catalan use Faronese use Pitkern use Guarani... so they (the Marvel staffs) can re-use actors for all dubs of in all languages even some have ≤10,000 native users. Oppose , see what Snipe said carefully "" in order to have general rules allowing codes reusability. We shouldn't not have a special way to store data for book and another for movies. WD is one database and we have to have general rules independent of the topics"". Language of creative works applies to many concepts, far beyond ""books and/or movies"" It would be unproductive to create sets of specific properties for every of domain to perform same tasks. @ : please provide an example how movie would be different from book? Why separate items would be wrong for movies? This question was raised several times, please address it. ( ) The current solution for films works, but the one for books doesn't. Maybe you can provide a set of working samples for books. This was raised several times, but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. You mention elsewhere that we should follow some other website that would only have one for films, but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme. I don't quite see how the current approach doesn't allow you to map the properties to these three. If there are specific queries you have problems with, try . --- @ : The current solution for films works under which signal system? ? ? ? ? ? ... but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. Huh? There's no entity books in your neighborhood? but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme This could be intractable as I expanded this section to include ACG stuffs, but then your answer of ""How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing?"" from Pasleim is still missing, which could give me this daydream: the Marvel has actors from Cameroon from Tonga from Saint Helena... and they use Catalan use Faronese use Pitkern use Guarani... so they (the Marvel staffs) can re-use actors for all dubs of in all languages even some have ≤10,000 native users. The current solution for films works, but the one for books doesn't. Maybe you can provide a set of working samples for books. This was raised several times, but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. You mention elsewhere that we should follow some other website that would only have one for films, but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme. I don't quite see how the current approach doesn't allow you to map the properties to these three. If there are specific queries you have problems with, try . --- @ : The current solution for films works under which signal system? ? ? ? ? ? ... but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. Huh? There's no entity books in your neighborhood? but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme This could be intractable as I expanded this section to include ACG stuffs, but then your answer of ""How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing?"" from Pasleim is still missing, which could give me this daydream: the Marvel has actors from Cameroon from Tonga from Saint Helena... and they use Catalan use Faronese use Pitkern use Guarani... so they (the Marvel staffs) can re-use actors for all dubs of in all languages even some have ≤10,000 native users. @ : The current solution for films works under which signal system? ? ? ? ? ? ... but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. Huh? There's no entity books in your neighborhood? but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme This could be intractable as I expanded this section to include ACG stuffs, but then your answer of ""How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing?"" from Pasleim is still missing, which could give me this daydream: the Marvel has actors from Cameroon from Tonga from Saint Helena... and they use Catalan use Faronese use Pitkern use Guarani... so they (the Marvel staffs) can re-use actors for all dubs of in all languages even some have ≤10,000 native users. The current solution for films works under which signal system? ? ? ? ? ? ... but we haven't seen any actual work, plan or status. Huh? There's no entity books in your neighborhood? but they actually have three and they explicitly don't try to use their scheme This could be intractable as I expanded this section to include ACG stuffs, but then your answer of ""How can you tell if that are voice actors of the original work or of a dubbing?"" from Pasleim is still missing, which could give me this daydream: the Marvel has actors from Cameroon from Tonga from Saint Helena... and they use Catalan use Faronese use Pitkern use Guarani... so they (the Marvel staffs) can re-use actors for all dubs of in all languages even some have ≤10,000 native users. Also @ : if you [MASK] vote is having the reason of , then my answer is that I suggest to merge this item to (ISO 639-3 mis). -- ( ) Every different language dub can get its own item, see . A list of properties you can use with dubbings you find on . -- ( ) Tricky question, still I think the current set of properties works generally fine for films. Maybe we could replace ""work"" with ""film"" in the label, once written works are sorted out. This would avoid creating additional properties, just to match some ""schema"". --- This still leaves the question of whether the main data item will have a language value. In this example, should the item for the work have no language at all, since every version of the movie was a dub? And if it has no language, then how do we mark the data item to [MASK] editors from adding specific languages to the work instead of the data items for the individual dubs? -- ( ) For , I came to the conclusion that an item with ""no dialogue"" might be the most suitable one. Maybe a similar one could be made for . --- ...except that every released copy has dialogue. The problem is more general than just the one movie, since it is not always possible to pick out an ""original"" or ""first"" release of a film or publication. Even then, the ""first"" edition of any work is an edition and will be on a separate data item from the work itself. So, should we omit language properties from every work? and put them only on the editions / dubs? -- ( ) I don't think you can use the same item as on , but it should be possible make an item that describes it. As you mention, not all are straigthforward, but with the current two properties, I think we should be able to describe films. This without creating additional ones, just follow schema.org. How is the situation for books evolving? --- @ : The two language properties schema.org uses for movies are and . So is your suggestion to turn into subtitleLanguage or what do you mean by ""just follow schema.org""? -- ( ) @ : Please either elaborate what you meant with ""just follow schema.org"" or cross your statement out. -- ( ) @ : Instead of omitting the language property for , I would use the special value novalue since it's also an information that the movie was filmed without sound. -- ( ) This still leaves the question of whether the main data item will have a language value. In this example, should the item for the work have no language at all, since every version of the movie was a dub? And if it has no language, then how do we mark the data item to [MASK] editors from adding specific languages to the work instead of the data items for the individual dubs? -- ( ) For , I came to the conclusion that an item with ""no dialogue"" might be the most suitable one. Maybe a similar one could be made for . --- ...except that every released copy has dialogue. The problem is more general than just the one movie, since it is not always possible to pick out an ""original"" or ""first"" release of a film or publication. Even then, the ""first"" edition of any work is an edition and will be on a separate data item from the work itself. So, should we omit language properties from every work? and put them only on the editions / dubs? -- ( ) I don't think you can use the same item as on , but it should be possible make an item that describes it. As you mention, not all are straigthforward, but with the current two properties, I think we should be able to describe films. This without creating additional ones, just follow schema.org. How is the situation for books evolving? --- @ : The two language properties schema.org uses for movies are and . So is your suggestion to turn into subtitleLanguage or what do you mean by ""just follow schema.org""? -- ( ) @ : Please either elaborate what you meant with ""just follow schema.org"" or cross your statement out. -- ( ) @ : Instead of omitting the language property for , I would use the special value novalue since it's also an information that the movie was filmed without sound. -- ( ) For , I came to the conclusion that an item with ""no dialogue"" might be the most suitable one. Maybe a similar one could be made for . --- ...except that every released copy has dialogue. The problem is more general than just the one movie, since it is not always possible to pick out an ""original"" or ""first"" release of a film or publication. Even then, the ""first"" edition of any work is an edition and will be on a separate data item from the work itself. So, should we omit language properties from every work? and put them only on the editions / dubs? -- ( ) I don't think you can use the same item as on , but it should be possible make an item that describes it. As you mention, not all are straigthforward, but with the current two properties, I think we should be able to describe films. This without creating additional ones, just follow schema.org. How is the situation for books evolving? --- @ : The two language properties schema.org uses for movies are and . So is your suggestion to turn into subtitleLanguage or what do you mean by ""just follow schema.org""? -- ( ) @ : Please either elaborate what you meant with ""just follow schema.org"" or cross your statement out. -- ( ) @ : Instead of omitting the language property for , I would use the special value novalue since it's also an information that the movie was filmed without sound. -- ( ) ...except that every released copy has dialogue. The problem is more general than just the one movie, since it is not always possible to pick out an ""original"" or ""first"" release of a film or publication. Even then, the ""first"" edition of any work is an edition and will be on a separate data item from the work itself. So, should we omit language properties from every work? and put them only on the editions / dubs? -- ( ) I don't think you can use the same item as on , but it should be possible make an item that describes it. As you mention, not all are straigthforward, but with the current two properties, I think we should be able to describe films. This without creating additional ones, just follow schema.org. How is the situation for books evolving? --- @ : The two language properties schema.org uses for movies are and . So is your suggestion to turn into subtitleLanguage or what do you mean by ""just follow schema.org""? -- ( ) @ : Please either elaborate what you meant with ""just follow schema.org"" or cross your statement out. -- ( ) @ : Instead of omitting the language property for , I would use the special value novalue since it's also an information that the movie was filmed without sound. -- ( ) I don't think you can use the same item as on , but it should be possible make an item that describes it. As you mention, not all are straigthforward, but with the current two properties, I think we should be able to describe films. This without creating additional ones, just follow schema.org. How is the situation for books evolving? --- @ : The two language properties schema.org uses for movies are and . So is your suggestion to turn into subtitleLanguage or what do you mean by ""just follow schema.org""? -- ( ) @ : Please either elaborate what you meant with ""just follow schema.org"" or cross your statement out. -- ( ) @ : The two language properties schema.org uses for movies are and . So is your suggestion to turn into subtitleLanguage or what do you mean by ""just follow schema.org""? -- ( ) @ : Please either elaborate what you meant with ""just follow schema.org"" or cross your statement out. -- ( ) @ : Instead of omitting the language property for , I would use the special value novalue since it's also an information that the movie was filmed without sound. -- ( ) The following discussion is closed. this was discussed independently below, and closed with consensus to delete P2439 — ( ) this was discussed independently below, and closed with consensus to delete P2439 — ( ) See above (closed thread). ( ) P407 is unmatched with - domain Series - Used on these types CommunicateAction CreativeWork Event WriteAction P2439 is the only options for properties above ( ) @ : You are just wrong: 1) we first have to solve the original problem with P407 and P364 so no need to speak about P2439. 2) then we can speak about P2439. Can you just once consider the number of use of P407 and P364 with the one P2439 ? Can you just think about the number of edit to do to transfer everything from P407 and P364 to P2439 ? Somebody who is smart can easily understand that replacing P364 by P407 (and changing the label of P407 with language ) and then replacing P2439 by P407 will save a lot of modifications ? If you still don't understand, just calculate the number of modifications and find the one with the minimal amount of modifications. ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) P407 is unmatched with - domain Series - Used on these types CommunicateAction CreativeWork Event WriteAction - domain Series - Used on these types CommunicateAction CreativeWork Event WriteAction P2439 is the only options for properties above ( ) @ : You are just wrong: 1) we first have to solve the original problem with P407 and P364 so no need to speak about P2439. 2) then we can speak about P2439. Can you just once consider the number of use of P407 and P364 with the one P2439 ? Can you just think about the number of edit to do to transfer everything from P407 and P364 to P2439 ? Somebody who is smart can easily understand that replacing P364 by P407 (and changing the label of P407 with language ) and then replacing P2439 by P407 will save a lot of modifications ? If you still don't understand, just calculate the number of modifications and find the one with the minimal amount of modifications. ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) @ : You are just wrong: 1) we first have to solve the original problem with P407 and P364 so no need to speak about P2439. 2) then we can speak about P2439. Can you just once consider the number of use of P407 and P364 with the one P2439 ? Can you just think about the number of edit to do to transfer everything from P407 and P364 to P2439 ? Somebody who is smart can easily understand that replacing P364 by P407 (and changing the label of P407 with language ) and then replacing P2439 by P407 will save a lot of modifications ? If you still don't understand, just calculate the number of modifications and find the one with the minimal amount of modifications. ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) move P364 statement to P407 if no P407 statement is on the item delete P364 statement if it is equal to the P407 statement if a book item has P364 and P407 statements but their values differ, check manually if the items contains data about both work and edition and if necessary create new items to follow the guidelines on . As before, this proposal doesn't deal with the problem of books that are/contain translations for which no ""original"" work item can exist. G. M. Cookson's Four Plays of Aeschylus is not a work, it is a translation (which Wikidata combines with edition). But no original ""work"" item of those four plays ever existed. So we have no possibility of indicating derivation. Also as before, no provision exists for parallel texts, where both an edition of a work and a translation of a work are included in the same volume. This doesn't look so much like an alternative proposal as merely a restatement of the same proposal with more specific details. -- ( ) This propsal does deal with these problems. It states that such items will be checked manually and edited according to the guidelines on . In previous proposals this manual part was missing and it was suggested to do everyting programmatically. -- ( ) Fine for me. Just a last question: what's about the label of ? No need of solving that question now but I think that changing ""language of a work or name"" to ""language"" will simplify the problem. ( ) @ : No, this proposal doesn't deal with those problems, and your last claim is not what the proposal says. The ""new"" proposal only makes provision for creating new items to follow the guidelines on Wikidata:WikiProject Books . It does not deal with existing items. Further, WikiProject Books does not currently have guidelines in place to deal with either of the situations I have described. Hand-waving and passing the buck are not solutions. I see no concrete solution that has yet been proposed for cases such as those I have raised, nor for similar situations. -- ( ) @ : Wikidata:WikiProject Books provides principle and not a solution for every special case. Instead of claiming that nobody is giving the solution you need please try to show by applying the principle of work/edition that this system is not able to answer the cases you raised. And I already provided some solutions for at least the first of your case: a compilation of original texts or translated texts is de facto a work. is an edition and an additional item for work has to be created even if only one edition of this book exists. The item defined as work of is a work composed of 4 other works and the characteristic allowing to consider the compilation of the 4 texts as work is the choice of selecting the 4 texts and to create a new text composed of 4 others. Then for the second case, I don't see a problem: as you mentioned, wikidata considers translation and edition in the same manner. So in your case what prevent you to define the item containing an original text and its translation as an edition/translation with two languages, the original language and the translation language ? It would be a problem if WD was considering edition and translation as different types of documents (but even in that case we could create a new class) but this not the case. The only problem we have to solve is to be able to link the different translations/editions by additional properties in order to provide more informations in case of translations about what was the original text (not the work but the edition) used as source for the translation. ( ) I'm sorry, but what? You are not using the standard terminology, I assume, because what you are saying makes no sense. Specifically, you are not using ""work"" in any sense that I understand it to mean. How can a ""work"" that consists of translations , consist of other works ? Translations are never works ; they are editions by Wikidata standards. So you are effectively stating that a work can consist of editions , which makes no logical sense. With regard to the second situation, we are considering the original text and the translation to be co-equal, which cannot ever be the case. The original text has an author (and possibly an editor ), but the translation has a translator . One of the languages is that of the original text, while the other language is that of the translation text. We are talking about throwing all that information together without any means for the user to disentangle it. One point in all this is that we should be treating editions and translations as separate types of documents, and many of the difficulties of dealing with translations derive from our failure to distinguish between them. But that is another discussion. But back to the original issue in the first case: If a translator publishes a single translation on its own, that's clearly a translation/edition by our current standards. You are suggesting that if a translator publishes two translations together which were not originally published together in the combination in the original language, then it's a work. And if a translator publishes three translations together, it's also a work, unless those three form a trilogy in the original language and we have a data item for that, in which case it's a translation/edition. And I suppose then that if a poem or short story collection is translated in full, then the translated volume is an edition that consists of edition/translations. But if the translator plays editor and includes only three-quarters of the original stories, then the volume is now a work that consists of works, or perhaps edition/translations? Would this same logic apply to translations of parts of works? Because that is incredibly common. All the Japanese translations of Tom Brown's School Days (each done independently) omit huge sections of text and whole chapters. Nearly all English translations of Euclid's Elements of Geometry omit several of the original 13 books, and some include all ""15"" with apocrypha. The Christian Bible does not have regular contents in its various translations, since there are differing views of what constitutes canon, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. Does each translation that includes a differing set of books constitute a different ""work"" then? The logic of your reasoning escapes me. -- ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) This propsal does deal with these problems. It states that such items will be checked manually and edited according to the guidelines on . In previous proposals this manual part was missing and it was suggested to do everyting programmatically. -- ( ) Fine for me. Just a last question: what's about the label of ? No need of solving that question now but I think that changing ""language of a work or name"" to ""language"" will simplify the problem. ( ) @ : No, this proposal doesn't deal with those problems, and your last claim is not what the proposal says. The ""new"" proposal only makes provision for creating new items to follow the guidelines on Wikidata:WikiProject Books . It does not deal with existing items. Further, WikiProject Books does not currently have guidelines in place to deal with either of the situations I have described. Hand-waving and passing the buck are not solutions. I see no concrete solution that has yet been proposed for cases such as those I have raised, nor for similar situations. -- ( ) @ : Wikidata:WikiProject Books provides principle and not a solution for every special case. Instead of claiming that nobody is giving the solution you need please try to show by applying the principle of work/edition that this system is not able to answer the cases you raised. And I already provided some solutions for at least the first of your case: a compilation of original texts or translated texts is de facto a work. is an edition and an additional item for work has to be created even if only one edition of this book exists. The item defined as work of is a work composed of 4 other works and the characteristic allowing to consider the compilation of the 4 texts as work is the choice of selecting the 4 texts and to create a new text composed of 4 others. Then for the second case, I don't see a problem: as you mentioned, wikidata considers translation and edition in the same manner. So in your case what prevent you to define the item containing an original text and its translation as an edition/translation with two languages, the original language and the translation language ? It would be a problem if WD was considering edition and translation as different types of documents (but even in that case we could create a new class) but this not the case. The only problem we have to solve is to be able to link the different translations/editions by additional properties in order to provide more informations in case of translations about what was the original text (not the work but the edition) used as source for the translation. ( ) I'm sorry, but what? You are not using the standard terminology, I assume, because what you are saying makes no sense. Specifically, you are not using ""work"" in any sense that I understand it to mean. How can a ""work"" that consists of translations , consist of other works ? Translations are never works ; they are editions by Wikidata standards. So you are effectively stating that a work can consist of editions , which makes no logical sense. With regard to the second situation, we are considering the original text and the translation to be co-equal, which cannot ever be the case. The original text has an author (and possibly an editor ), but the translation has a translator . One of the languages is that of the original text, while the other language is that of the translation text. We are talking about throwing all that information together without any means for the user to disentangle it. One point in all this is that we should be treating editions and translations as separate types of documents, and many of the difficulties of dealing with translations derive from our failure to distinguish between them. But that is another discussion. But back to the original issue in the first case: If a translator publishes a single translation on its own, that's clearly a translation/edition by our current standards. You are suggesting that if a translator publishes two translations together which were not originally published together in the combination in the original language, then it's a work. And if a translator publishes three translations together, it's also a work, unless those three form a trilogy in the original language and we have a data item for that, in which case it's a translation/edition. And I suppose then that if a poem or short story collection is translated in full, then the translated volume is an edition that consists of edition/translations. But if the translator plays editor and includes only three-quarters of the original stories, then the volume is now a work that consists of works, or perhaps edition/translations? Would this same logic apply to translations of parts of works? Because that is incredibly common. All the Japanese translations of Tom Brown's School Days (each done independently) omit huge sections of text and whole chapters. Nearly all English translations of Euclid's Elements of Geometry omit several of the original 13 books, and some include all ""15"" with apocrypha. The Christian Bible does not have regular contents in its various translations, since there are differing views of what constitutes canon, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. Does each translation that includes a differing set of books constitute a different ""work"" then? The logic of your reasoning escapes me. -- ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) Fine for me. Just a last question: what's about the label of ? No need of solving that question now but I think that changing ""language of a work or name"" to ""language"" will simplify the problem. ( ) @ : No, this proposal doesn't deal with those problems, and your last claim is not what the proposal says. The ""new"" proposal only makes provision for creating new items to follow the guidelines on Wikidata:WikiProject Books . It does not deal with existing items. Further, WikiProject Books does not currently have guidelines in place to deal with either of the situations I have described. Hand-waving and passing the buck are not solutions. I see no concrete solution that has yet been proposed for cases such as those I have raised, nor for similar situations. -- ( ) @ : Wikidata:WikiProject Books provides principle and not a solution for every special case. Instead of claiming that nobody is giving the solution you need please try to show by applying the principle of work/edition that this system is not able to answer the cases you raised. And I already provided some solutions for at least the first of your case: a compilation of original texts or translated texts is de facto a work. is an edition and an additional item for work has to be created even if only one edition of this book exists. The item defined as work of is a work composed of 4 other works and the characteristic allowing to consider the compilation of the 4 texts as work is the choice of selecting the 4 texts and to create a new text composed of 4 others. Then for the second case, I don't see a problem: as you mentioned, wikidata considers translation and edition in the same manner. So in your case what prevent you to define the item containing an original text and its translation as an edition/translation with two languages, the original language and the translation language ? It would be a problem if WD was considering edition and translation as different types of documents (but even in that case we could create a new class) but this not the case. The only problem we have to solve is to be able to link the different translations/editions by additional properties in order to provide more informations in case of translations about what was the original text (not the work but the edition) used as source for the translation. ( ) I'm sorry, but what? You are not using the standard terminology, I assume, because what you are saying makes no sense. Specifically, you are not using ""work"" in any sense that I understand it to mean. How can a ""work"" that consists of translations , consist of other works ? Translations are never works ; they are editions by Wikidata standards. So you are effectively stating that a work can consist of editions , which makes no logical sense. With regard to the second situation, we are considering the original text and the translation to be co-equal, which cannot ever be the case. The original text has an author (and possibly an editor ), but the translation has a translator . One of the languages is that of the original text, while the other language is that of the translation text. We are talking about throwing all that information together without any means for the user to disentangle it. One point in all this is that we should be treating editions and translations as separate types of documents, and many of the difficulties of dealing with translations derive from our failure to distinguish between them. But that is another discussion. But back to the original issue in the first case: If a translator publishes a single translation on its own, that's clearly a translation/edition by our current standards. You are suggesting that if a translator publishes two translations together which were not originally published together in the combination in the original language, then it's a work. And if a translator publishes three translations together, it's also a work, unless those three form a trilogy in the original language and we have a data item for that, in which case it's a translation/edition. And I suppose then that if a poem or short story collection is translated in full, then the translated volume is an edition that consists of edition/translations. But if the translator plays editor and includes only three-quarters of the original stories, then the volume is now a work that consists of works, or perhaps edition/translations? Would this same logic apply to translations of parts of works? Because that is incredibly common. All the Japanese translations of Tom Brown's School Days (each done independently) omit huge sections of text and whole chapters. Nearly all English translations of Euclid's Elements of Geometry omit several of the original 13 books, and some include all ""15"" with apocrypha. The Christian Bible does not have regular contents in its various translations, since there are differing views of what constitutes canon, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. Does each translation that includes a differing set of books constitute a different ""work"" then? The logic of your reasoning escapes me. -- ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) @ : No, this proposal doesn't deal with those problems, and your last claim is not what the proposal says. The ""new"" proposal only makes provision for creating new items to follow the guidelines on Wikidata:WikiProject Books . It does not deal with existing items. Further, WikiProject Books does not currently have guidelines in place to deal with either of the situations I have described. Hand-waving and passing the buck are not solutions. I see no concrete solution that has yet been proposed for cases such as those I have raised, nor for similar situations. -- ( ) @ : Wikidata:WikiProject Books provides principle and not a solution for every special case. Instead of claiming that nobody is giving the solution you need please try to show by applying the principle of work/edition that this system is not able to answer the cases you raised. And I already provided some solutions for at least the first of your case: a compilation of original texts or translated texts is de facto a work. is an edition and an additional item for work has to be created even if only one edition of this book exists. The item defined as work of is a work composed of 4 other works and the characteristic allowing to consider the compilation of the 4 texts as work is the choice of selecting the 4 texts and to create a new text composed of 4 others. Then for the second case, I don't see a problem: as you mentioned, wikidata considers translation and edition in the same manner. So in your case what prevent you to define the item containing an original text and its translation as an edition/translation with two languages, the original language and the translation language ? It would be a problem if WD was considering edition and translation as different types of documents (but even in that case we could create a new class) but this not the case. The only problem we have to solve is to be able to link the different translations/editions by additional properties in order to provide more informations in case of translations about what was the original text (not the work but the edition) used as source for the translation. ( ) I'm sorry, but what? You are not using the standard terminology, I assume, because what you are saying makes no sense. Specifically, you are not using ""work"" in any sense that I understand it to mean. How can a ""work"" that consists of translations , consist of other works ? Translations are never works ; they are editions by Wikidata standards. So you are effectively stating that a work can consist of editions , which makes no logical sense. With regard to the second situation, we are considering the original text and the translation to be co-equal, which cannot ever be the case. The original text has an author (and possibly an editor ), but the translation has a translator . One of the languages is that of the original text, while the other language is that of the translation text. We are talking about throwing all that information together without any means for the user to disentangle it. One point in all this is that we should be treating editions and translations as separate types of documents, and many of the difficulties of dealing with translations derive from our failure to distinguish between them. But that is another discussion. But back to the original issue in the first case: If a translator publishes a single translation on its own, that's clearly a translation/edition by our current standards. You are suggesting that if a translator publishes two translations together which were not originally published together in the combination in the original language, then it's a work. And if a translator publishes three translations together, it's also a work, unless those three form a trilogy in the original language and we have a data item for that, in which case it's a translation/edition. And I suppose then that if a poem or short story collection is translated in full, then the translated volume is an edition that consists of edition/translations. But if the translator plays editor and includes only three-quarters of the original stories, then the volume is now a work that consists of works, or perhaps edition/translations? Would this same logic apply to translations of parts of works? Because that is incredibly common. All the Japanese translations of Tom Brown's School Days (each done independently) omit huge sections of text and whole chapters. Nearly all English translations of Euclid's Elements of Geometry omit several of the original 13 books, and some include all ""15"" with apocrypha. The Christian Bible does not have regular contents in its various translations, since there are differing views of what constitutes canon, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. Does each translation that includes a differing set of books constitute a different ""work"" then? The logic of your reasoning escapes me. -- ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) @ : Wikidata:WikiProject Books provides principle and not a solution for every special case. Instead of claiming that nobody is giving the solution you need please try to show by applying the principle of work/edition that this system is not able to answer the cases you raised. And I already provided some solutions for at least the first of your case: a compilation of original texts or translated texts is de facto a work. is an edition and an additional item for work has to be created even if only one edition of this book exists. The item defined as work of is a work composed of 4 other works and the characteristic allowing to consider the compilation of the 4 texts as work is the choice of selecting the 4 texts and to create a new text composed of 4 others. Then for the second case, I don't see a problem: as you mentioned, wikidata considers translation and edition in the same manner. So in your case what prevent you to define the item containing an original text and its translation as an edition/translation with two languages, the original language and the translation language ? It would be a problem if WD was considering edition and translation as different types of documents (but even in that case we could create a new class) but this not the case. The only problem we have to solve is to be able to link the different translations/editions by additional properties in order to provide more informations in case of translations about what was the original text (not the work but the edition) used as source for the translation. ( ) I'm sorry, but what? You are not using the standard terminology, I assume, because what you are saying makes no sense. Specifically, you are not using ""work"" in any sense that I understand it to mean. How can a ""work"" that consists of translations , consist of other works ? Translations are never works ; they are editions by Wikidata standards. So you are effectively stating that a work can consist of editions , which makes no logical sense. With regard to the second situation, we are considering the original text and the translation to be co-equal, which cannot ever be the case. The original text has an author (and possibly an editor ), but the translation has a translator . One of the languages is that of the original text, while the other language is that of the translation text. We are talking about throwing all that information together without any means for the user to disentangle it. One point in all this is that we should be treating editions and translations as separate types of documents, and many of the difficulties of dealing with translations derive from our failure to distinguish between them. But that is another discussion. But back to the original issue in the first case: If a translator publishes a single translation on its own, that's clearly a translation/edition by our current standards. You are suggesting that if a translator publishes two translations together which were not originally published together in the combination in the original language, then it's a work. And if a translator publishes three translations together, it's also a work, unless those three form a trilogy in the original language and we have a data item for that, in which case it's a translation/edition. And I suppose then that if a poem or short story collection is translated in full, then the translated volume is an edition that consists of edition/translations. But if the translator plays editor and includes only three-quarters of the original stories, then the volume is now a work that consists of works, or perhaps edition/translations? Would this same logic apply to translations of parts of works? Because that is incredibly common. All the Japanese translations of Tom Brown's School Days (each done independently) omit huge sections of text and whole chapters. Nearly all English translations of Euclid's Elements of Geometry omit several of the original 13 books, and some include all ""15"" with apocrypha. The Christian Bible does not have regular contents in its various translations, since there are differing views of what constitutes canon, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. Does each translation that includes a differing set of books constitute a different ""work"" then? The logic of your reasoning escapes me. -- ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) I'm sorry, but what? You are not using the standard terminology, I assume, because what you are saying makes no sense. Specifically, you are not using ""work"" in any sense that I understand it to mean. How can a ""work"" that consists of translations , consist of other works ? Translations are never works ; they are editions by Wikidata standards. So you are effectively stating that a work can consist of editions , which makes no logical sense. With regard to the second situation, we are considering the original text and the translation to be co-equal, which cannot ever be the case. The original text has an author (and possibly an editor ), but the translation has a translator . One of the languages is that of the original text, while the other language is that of the translation text. We are talking about throwing all that information together without any means for the user to disentangle it. One point in all this is that we should be treating editions and translations as separate types of documents, and many of the difficulties of dealing with translations derive from our failure to distinguish between them. But that is another discussion. But back to the original issue in the first case: If a translator publishes a single translation on its own, that's clearly a translation/edition by our current standards. You are suggesting that if a translator publishes two translations together which were not originally published together in the combination in the original language, then it's a work. And if a translator publishes three translations together, it's also a work, unless those three form a trilogy in the original language and we have a data item for that, in which case it's a translation/edition. And I suppose then that if a poem or short story collection is translated in full, then the translated volume is an edition that consists of edition/translations. But if the translator plays editor and includes only three-quarters of the original stories, then the volume is now a work that consists of works, or perhaps edition/translations? Would this same logic apply to translations of parts of works? Because that is incredibly common. All the Japanese translations of Tom Brown's School Days (each done independently) omit huge sections of text and whole chapters. Nearly all English translations of Euclid's Elements of Geometry omit several of the original 13 books, and some include all ""15"" with apocrypha. The Christian Bible does not have regular contents in its various translations, since there are differing views of what constitutes canon, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. Does each translation that includes a differing set of books constitute a different ""work"" then? The logic of your reasoning escapes me. -- ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) @ : Just be constructive once because until now you just critize everything without proposing something: First what is your work definition ? Because I provide an explanation about why I consider an book composed of existing texts or translations is a work: the selection of texts is a work. What is your problem with that definition ? When somebody says ""I want to publish the best texts of an author"", if sombody cuts a original text, he is performing a creation. Even if the choice is based on obvious criteria. It seems you have a very limited vision of what is creation, so please just give your definition of work first. Then about case, you lose nothing as you always have the the work item to identify the original data and to infer then the corresponding case: * work item: ** language: X ** author: XX * edition item: ** language: X, Y ** author: XX ** translator: ZZ What kind of information is lost ? And by the way, what is your solution to model this case in WD ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) If selecting texts is a creation, and the result is a work, then why isn't translation also a creation, resulting in a work? Your definition doesn't explain that. -- ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) @ : Translations could be considered as work, this is a choice we can do, the question is to know if we need to add more complexy and for which gain. I just created a first list of cases and I can describe quite complex cases for translated texts without need of work definition for translations. So if we don't need to have work for translation, no need to add it. We are creating a model and the purpose of a model is not the reach the perfection but to be useful for the application we want to use. And by the way you didn't provide any definition from your side. Do you want to be constructive or do you want to stay at the objections level ? ( ) : somevalue , qualifier ? And I don't understand this: P364 has been ""language of original work"". But you also state: ... for which no ""original"" work item can exist . So usage of P364 looks wrong, doesn't it? ( ) No original work in that form exists, but there is a translation because the components have original works from which they are translated. That is, the four plays were originally in ancient Greek, and the translations are in English, or French, or whatever, but there is not a ""work"" that consists of those four plays published in the original language used as the translation source, rather the individual plays are works that were all translated. So the original language was Greek, but the published language is English, and by all standards presented in the proposal, we would simply mark the translations as ""English"" with no indication whatsoever that they were ever written in any language but English, and with no indication whatsoever that they are translations rther than works originating in English. That is positively misleading the users. -- ( ) On you state that it is an English work having multiple parts . On the parts items you state that these are English translations . You also provide for each translation a link to the original work item . On the original work items you state that these are works in Ancient Greek . Now we will use P407 instead of P364 in the last linked edit. What is here misleading the users? -- ( ) Your links do not support what you claim. Where did I say that was a ""work""? If you feel we must do this incrementally, with diffs and details going over every word, then let's start there. Where did I say it was a ""work""? -- ( ) In September 2016 when you added that = , was a direct subclass of . Today, is a subclass of which is subclass of . Since is a transitive property, stating that Four Plays of Aeschylus is a instance of a book, it is implicitly also an instance of a work. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) @ : RE: ""seen over all books cases like are rather rare"". Actually they aren't. If you like I can show you how almost any translated book becomes just as complicated. For example, by has no single authoritative edition to be the standard. Rather, there is the serialized version of the novel, and at least two book formats for the novel with significantly differing text and even different chapter numbers. That's just the major English editions. When one of these gets translated, we have to identify whcih English edition was the one translated, because it's not always one particular translation. The choice of edition affects the number of chapters, and this is hugely important for Wikisource, where editors like to be able to place the translated text side-by-side with the ""original"". To do this requires a data item for each chapter, both in the original language and in the translation, which means there must be data items for each chapter as part of the ""work"" and data items for each chapter of the ""edition"" and data items for each chapter of the ""translation"". And if the translation has gone through multiple editions (it usually has), then we end up with the same morass of data items that we had for the Greek plays. : somevalue , qualifier ? And I don't understand this: P364 has been ""language of original work"". But you also state: ... for which no ""original"" work item can exist . So usage of P364 looks wrong, doesn't it? ( ) No original work in that form exists, but there is a translation because the components have original works from which they are translated. That is, the four plays were originally in ancient Greek, and the translations are in English, or French, or whatever, but there is not a ""work"" that consists of those four plays published in the original language used as the translation source, rather the individual plays are works that were all translated. So the original language was Greek, but the published language is English, and by all standards presented in the proposal, we would simply mark the translations as ""English"" with no indication whatsoever that they were ever written in any language but English, and with no indication whatsoever that they are translations rther than works originating in English. That is positively misleading the users. -- ( ) On you state that it is an English work having multiple parts . On the parts items you state that these are English translations . You also provide for each translation a link to the original work item . On the original work items you state that these are works in Ancient Greek . Now we will use P407 instead of P364 in the last linked edit. What is here misleading the users? -- ( ) Your links do not support what you claim. Where did I say that was a ""work""? If you feel we must do this incrementally, with diffs and details going over every word, then let's start there. Where did I say it was a ""work""? -- ( ) In September 2016 when you added that = , was a direct subclass of . Today, is a subclass of which is subclass of . Since is a transitive property, stating that Four Plays of Aeschylus is a instance of a book, it is implicitly also an instance of a work. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) No original work in that form exists, but there is a translation because the components have original works from which they are translated. That is, the four plays were originally in ancient Greek, and the translations are in English, or French, or whatever, but there is not a ""work"" that consists of those four plays published in the original language used as the translation source, rather the individual plays are works that were all translated. So the original language was Greek, but the published language is English, and by all standards presented in the proposal, we would simply mark the translations as ""English"" with no indication whatsoever that they were ever written in any language but English, and with no indication whatsoever that they are translations rther than works originating in English. That is positively misleading the users. -- ( ) On you state that it is an English work having multiple parts . On the parts items you state that these are English translations . You also provide for each translation a link to the original work item . On the original work items you state that these are works in Ancient Greek . Now we will use P407 instead of P364 in the last linked edit. What is here misleading the users? -- ( ) Your links do not support what you claim. Where did I say that was a ""work""? If you feel we must do this incrementally, with diffs and details going over every word, then let's start there. Where did I say it was a ""work""? -- ( ) In September 2016 when you added that = , was a direct subclass of . Today, is a subclass of which is subclass of . Since is a transitive property, stating that Four Plays of Aeschylus is a instance of a book, it is implicitly also an instance of a work. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) On you state that it is an English work having multiple parts . On the parts items you state that these are English translations . You also provide for each translation a link to the original work item . On the original work items you state that these are works in Ancient Greek . Now we will use P407 instead of P364 in the last linked edit. What is here misleading the users? -- ( ) Your links do not support what you claim. Where did I say that was a ""work""? If you feel we must do this incrementally, with diffs and details going over every word, then let's start there. Where did I say it was a ""work""? -- ( ) In September 2016 when you added that = , was a direct subclass of . Today, is a subclass of which is subclass of . Since is a transitive property, stating that Four Plays of Aeschylus is a instance of a book, it is implicitly also an instance of a work. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) Your links do not support what you claim. Where did I say that was a ""work""? If you feel we must do this incrementally, with diffs and details going over every word, then let's start there. Where did I say it was a ""work""? -- ( ) In September 2016 when you added that = , was a direct subclass of . Today, is a subclass of which is subclass of . Since is a transitive property, stating that Four Plays of Aeschylus is a instance of a book, it is implicitly also an instance of a work. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) In September 2016 when you added that = , was a direct subclass of . Today, is a subclass of which is subclass of . Since is a transitive property, stating that Four Plays of Aeschylus is a instance of a book, it is implicitly also an instance of a work. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) But, since this data item is for the copy at Wikisource , is that a correct value to use for ""instance""? I used ""book"" because I could not find a more suitable value to use, but surely a particular copy cannot be a ""work"". (Please stay with me, and don't get sidetracked.) -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) I'm not an expert on Wikisource and there are would be project pages with more knowledgeable users on Wikisource linking. But the question is whether describes the work by Cookson or a particular copy of the work. If it describes the work the item is fine, if it describes a particular copy we need two items. One item for the work, i.e. the compilation of the four translations, and one item for the copy. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) No, there are no project pages with more information, and that's part of the problem. This issue has never been worked through to its logical conclusion, nor has it ever been written up. Please don't waver on this discussion now. But as for the four English translations by Cookson: aren't they also ""works"" that will have multiple editions? Couldn't Cookson's translation of The Suppliants appear in more than one published edition? And so, in addition to having two data items for Cookson's book Four Plays (one for the book as a ""work"", and one for the edition housed at Wikisource), wouldn't we also have to have two data items for each of the four translations of plays included in the volume (one for the translation as a ""work"", and one for the specific edition of that translation that was published)? -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) A translation is a translation and not a work. This does not exclude that a translation can not appear in more than one edition. Each edition gets its own item. Imagine I told you a translations are also works, would it change something on how we should delete P364? -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) You're getting sidetracked here; please stay with me. Each publication of a work housed at Wikisource necessitates that each publication has a different data item. We are treating editions and translations as the same thing, yes? And Cookson's translation of Prometheus Unbound is a translation, yes, but there are multiple editions of that translation because it has been published by different editors in different volumes. We can't re-use the same data item every time the Cookson translation appears in another volume, so the translation must have multiple editions. We therefore must have a master data item indicating the information about the translation as a ""work"", and then data items for each edition of the translation. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) I almost agree with you, I just don't call the translation a ""work"" but maybe it would be easier if I do so. If a translation gets published by different editors then we need indeed an item for the translation and items for each edition. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) I agree that the terminology is inadequate for describing this situation. But continuing: What happens then when a translation has two (or more) different textual revisions, each of which has been published in more than one location? We have this issue with Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound and Shelley's translation of Cyclops' for example. As far as I can tell, we would have a data item for the original play, one for the translation as a ""work"", one data item for each ""revision"" of that translation as a ""work"", and one data item for each ""edition"" of each revision of that translation. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) Yes that is the idea. Sounds fairly complicated but it is the only way to give proper attribution to each editor and to show each publication date and place. And if Wikisource hosts multiple edition of a work/translation/revision there are even software restrictions which forces us to follow this data model. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) Complicated, but we're not quite done yet, though we can soon move on to the next step in the discussion. Before we go there, I must also point out that many translators translate using a specific edition of the original text, such as the Dindorf edition of a Greek text. So we can have an edition of a revision of a translation of an edition of a Greek publication of a work. The actual Wikisource edition must then have six data items in place, all of which are suitably interlinked. And someone seeking the original language would have to blindly navigate through six layers of data items to find what that original language was of the translated work. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) It is not a blind navigation. We have to link to the next upper layer and to tell the type of the layer. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) It is blind. In the situation we've constructed, there are six layers of ""edition/translation of"" to sift through, but in the end, a person would have to follow a link into ""has part/part of"" and follow it back to find the original language, since the ""work"" in question would be marked as ""English"" for its language, since the book as a whole was not composed originally in Greek. A user would have to poke around every possible link or ""edition/translation of"" and ""has part"" or ""part of"" and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of interconnected data items. If they stopped too soon, or didn't know ahead of time which direction to follow for the links, they would mistakenly end up with the wrong language. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) Well if we go from a particular edition up to the work, there should never be more than one claim and if an item uses ""has part/part of"" it is possible that multiple original languages exist. If you have usability concerns, you should consider that seen over all books cases like are rather rare. Moreover, the target audience of Wikidata are not users visiting wikidata.org but Wikipedia/Wikisource which include data from Wikidata and external pages retrieving data through the API or query service. For those, the current situation means that they have to poke around every possible statement and might find the original language somewhere within a maze of unstructured data. The original language can be found sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as qualifier on , sometimes as an own statement, or sometimes one has to follow the link. On the original work item, sometimes is used, sometimes , sometimes both. If there is a translation of a translation of a work, P364 is anyway illdefined. If we could do the migration, we could write a function for the Lua module on Wikipedia to retrieve the original language and external pages could add a while-loop to their code and we would finally have a distinct data structure that works in all situations. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) @ , : I created a lis of cases and I was trying to model the cases acording to the work/edition principle. I didn't find big issue until now, but we have to provide a more detailed example for some cases. The main problem is never the language but work definition so I think all the discussion above is out of the box concerning the issue of merging 2 properties about languages. I proposed to EncycloPetey to provide a defined case where the merge of the mentioned properties is a real problem. For the general discussion about the work/edition model, better discuss about that in the talk page of Wikibooks project. @ : I propose you to generate some cases based on what you mentioned like I did in my cases list and then we can discuss based on a generic case (and not on a real case where you are the only one knowing the details) the solution. @ : You mentioned that translations should have work items. If I agree in the absolute vision of a perfect classification, I ask you: where do you find an advantage of this more complex system compared to the one where translations are considered as edition ? The best will be to model the cases from my list with the addition of work for translations and see what are the results. ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) @ : I commented on the talk page of your list as the answer is irrelevant for the migration discussion here. -- ( ) @ : RE: ""seen over all books cases like are rather rare"". Actually they aren't. If you like I can show you how almost any translated book becomes just as complicated. For example, by has no single authoritative edition to be the standard. Rather, there is the serialized version of the novel, and at least two book formats for the novel with significantly differing text and even different chapter numbers. That's just the major English editions. When one of these gets translated, we have to identify whcih English edition was the one translated, because it's not always one particular translation. The choice of edition affects the number of chapters, and this is hugely important for Wikisource, where editors like to be able to place the translated text side-by-side with the ""original"". To do this requires a data item for each chapter, both in the original language and in the translation, which means there must be data items for each chapter as part of the ""work"" and data items for each chapter of the ""edition"" and data items for each chapter of the ""translation"". And if the translation has gone through multiple editions (it usually has), then we end up with the same morass of data items that we had for the Greek plays. Whether you consider Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens or L'Homme qui rit by Victor Hugo, you get the same complexity of hundreds of interconnected data items. Most of these works were serialized to begin with, later collecting them together as a novel, and sometimes then published over multiple volumes or parts even before the process of translation, and then having differing numbers of volumes in the translation. -- ( ) There is no consensus on the notability of Wikisource chapters on Wikidata. Whether we need a hundred items to model all editions and translation of Oliver Twist does not depend at all on whether we have one, two or three language properties. -- ( ) You've lost that train of thought we built up. What happens on the French, German, etc. editions of translations when we have so many data items and so many links to manage? How would an average user find the original language of a work in such a situation, when presented with a labyrinthine set of data items? Notability is unsettled, but that includes also those volumes where the book consists entirely of individual works by separate authors, which do seem to be accepted now. And chapters of translated books will exist on multiple WS projects, albeit in different languages. For those that will have translations on other WS, the balance is likely to tip in favor of inclusion. -- ( ) @ : And simply, can you please explain that what's your qualifier usage of ? That so-called usage is simply confused to me, and even the talk page of that property also disencourage it. -- ( ) I don't understand your question. I can't tell whether you meant to politely ask a question (which I do not understand) or meant to be insulting (I can't tell if that was intentional). -- ( ) @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? Whether you consider Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens or L'Homme qui rit by Victor Hugo, you get the same complexity of hundreds of interconnected data items. Most of these works were serialized to begin with, later collecting them together as a novel, and sometimes then published over multiple volumes or parts even before the process of translation, and then having differing numbers of volumes in the translation. -- ( ) There is no consensus on the notability of Wikisource chapters on Wikidata. Whether we need a hundred items to model all editions and translation of Oliver Twist does not depend at all on whether we have one, two or three language properties. -- ( ) You've lost that train of thought we built up. What happens on the French, German, etc. editions of translations when we have so many data items and so many links to manage? How would an average user find the original language of a work in such a situation, when presented with a labyrinthine set of data items? Notability is unsettled, but that includes also those volumes where the book consists entirely of individual works by separate authors, which do seem to be accepted now. And chapters of translated books will exist on multiple WS projects, albeit in different languages. For those that will have translations on other WS, the balance is likely to tip in favor of inclusion. -- ( ) @ : And simply, can you please explain that what's your qualifier usage of ? That so-called usage is simply confused to me, and even the talk page of that property also disencourage it. -- ( ) I don't understand your question. I can't tell whether you meant to politely ask a question (which I do not understand) or meant to be insulting (I can't tell if that was intentional). -- ( ) @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? There is no consensus on the notability of Wikisource chapters on Wikidata. Whether we need a hundred items to model all editions and translation of Oliver Twist does not depend at all on whether we have one, two or three language properties. -- ( ) You've lost that train of thought we built up. What happens on the French, German, etc. editions of translations when we have so many data items and so many links to manage? How would an average user find the original language of a work in such a situation, when presented with a labyrinthine set of data items? Notability is unsettled, but that includes also those volumes where the book consists entirely of individual works by separate authors, which do seem to be accepted now. And chapters of translated books will exist on multiple WS projects, albeit in different languages. For those that will have translations on other WS, the balance is likely to tip in favor of inclusion. -- ( ) @ : And simply, can you please explain that what's your qualifier usage of ? That so-called usage is simply confused to me, and even the talk page of that property also disencourage it. -- ( ) I don't understand your question. I can't tell whether you meant to politely ask a question (which I do not understand) or meant to be insulting (I can't tell if that was intentional). -- ( ) @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? You've lost that train of thought we built up. What happens on the French, German, etc. editions of translations when we have so many data items and so many links to manage? How would an average user find the original language of a work in such a situation, when presented with a labyrinthine set of data items? Notability is unsettled, but that includes also those volumes where the book consists entirely of individual works by separate authors, which do seem to be accepted now. And chapters of translated books will exist on multiple WS projects, albeit in different languages. For those that will have translations on other WS, the balance is likely to tip in favor of inclusion. -- ( ) @ : And simply, can you please explain that what's your qualifier usage of ? That so-called usage is simply confused to me, and even the talk page of that property also disencourage it. -- ( ) I don't understand your question. I can't tell whether you meant to politely ask a question (which I do not understand) or meant to be insulting (I can't tell if that was intentional). -- ( ) @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? @ : And simply, can you please explain that what's your qualifier usage of ? That so-called usage is simply confused to me, and even the talk page of that property also disencourage it. -- ( ) I don't understand your question. I can't tell whether you meant to politely ask a question (which I do not understand) or meant to be insulting (I can't tell if that was intentional). -- ( ) @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? I don't understand your question. I can't tell whether you meant to politely ask a question (which I do not understand) or meant to be insulting (I can't tell if that was intentional). -- ( ) @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? @ : Well In , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? In those 4 items , , and , what means the qualifier "" "" within ? That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) That is a work-around to indicate the language of the source text from which the translation was made. We currently have no standard to identify the source text (or edition), nor the means to identify the language of the text from which a translation was made. This is a significant point, as a translation is not made from a ""work"" but from a specific text or texts, and neither is a translation always made from the ""original"" but may be done from a translation. We have no preferred means to indicate any of this information. -- ( ) And even once we have a method for indicating source text and source language (for the immediate source, not the ultimate one), there are challenges. I was a translation of Euripides that was made from Dindorf's edition. However, I have no access to a copy of Dindorf's edition, so I have insufficient information to create the various data items that would be needed, such as which volumes contain which plays. Further, Dindorf's edition of the plays would have its language marked as both German and ancient Greek, since the play text is in English, but all prefatory materials and internal notes are in German. Having such a work as the source of the English translation leaves the question open of whether the English copy was translated from a Greek text or from a German text. Wikidata currently has no way at all to indicate which was the source language. -- ( ) Thank you for going ahead with this. I suggest including this to as well because templates can break when the property gets [MASK]. Note that when you include subclasses of to the query after the third point, it does return some results. Not many, though. ( ) We can include it to Tech News but I promise that I will fix the templates listed on . Thus, there should be no broken templates. -- ( ) We can include it to Tech News but I promise that I will fix the templates listed on . Thus, there should be no broken templates. -- ( ) Just Delete as quickly as possible, all of those ""[MASK]"" comments are daydream, and are illegal that try to defend their edit wars. -- ( ) Comment I don't think much progress seems to have been made for movies. If we proceed with the suggested merger, this would just lead to make it indeterminable. There were some suggestions that we should follow schema.org for these, but as schema has three different ones for languages, I don't think this is would be any progress from the stable solution we have now for movies. Going forward, I'd [MASK] excluding films from the merger. As for books, I think it would be good to formulate a clear plan so users are able to determine what a language statement would mean on such items without loading dozens of items and attempting to check these for completeness. I can understand that some approach might seems theoretically desirable and work well in a single editor environment, but this doesn't necessarily help users with Wikidata problems. --- What kind of progress do you expect ? The principle is given: use of model based on FRBR system which is the only system which allows you to add data like voices or the publication date of each dubbed version. Until now you never provided any explanation how I can add the names of the voices like the ones available in this of WP:fr and in this of WP:es for . So your system is not applicable but this is our responsability to find a solution ? Perhaps it is time to wake up the Project Movies to define an action plan: the merge of the 2 languages properties is not a problem, this is a situation which reveals the problem. So I propose you a very simple deal: let us working on the book cases and from your side start to work on the movie cases. And please provide me an example how I can add the dubbed voices for the case of : I hope you won't consider this as a theoretical problem. ( ) @ : Per above, the de facto most big problem with your P364 is how to handle actors of dubs, please just answer it, otherwise my delete vote is still okay. -- ( ) Comment Snipre: Thanks for giving me credit for the Wikiproject Movies structure, but it's mostly undeserved even though I made efforts that it was spelled out, properly applied and even key indicator defined. As you notice, it's fairly clean, complete and even noise can be removed without much problem. It might be too ambitious, but I'd expect a similar working approach for books. The existing movie structure should work for your sample without problems. Once done, we can then work together to make sure it appears in the Spanish infobox (French wont work, as I don't think they use Wikidata for films). Alternatively, if available, you could do one for Catalan (Catalan Wikipedia also uses Wikidata in film infoboxes). If you have problems with the properties for movies, please ask at the WikiProject. Please help us [MASK] away purely disruptive or non-contributing efforts. --- Although you claim that the WikiProject Movies structure is fairly clean and complete, some major information are missing. For example, why are two or even three language properties necesseary to describe a movie? -- ( ) Some people favoring merging advocated following schema.org which has three different scheme's for movies. Personally, I don't. We should we do with a property ""subtitle language""? --- @ : So we agree that the current data structure described in Wikiproject Movies is the reference. So according to this data structure, the original movie requires only one language property and all dubbed movies have to be described in a different item using again one unique language property. There is no need of having 2 or more language properties in the same item so changing P364 by P407 will have no impact on items which follows the data structure described in the Wikiproject. Only the items which are not using the data structure required by the Wikiproject can be impacted but that's not our problem, that's the problem of the Wikiproject Movies which allows different data structures or didn't plan until now any data curation. So do we agree that 1) there is no need of 2 different language properties (based on the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 2) we can deprecate P364 starting now (after changing the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 3) we have to define a strategy to convert P364 by P407: for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. All other cases are not following the data structure of Wikiproject and have to be curated. ( ) @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- What kind of progress do you expect ? The principle is given: use of model based on FRBR system which is the only system which allows you to add data like voices or the publication date of each dubbed version. Until now you never provided any explanation how I can add the names of the voices like the ones available in this of WP:fr and in this of WP:es for . So your system is not applicable but this is our responsability to find a solution ? Perhaps it is time to wake up the Project Movies to define an action plan: the merge of the 2 languages properties is not a problem, this is a situation which reveals the problem. So I propose you a very simple deal: let us working on the book cases and from your side start to work on the movie cases. And please provide me an example how I can add the dubbed voices for the case of : I hope you won't consider this as a theoretical problem. ( ) @ : Per above, the de facto most big problem with your P364 is how to handle actors of dubs, please just answer it, otherwise my delete vote is still okay. -- ( ) Comment Snipre: Thanks for giving me credit for the Wikiproject Movies structure, but it's mostly undeserved even though I made efforts that it was spelled out, properly applied and even key indicator defined. As you notice, it's fairly clean, complete and even noise can be removed without much problem. It might be too ambitious, but I'd expect a similar working approach for books. The existing movie structure should work for your sample without problems. Once done, we can then work together to make sure it appears in the Spanish infobox (French wont work, as I don't think they use Wikidata for films). Alternatively, if available, you could do one for Catalan (Catalan Wikipedia also uses Wikidata in film infoboxes). If you have problems with the properties for movies, please ask at the WikiProject. Please help us [MASK] away purely disruptive or non-contributing efforts. --- Although you claim that the WikiProject Movies structure is fairly clean and complete, some major information are missing. For example, why are two or even three language properties necesseary to describe a movie? -- ( ) Some people favoring merging advocated following schema.org which has three different scheme's for movies. Personally, I don't. We should we do with a property ""subtitle language""? --- @ : So we agree that the current data structure described in Wikiproject Movies is the reference. So according to this data structure, the original movie requires only one language property and all dubbed movies have to be described in a different item using again one unique language property. There is no need of having 2 or more language properties in the same item so changing P364 by P407 will have no impact on items which follows the data structure described in the Wikiproject. Only the items which are not using the data structure required by the Wikiproject can be impacted but that's not our problem, that's the problem of the Wikiproject Movies which allows different data structures or didn't plan until now any data curation. So do we agree that 1) there is no need of 2 different language properties (based on the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 2) we can deprecate P364 starting now (after changing the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 3) we have to define a strategy to convert P364 by P407: for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. All other cases are not following the data structure of Wikiproject and have to be curated. ( ) @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- @ : Per above, the de facto most big problem with your P364 is how to handle actors of dubs, please just answer it, otherwise my delete vote is still okay. -- ( ) Comment Snipre: Thanks for giving me credit for the Wikiproject Movies structure, but it's mostly undeserved even though I made efforts that it was spelled out, properly applied and even key indicator defined. As you notice, it's fairly clean, complete and even noise can be removed without much problem. It might be too ambitious, but I'd expect a similar working approach for books. The existing movie structure should work for your sample without problems. Once done, we can then work together to make sure it appears in the Spanish infobox (French wont work, as I don't think they use Wikidata for films). Alternatively, if available, you could do one for Catalan (Catalan Wikipedia also uses Wikidata in film infoboxes). If you have problems with the properties for movies, please ask at the WikiProject. Please help us [MASK] away purely disruptive or non-contributing efforts. --- Although you claim that the WikiProject Movies structure is fairly clean and complete, some major information are missing. For example, why are two or even three language properties necesseary to describe a movie? -- ( ) Some people favoring merging advocated following schema.org which has three different scheme's for movies. Personally, I don't. We should we do with a property ""subtitle language""? --- @ : So we agree that the current data structure described in Wikiproject Movies is the reference. So according to this data structure, the original movie requires only one language property and all dubbed movies have to be described in a different item using again one unique language property. There is no need of having 2 or more language properties in the same item so changing P364 by P407 will have no impact on items which follows the data structure described in the Wikiproject. Only the items which are not using the data structure required by the Wikiproject can be impacted but that's not our problem, that's the problem of the Wikiproject Movies which allows different data structures or didn't plan until now any data curation. So do we agree that 1) there is no need of 2 different language properties (based on the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 2) we can deprecate P364 starting now (after changing the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 3) we have to define a strategy to convert P364 by P407: for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. All other cases are not following the data structure of Wikiproject and have to be curated. ( ) @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- Although you claim that the WikiProject Movies structure is fairly clean and complete, some major information are missing. For example, why are two or even three language properties necesseary to describe a movie? -- ( ) Some people favoring merging advocated following schema.org which has three different scheme's for movies. Personally, I don't. We should we do with a property ""subtitle language""? --- @ : So we agree that the current data structure described in Wikiproject Movies is the reference. So according to this data structure, the original movie requires only one language property and all dubbed movies have to be described in a different item using again one unique language property. There is no need of having 2 or more language properties in the same item so changing P364 by P407 will have no impact on items which follows the data structure described in the Wikiproject. Only the items which are not using the data structure required by the Wikiproject can be impacted but that's not our problem, that's the problem of the Wikiproject Movies which allows different data structures or didn't plan until now any data curation. So do we agree that 1) there is no need of 2 different language properties (based on the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 2) we can deprecate P364 starting now (after changing the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 3) we have to define a strategy to convert P364 by P407: for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. All other cases are not following the data structure of Wikiproject and have to be curated. ( ) @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- Some people favoring merging advocated following schema.org which has three different scheme's for movies. Personally, I don't. We should we do with a property ""subtitle language""? --- Some people favoring merging advocated following schema.org which has three different scheme's for movies. Personally, I don't. We should we do with a property ""subtitle language""? --- @ : So we agree that the current data structure described in Wikiproject Movies is the reference. So according to this data structure, the original movie requires only one language property and all dubbed movies have to be described in a different item using again one unique language property. There is no need of having 2 or more language properties in the same item so changing P364 by P407 will have no impact on items which follows the data structure described in the Wikiproject. Only the items which are not using the data structure required by the Wikiproject can be impacted but that's not our problem, that's the problem of the Wikiproject Movies which allows different data structures or didn't plan until now any data curation. So do we agree that 1) there is no need of 2 different language properties (based on the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 2) we can deprecate P364 starting now (after changing the data structure of Wikiproject Movies) ? 3) we have to define a strategy to convert P364 by P407: for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. All other cases are not following the data structure of Wikiproject and have to be curated. ( ) @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. for every item defined as : , , , and having one property ==> change by for every item defined as : , , , and having one property and one or several ==> this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and has to be curated for every item defined as : and having one property and one or several this item is not following the data structure of Wikiproject Movies and can be [MASK]. for every item defined as : has to be linked to the original movie using so it is possible to extract the original language by using the of the original movie. All other cases are not following the data structure of Wikiproject and have to be curated. ( ) @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- @ : Please answer the above questions by Snipre and me. If you don't do so, I will soon start with the conversion outlined above, we still have to respect that a majority of users voted for merging P364 with P407. -- ( ) Also the question that about NTSC/PAL/SECAM issue that I asked more than 3 times here. -- ( ) Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- Pasleim: I don't really see how Snipre's proposal will help him achieve what he planned to do (sort out the books part, add the dubbed versions of ""Red October"") and why instead WikiProject movies gets told it's their responsibility to fix it for him. I don't think this is particularly respectful from participants in the discussion who don't actually contribute to Wikidata otherwise in the field. If we continue this way, it might just end up as an endless soap. Accordingly, I have asked this discussion to be closed as stale. Obviously, I could try to help you sort out the books part, but this doesn't need a deletion discussion nor is a deletion discussion a suitable forum There does seem to be consensus that books need help, but unfortunately it's not clear how this should be done. Merely voting isn't going to build a plan. Given the countless participants of the books projects, it's unclear why people of other projects should do that. Pasleim, I do appreciate your efforts to get some sense into this, but we probably both focus on more important things. Maybe wants to address the SECAM question, I avoid doing that as he asked me not to do in another context. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- I'm not going to address any made up terms like ""SECAM"". The result of initial discussion, which I closed in May, is clear: to merge two properties. Since this cannot be done by software (like with items), we need to migrate one to another. I gave users opportunity to share what issues we need to know about before the migration but now I see I shouldn't have. So yes, this discussion is stale and can be closed. The community had already decided anyway. ( ) The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- The problem is that it failed to develop an implementation plan. So we are just where we were 6 months ago. Despite a general idea, it's not something that can be acted upon. Maybe we should try to develop better support for WikiProject Books going forward. Users seems to be confused by conflicting approaches and chat in forums. --- Oppose The roadmap is only stucked by you, so peoples are discussing how you could be softhearted. -- ( ) PS: Let's simply count the votes above: Arguments to [MASK] (6, 30%): , , , , , and ; Arguments to delete (13, 65%): , , , , , , , , , (don't surprise, I already decided to migrate), , , Arguments neutral or no idea (1, 5%): Arguments to [MASK] (6, 30%): , , , , , and ; Arguments to delete (13, 65%): , , , , , , , , , (don't surprise, I already decided to migrate), , , Arguments neutral or no idea (1, 5%): Actually, we were trying to figure out a plan, not bean count. As nothing useful came up, we can close the discussion and leave it to the projects to sort out. --- Oppose Such ""consensus to [MASK]"" overwritten are violating the , and if Jura1's opinion is this, it can even be subject to one reason that I request their Administrator right. -- ( ) What the hell are you talking about Liuxinyu970226? ( ) What the hell are you talking about Liuxinyu970226? ( ) Neutral Will ask @ : separately and privately for the possibility of this opinion. -- ( ) @ : The P794 experience showed that this is possible, as long as people agree on what use cases migrate where. ( ) @ : The P794 experience showed that this is possible, as long as people agree on what use cases migrate where. ( ) Support only reasonable solution -- ( ) Support First choice. There are only 487 uses of where an item presents different values for and . Most external uses of are for film infoboxes and it seems that none of them use and in the same infobox. We could simply copy all existing statements of to , switch all film infoboxes over to , then deprecate and delete . ( ) Support -- ( ) Support -- ( ) Oppose even after months no reason is provided why the language of a movie should be described in a different way than for examples songs, websites or books -- ( ) Oppose even after months no reason is provided why the language of a movie should be described in a different way than for examples songs, websites or books -- ( ) Support and P794 has to be relabelled as movie original language to avoid any other use of this property. ( ) Support and change label per Snipre ( ) Support and change label - seems like a consensus solution to me. - ( ) Second choice. ( ) Since this request has been open for a year. It is not uncommon to have a vote if some discussion gets stale. Also, the arguments of the discussion are being repeated in the vote ( suggested closure reasons). @ : I must point that the discussion related to P364 is opened for a whole year, A WHOLE YEAR , how can a consensus not be happened within a whole year? -- ( ) @ : I must point that the discussion related to P364 is opened for a whole year, A WHOLE YEAR , how can a consensus not be happened within a whole year? -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): Consensus to merge . (See below to discuss topics related to the upcoming migration, don't start any mass changes yet .) ( ) Consensus to merge . (See below to discuss topics related to the upcoming migration, don't start any mass changes yet .) ( ) [MASK] , See . -- ( ) The original language can be inferred from , no need to duplicate the statement. -- ( ) The original language can be inferred from , no need to duplicate the statement. -- ( ) Validate the property isn't being used in other projects (using {{ }} ) and if it is leave a message in Village pump of those projects! Please link to announcement in ruwiki, bawiki, cawiki, eswiki... ( ) @ : This proposal only affects templates using P364 and P407 concurrently. I checked in advanced the templates and found only templates using either P364 or P407. Therefore, the impact on Wikipedia is marginal and informing template editors once a decision is taken here is more purposeful. -- ( ) : Thanks, but I think you should involve WP communities early in such discussions as decisions here affects their templates and it may be hard to find all uses in templates/modules. For example use both of them so may give here good input. ( ) To repeat myself, the decision here will only affect templates marginally. In one would simply need to remove either line 483 or 484. Inviting the whole ruwiki community to discuss about this single line is excessively. -- ( ) : Thanks, but I think you should involve WP communities early in such discussions as decisions here affects their templates and it may be hard to find all uses in templates/modules. For example use both of them so may give here good input. ( ) To repeat myself, the decision here will only affect templates marginally. In one would simply need to remove either line 483 or 484. Inviting the whole ruwiki community to discuss about this single line is excessively. -- ( ) To repeat myself, the decision here will only affect templates marginally. In one would simply need to remove either line 483 or 484. Inviting the whole ruwiki community to discuss about this single line is excessively. -- ( ) Support , I dont see heavy reason to [MASK] them apart. - ( ) [MASK] Although the rationale is rational, unfortunately both properties are heavily used (50+ templates each). Deleting without fixing all using templates is very negatively affecting reputation of Wikidata on the projects - already very negative experience with ill-fated deployment. -- ( ) @ : Fixing the templates is straightforward and fast done. With brother/sister there is the issue that templates are using brother AND sister. Lua functions have to be written to combine and to get the old values back. With P364 and P407 this is different. There are only templates using either P364 or P407 or P364 with fallback to P407 (like in ). Fixing all templates can be done within minutes by a single user and no modules have to be programmed.-- ( ) @ : Fixing the templates is straightforward and fast done. With brother/sister there is the issue that templates are using brother AND sister. Lua functions have to be written to combine and to get the old values back. With P364 and P407 this is different. There are only templates using either P364 or P407 or P364 with fallback to P407 (like in ). Fixing all templates can be done within minutes by a single user and no modules have to be programmed. -- ( ) Delete I don't see a need for two properties here. However, the work to migrate everything to (which I assume is the one that should remain) should be done before P364 is [MASK]! ( ) Question @ : What's about ? The best is to move everything to the new property. I am in favor of the merge but as a third property was created we need to take it into account. ( ) Delete I never understand the difference between this two properties. ( ) Delete as per nomination. Due to heavy usage of both this needs merging. Delete . I never understood the difference. ( ) Delete idem Thierry Caro and Tubezlob. -- ( ) [MASK] Deleting the property can create problems when we describe literary works. For instance, if we want to say that exists in . In this instance we can use to say it is originally in and to say it exists in and . Usually we would not like to split between and versions as this will result in missing language link on Wikipedia between similar topics. As another example consider that is a Danish book (edition) which contains original poems in Danish (and a Danish dialect) as well as translations of English poems to Danish. — ( ) @ : You first example is typically something which has to follow the . With your example how can you specify that the Danish version was first performed in XXXX and Norwegian version was performed for the first time in YYYY if everything is mixed in the same item ? And you are wrong about the lost link between both versions between one will be defined as translation of the other. For book we have the relation, so perhaps we need a more specific property or a generalization of to include songs but the same principle can be applied. Your second example is wrong too. Even if you have have only one edition of a book, you need to create 2 items: one for the work and one of the edition. In the work you specify the language and this is the original language, then for the edition, you specify the languages as Danish, English and Danish dialect. Using information from both work and edition you can determine again what is the original labguage and what are the translations with only one property language. A strict aplication of the can handle all your cases. This just implies the creation of the correct items and to link them with the appropriate relations. ( ) @ : It is more complex than your explanation. For , we would like to have the Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia page linked as well as the Wikisource. And indeed that is what is the case for now: You have a and two Norwegian versions, e.g., , as well as a edition. If we start to split the Wikidata item for the Danish and Norwegian versions we loose the language links. The Wikipedia pages essential describe the same thing: A poem written by H.C. Andersen and translated to Norwegian. For , there is a problem that it is a work containing translations along with original Danish poems, so the work is written in Danish and a Danish dialect, while the original language is Danish, the Danish dialect and English. This work is not an edition of any English book. — ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) @ : You first example is typically something which has to follow the . With your example how can you specify that the Danish version was first performed in XXXX and Norwegian version was performed for the first time in YYYY if everything is mixed in the same item ? And you are wrong about the lost link between both versions between one will be defined as translation of the other. For book we have the relation, so perhaps we need a more specific property or a generalization of to include songs but the same principle can be applied. Your second example is wrong too. Even if you have have only one edition of a book, you need to create 2 items: one for the work and one of the edition. In the work you specify the language and this is the original language, then for the edition, you specify the languages as Danish, English and Danish dialect. Using information from both work and edition you can determine again what is the original labguage and what are the translations with only one property language. A strict aplication of the can handle all your cases. This just implies the creation of the correct items and to link them with the appropriate relations. ( ) @ : It is more complex than your explanation. For , we would like to have the Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia page linked as well as the Wikisource. And indeed that is what is the case for now: You have a and two Norwegian versions, e.g., , as well as a edition. If we start to split the Wikidata item for the Danish and Norwegian versions we loose the language links. The Wikipedia pages essential describe the same thing: A poem written by H.C. Andersen and translated to Norwegian. For , there is a problem that it is a work containing translations along with original Danish poems, so the work is written in Danish and a Danish dialect, while the original language is Danish, the Danish dialect and English. This work is not an edition of any English book. — ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) @ : It is more complex than your explanation. For , we would like to have the Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia page linked as well as the Wikisource. And indeed that is what is the case for now: You have a and two Norwegian versions, e.g., , as well as a edition. If we start to split the Wikidata item for the Danish and Norwegian versions we loose the language links. The Wikipedia pages essential describe the same thing: A poem written by H.C. Andersen and translated to Norwegian. For , there is a problem that it is a work containing translations along with original Danish poems, so the work is written in Danish and a Danish dialect, while the original language is Danish, the Danish dialect and English. This work is not an edition of any English book. — ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) @ : I understood your problems but again you are wrong because you want to stay in the old scheme of WP interwikis. I start again my explanation. By applying the you can in any case retrieve all links you mentioned by using the WD properties instead of the interwikis. If you build correctly the items in WD you can always find all translations of a work in a language by using the appropriate properties. The advantages of WD structure is the possibility to add specific informations to a translation. This is not possible if you mix everything in the same item. Again take the example of the first publication date of your first Norwegian version: you don't have a property ""publication date of the edition"" and another ""publication date of the original work"". So why do you wantto use a special structure for the language and not for the publication date ? If we go further in your first example, you have 3 editions, one Danish (original) and two Norwegians. So this represents 4 items, one for the work, one for the first original version in Danish and two for each Norwegian versions. You can link the three editions to the work item so you are then able to retrieve the link between all items and their associated interwikis even if the interwikis are not linked to an unique item. You loose nothing, you just need to extract the links between items with a query based on a property. For your second example, you have two items, one for the work and one for your special edition. The work provides the original language and the edition mentions the three languages so you are always able to define the original language by extracting the language of the work edition and you can still define that your edition was a mix of three languages as the three language will be mentioned in the edition item. Got it or do I have to use a table to explain the ? The idea of the is to separate the common data for all existing editions of a work in a special item. The original language is one of these general data like the author. Advantages of the system ? If you have 20 different editions or translations, you don't need to write in each edition/translation item, the original language or the name of the author as these data are available in the work item connected to all edition/translation items with a property. Disavantages ? You have to create always at least two items even if you have only one edition. ( ) Delete overkill and confusing.   — [MASK] . Someone can explain how manage the original language of a movie and the dubbed version? I mean ""Gone with the Wind"" must have =English but if we create the Italian dubbed version (""Via col vento"") we must use =Italian. With 2 property we can do a query like: ""all the audiovisual work"" with ""Original language"" in English and dubbed/translate in Croatian. -- ( ) @ : Please have a look at the reference in movie structure: . So from that structure, you can see that each dubbed movie has a dedicated item which is different from the original one and then there is a link from the dubbed movie item with the original movie item using the property . So you can extract the original language from the original movie item using this relation. This is the principle of the FRBR system. ( ) @ : I created and . How is in this case and needed? -- ( ) @ : How we can connect with and without SPARQL that don't work in template/infobox? -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) Comment I don't understand why translation of movies or audio-books should be different from textual mediums. looks fine to me. ( ) @ : Please have a look at the reference in movie structure: . So from that structure, you can see that each dubbed movie has a dedicated item which is different from the original one and then there is a link from the dubbed movie item with the original movie item using the property . So you can extract the original language from the original movie item using this relation. This is the principle of the FRBR system. ( ) @ : I created and . How is in this case and needed? -- ( ) @ : How we can connect with and without SPARQL that don't work in template/infobox? -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) @ : How we can connect with and without SPARQL that don't work in template/infobox? -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) The specific implementation im templates depends on . Using the Wikidata version of it, a template could use {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P407|item={{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|property=P747|item=Q2875|displayformat=raw|numval=1}}}} to show the language of dubbed versions. -- ( ) Comment I don't understand why translation of movies or audio-books should be different from textual mediums. looks fine to me. ( ) merge both of them with & Delete , per Snipre. Strakhov ( ) Comment I think we had this discussion before and ended up keeping both properties. This seems to create some problems for written works and books they are published in, but it's needed for films. There was a lengthy discussion about this on the Wikiproject for the later. As for written works, it's seems odd that the situation couldn't be resolved with the existing structure (try subproperties) and why it would be resolved by merely deleting it. Merely citing some abstract approach one might not have read or be able to apply to a random book on Wikidata isn't really going to help us on everything. Maybe we need a new WikiProject that tries to actually create items for written works in a consistent way. Neutral on its uses on written works. [MASK] for films. --- @ : ""Maybe we need a new WikiProject that tries to actually create items for written works in a consistent way"": we have which proposes a coherent system, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. We just need to stop discussing and start to use the model with deletion of unnecessary properties which just create confusion. ( ) Maybe you could outline your plans there and detail what items you want to create and what currently prevents you from creating new items: . Your activity seems somewhat limited. If you need to be reassured about , it's ok in terms of what we expect you to do when creating items. Don't hesitate to create a few more. If you have specific questions about the item, I'd be happy to help. --- @ : Could you please link to the lengthy discussion where it was concluded that P364/P407 are needed for films? Could you justify this statement by considering that the FRBR system is used on more items than the mingle-mangle with P364/P407. -- ( ) @ : ""Maybe we need a new WikiProject that tries to actually create items for written works in a consistent way"": we have which proposes a coherent system, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. We just need to stop discussing and start to use the model with deletion of unnecessary properties which just create confusion. ( ) Maybe you could outline your plans there and detail what items you want to create and what currently prevents you from creating new items: . Your activity seems somewhat limited. If you need to be reassured about , it's ok in terms of what we expect you to do when creating items. Don't hesitate to create a few more. If you have specific questions about the item, I'd be happy to help. --- Maybe you could outline your plans there and detail what items you want to create and what currently prevents you from creating new items: . Your activity seems somewhat limited. If you need to be reassured about , it's ok in terms of what we expect you to do when creating items. Don't hesitate to create a few more. If you have specific questions about the item, I'd be happy to help. --- @ : Could you please link to the lengthy discussion where it was concluded that P364/P407 are needed for films? Could you justify this statement by considering that the FRBR system is used on more items than the mingle-mangle with P364/P407. -- ( ) [MASK] per all ""[MASK]"" above, it's still not safely to split movie items only because of FRBR. -- ( ) == Active users == , mostly focus on media historiography and works from the Global South Notified -- ( ) @ : ""it's still not safely to split movie items only because of FRBR"". It is not a question of FRBR, it is a question of logic: if you have a dubbed movie, in which item do you find the list of the actors of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original actor""; in which item do you find the original release date of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original publication date""; in which item do you find the original title of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original title""; so why do you need an original language property in the dubbed movie item when you look for 90% of the data of the original movie in the item of the original movie ? What you are doing is just data duplication leading to potential errors due to unsynchronization. I think you don't understand the features of a database where 1) the data structure has to be always the same in order to create efficent queries (so you have to create the whole set of original properties (original title, original director,...) and you copy everything in the dubbed movie item or you separate all the data in the respective items without duplicating statements), 2) data should not be duplicated in order to avoid contradictions when somebody corrects one statement or not the others. WD is a database, not an WP article where all the data you want are in the same item. ( ) @ : ""it's still not safely to split movie items only because of FRBR"". It is not a question of FRBR, it is a question of logic: if you have a dubbed movie, in which item do you find the list of the actors of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original actor""; in which item do you find the original release date of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original publication date""; in which item do you find the original title of the original movie ? In the item dedicated to the original movie, you don't have a property ""original title""; so why do you need an original language property in the dubbed movie item when you look for 90% of the data of the original movie in the item of the original movie ? What you are doing is just data duplication leading to potential errors due to unsynchronization. I think you don't understand the features of a database where 1) the data structure has to be always the same in order to create efficent queries (so you have to create the whole set of original properties (original title, original director,...) and you copy everything in the dubbed movie item or you separate all the data in the respective items without duplicating statements), 2) data should not be duplicated in order to avoid contradictions when somebody corrects one statement or not the others. WD is a database, not an WP article where all the data you want are in the same item. ( ) Delete We don't need two properties either for films as all known movie databases use a single value ""language"". ( ) @ : You mean some may store language once with the film and once for translated titles with the same property? Unfortunately we can't do that. --- We don't need a property for translated titles. ( ) We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- @ : You mean some may store language once with the film and once for translated titles with the same property? Unfortunately we can't do that. --- We don't need a property for translated titles. ( ) We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- We don't need a property for translated titles. ( ) We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- We could use qualifiers, of course, but in flat-structured environment like Wikidata, this tends to lead to a mess. --- migrate P407 and P364, [MASK] P2439 because 1. queries would be easier with one property (P2439). 2. information about edition or translation should be separated from work item (= original work) per every edition or translation. should have ""in French"" value, while only with ""in Russian"" value. it is possible to access any edition using and properties, not just translations. ""language-related"" properties doesn't solve it as well as direct ""edition of""/""editions:"" links. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): The fate of this property has not been determined. Feel free to start another dicussion or request later. ( ) The fate of this property has not been determined. Feel free to start another dicussion or request later. ( ) @ : Do we reaaly need a discussion about the fate of ? This is clear that this property should be merged with the future unique property. ( ) No, it's not mandatory at the moment. But I thought we could benefit from the current attention and make a decision on it as well. ( ) No, it's not mandatory at the moment. But I thought we could benefit from the current attention and make a decision on it as well. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): (original language) is going to be [MASK]. ( ) (original language) is going to be [MASK]. ( ) The labelling of the new property has to simplified: the current one is just creating confusion if the contributor want to specify the language of something which is not a work or a name, or something the contributor can't assimilate to a work or a name. Whats should he do ? Looking for another property ? Proposing the creation of a new property ? The best to simplify the future unique property with ""language"" only. The best is to delete original language, with the following rules if in one item the property ""original language"" is used: convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found delete it otherwise convert it into ""language of work or name"" if no existing statement using ""language of work or name"" is found delete it otherwise ( ) [MASK] and delete since P407 is slightly more used than P364 and it has a wider formulation. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_film_or_TV_show_(P364): this was discussed independently below, and closed with consensus to delete P2439 — ( ) this was discussed independently below, and closed with consensus to delete P2439 — ( ) See above (closed thread). ( ) P407 is unmatched with - domain Series - Used on these types CommunicateAction CreativeWork Event WriteAction P2439 is the only options for properties above ( ) @ : You are just wrong: 1) we first have to solve the original problem with P407 and P364 so no need to speak about P2439. 2) then we can speak about P2439. Can you just once consider the number of use of P407 and P364 with the one P2439 ? Can you just think about the number of edit to do to transfer everything from P407 and P364 to P2439 ? Somebody who is smart can easily understand that replacing P364 by P407 (and changing the label of P407 with language ) and then replacing P2439 by P407 will save a lot of modifications ? If you still don't understand, just calculate the number of modifications and find the one with the minimal amount of modifications. ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) P407 is unmatched with - domain Series - Used on these types CommunicateAction CreativeWork Event WriteAction - domain Series - Used on these types CommunicateAction CreativeWork Event WriteAction P2439 is the only options for properties above ( ) @ : You are just wrong: 1) we first have to solve the original problem with P407 and P364 so no need to speak about P2439. 2) then we can speak about P2439. Can you just once consider the number of use of P407 and P364 with the one P2439 ? Can you just think about the number of edit to do to transfer everything from P407 and P364 to P2439 ? Somebody who is smart can easily understand that replacing P364 by P407 (and changing the label of P407 with language ) and then replacing P2439 by P407 will save a lot of modifications ? If you still don't understand, just calculate the number of modifications and find the one with the minimal amount of modifications. ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) @ : You are just wrong: 1) we first have to solve the original problem with P407 and P364 so no need to speak about P2439. 2) then we can speak about P2439. Can you just once consider the number of use of P407 and P364 with the one P2439 ? Can you just think about the number of edit to do to transfer everything from P407 and P364 to P2439 ? Somebody who is smart can easily understand that replacing P364 by P407 (and changing the label of P407 with language ) and then replacing P2439 by P407 will save a lot of modifications ? If you still don't understand, just calculate the number of modifications and find the one with the minimal amount of modifications. ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) @ : I agree on 1, but 2: ""replacing P2439 by P407"" - what if we just [MASK] P2439 for (creative works) and (events)? I never argued for amount of minimal edits, but how things would be in final state. At least part of discussion from 2014 argued to use ""just language"", so it should be P2439, not P407 ""language of work"". Should we rename P407 to ""language""? - I missed this part of discussion. ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) It was proposed . And please indicate where it is indicated that we need a different language for work and for event. ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) I agree with what is said in #Recipient; @ : no, we don't need separate properties ""for work and for event"", but one property, like what schema.org does. ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) I think they have three. --- @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) @ : You still advertise P364 here by so-called ""keeping 3 properties"", so-called ""it's better to create dummy items for your special cases instead of system-provided no value"", so-called ""good for films"", and so-called ""partially deprecated""... I would rather simply ask you again: why you're still keeping it? User friendly in which signal system world? NTSC? PAL? SECAM? Or some of DVRs? Of NVRs? -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: download_URL_(P4945): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) I'm not sure deletion is the right response here, as it maybe useful to have this. Although I believe there were previous discussions for similar properties that had a number of reason to oppose having download URL's as part of our data. But I'm more concerned that one of our property creators, appears not to be aware of . How did that happen? ( ) I got the right at at time when there rules haven't existed yet. I knew Property Proposal and used this process but didn't thought it's a ""no exceptions""-rule. (The site also does not sound like that.) I proposed splitting the property and no one disagreed. When someone renamed the old property I paniced because so we now have a few thousand wrong statements in Wikidata. I'm sorry I broke rules I didn't knew, I won't do again but I still think that we should clean this up quickly but that's on other people to decide now. -- ( ) I got the right at at time when there rules haven't existed yet. I knew Property Proposal and used this process but didn't thought it's a ""no exceptions""-rule. (The site also does not sound like that.) I proposed splitting the property and no one disagreed. When someone renamed the old property I paniced because so we now have a few thousand wrong statements in Wikidata. I'm sorry I broke rules I didn't knew, I won't do again but I still think that we should clean this up quickly but that's on other people to decide now. -- ( ) @ : The argument that another property is being abused to support this is a good one for creating it. However, there is quite a bit of history here - here are previous discussions along these lines where the proposal was rejected or at least not yet approved: , (which links to older proposal discussions in the ""see also"" section). @ , , , : @ , , , , : what do you think on this now? ( ) I stand by my comments from the ‘download link’ proposal. Also is another previous related discussion. ( ) I stand by my comments from the ‘download link’ proposal. Also is another previous related discussion. ( ) Delete agree with nominator. --- Comment Somehow I missed that we actually had a proposal for this at (see comment below by Jasc PL) and the conclusion of that was not to create this. --- Comment Somehow I missed that we actually had a proposal for this at (see comment below by Jasc PL) and the conclusion of that was not to create this. --- [MASK] , or delete - if a property proposal process is the absolute rule for us; move this discuss to , then recreate (I hope) with this exact name. There are several important arguments for having this property. BTW, I see that computing items needs are much insufficient represent in the WD. -- ( ) has more than 50 participants and . Please post on instead. I would like to be able to use a property like on open source software items to list the download URL of particular software versions (sourced from the official website, source control systems of Linux distribution package repositories, etc). In many cases, the qualifier could and should be included, sourced from either official website and/or Linux distribution package repositories. should also be a mandatory qualifier. What I am not clear on, is what is the difference between and ? Could the scope of simply be expanded to include software source distributions, binaries, etc? If so, how would one determine which URL is for a source tarball, and which is a binary package? How would one handle software which has multiple binary packages (either for different CPU architectures or different Linux distribution packaging systems)? ( ) Full Support for arguments. -- ( ) Full Support for arguments. -- ( ) Delete Needs to come through proper property proposal process.-- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) @ : for what reason? -- ( ) @ : : sometimes it can be useful. For example to create a link to the download page of a software. -- ( ) @ : for what reason? -- ( ) @ : : sometimes it can be useful. For example to create a link to the download page of a software. -- ( ) @ : : sometimes it can be useful. For example to create a link to the download page of a software. -- ( ) [MASK] ( ) [MASK] per above, given that there are many different usages of this property, I think there's no fair way to migrate. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P3188_(P3188): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Of course, the deletion would be immediately followed by the creation of the specific properties. ( ) . Delete . ( ) Comment Deletion should not ""be immediately followed by the creation of the specific properties""; once there is consensus to delete this property, the deletion should be put on hold; the new properties should then be created, and once done, the data be copied (or moved) across. Only then should the current property be [MASK]. Comment You're right. ( ) . Comment You're right. ( ) . [MASK] Strong oppose Even with this change the ID's would still consist of at least a ""year/name"" format, I don't think that's a significant simplification. And I believe it's better to treat the prizes as a whole than split them up for several reasons: (1) the number of ID""s is not large as it is so making this change would drop each of them to at most about 300, (2) there is not that large a distinction among the science fields - chemists have won in physics and in medicine as well as chemistry (and also the peace prize). Maybe there's a legitimate reason to treat the literature and peace prizes differently, but I am strongly opposed to splitting up the science prizes into separate ID's. ( ) : I changed my mind and then agree with you. 3 distinct properties (science - including physics, chemistry and medicine.-, peace, and literature) would suffice. Hence could you please support it? ( ) . : I changed my mind and then agree with you. 3 distinct properties (science - including physics, chemistry and medicine.-, peace, and literature) would suffice. Hence could you please support it? ( ) . [MASK] I still see no valid reason for splitting the current property. Cdlt, ( ) [MASK] but clean it up and maybe change formatter URL. We have now a federated search see discussion ==> that we get all Nobel Prize winners defined see . My understanding is that Nobelprize.org has redesigned the web so someone needs to spend some time and find matching pages. I have tried communicate with Nobelprize.org with no success see - ( ) Comment I'm wondering to what extent this can really be regarded as an ID. I just tried to get from to his entry on the Nobel side via , and it did not work, since the corresponding and do not fit with the actual , although they work for the property examples given. -- ( ) Comment @ : I have a dialogue with Nobel data and has done some federated searches / and my understanding is that they are migrating the old web to a new and miss a timeplan. I have asked to get updated of the status maybe we should have a depreciated status?! ?!- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P969_(P969)_(street_address): consensus to migrate to a new property with monolingual datatype -- ( ) consensus to migrate to a new property with monolingual datatype -- ( ) I also need these users who joined former two RFD discussions for this property to join here: @ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :. -- ( ) I think we already had this before, I found some at --- @ : The first proposal for deletion is on the basis that the property duplicates , which is irrelevant here. The second only has one actually relevant comment (by Billinghurst), while the other comments are irrelevant to the topic at hand (anyone can change a property label, and there is no officially formalized process for replacing a widely-used property with another one of a different data type). The for the P969 replacement is about as bad, since the only opposes are from you (I disagree with your oppose vote, but only because qualifiers can't themselves have qualifiers) and Srittau (who wasn't aware that the property had already been unsuccessfully proposed for deletion). The other comments are complaints about the content of the data, even though it is made clear that the property has the same purpose as the old one. ( ) --- @ : The first proposal for deletion is on the basis that the property duplicates , which is irrelevant here. The second only has one actually relevant comment (by Billinghurst), while the other comments are irrelevant to the topic at hand (anyone can change a property label, and there is no officially formalized process for replacing a widely-used property with another one of a different data type). The for the P969 replacement is about as bad, since the only opposes are from you (I disagree with your oppose vote, but only because qualifiers can't themselves have qualifiers) and Srittau (who wasn't aware that the property had already been unsuccessfully proposed for deletion). The other comments are complaints about the content of the data, even though it is made clear that the property has the same purpose as the old one. ( ) Comment The replacement property before de deletion request? -- ( ) The royal route would be to create a new property -> move the data -> delete the old property. Yes, this will take time, but that should be no issue. ( ) Well, obviously I'm not proposing that P969 be [MASK] immediately if the discussion is closed as delete/replace, and the discussion has to go somewhere. Not a lot of people watch the property proposals subpages. ( ) The royal route would be to create a new property -> move the data -> delete the old property. Yes, this will take time, but that should be no issue. ( ) Well, obviously I'm not proposing that P969 be [MASK] immediately if the discussion is closed as delete/replace, and the discussion has to go somewhere. Not a lot of people watch the property proposals subpages. ( ) Delete As said before, let's do this replacement. -- ( ) Comment If I understand properly, you want to create a new (multilingual) property, do the migration, then delete this property? If you will do all of this, then yes I agree. ( ) Comment Total items with P969 - 813000, items without P131 - 16700, items without P17 - 1450, items without P17 & P131 - 950. -- ( ) @ : Does the count of 950 include statements in which is used as a qualifier? I guess those would have language added based on the object/value rather than the subject/item. ( ) It counts only real statements, no qualifiers. I wanted to say that using P17 in the migration is better, then P131. -- ( ) @ , : I would love to know how this property is used on items that neither have P17 nor P131, are they mis-used this as e.g. IP addresses? -- ( ) Is it enough for the investigation? -- ( ) @ : Does the count of 950 include statements in which is used as a qualifier? I guess those would have language added based on the object/value rather than the subject/item. ( ) It counts only real statements, no qualifiers. I wanted to say that using P17 in the migration is better, then P131. -- ( ) @ , : I would love to know how this property is used on items that neither have P17 nor P131, are they mis-used this as e.g. IP addresses? -- ( ) Is it enough for the investigation? -- ( ) @ , : I would love to know how this property is used on items that neither have P17 nor P131, are they mis-used this as e.g. IP addresses? -- ( ) Is it enough for the investigation? -- ( ) Comment As per Syced. - Comment the property is used as a qualifier outside of the the above examples, eg. to qualify births and death addresses, and to require those in multiple languages does not seem relevant, and in fact would seem detrimental to the available data if it is language particular. So maybe it useful for the major uses that you envisage, I do not see it universally advantageous where I add it. This aspect needs to be addressed as many places do not have multiple languages in place, and it appears that you are just making data addition harder. This has been raised previously, and again the proponents are not offering solutions. It would be useful to see reports of where the property is used as a qualifier and to see the scenarios where it would be an advantage, and where it is a disadvantageous.   — @ : For places of birth/death, we already have and for several decades years, why they still wanna full addresses for them, to reflect what things? Using monolingual text datatype can also introduce a stable way to sync translations of addresses, at least zhwiki users always translate foreign addresses in infoboxes of place articles, nothing is hard in this topic area by translating. I also believe that the Jc86035 is helping to find solution of this stable way, and if you think digging more and more property usage is indeed on this page, feel free to ping me in any free time, as I'm online here at least 8 hours per day. -- ( ) Truly asking that? Specific information that is regularly added to biographical articles now and in the 19thC, has been captured here as a qualifier and you are saying that it isn't pertinent? Why would ask for me to justify that? With burial data, we collect a place. Saying we ignore the cemetery? ignore the plot data?  — Fwiw, such informations that are about fictional things, are called as in Asian countries, and how these ""dojin""s are also needed here? -- ( ) @ : For places of birth/death, we already have and for several decades years, why they still wanna full addresses for them, to reflect what things? Using monolingual text datatype can also introduce a stable way to sync translations of addresses, at least zhwiki users always translate foreign addresses in infoboxes of place articles, nothing is hard in this topic area by translating. I also believe that the Jc86035 is helping to find solution of this stable way, and if you think digging more and more property usage is indeed on this page, feel free to ping me in any free time, as I'm online here at least 8 hours per day. -- ( ) Truly asking that? Specific information that is regularly added to biographical articles now and in the 19thC, has been captured here as a qualifier and you are saying that it isn't pertinent? Why would ask for me to justify that? With burial data, we collect a place. Saying we ignore the cemetery? ignore the plot data?  — Fwiw, such informations that are about fictional things, are called as in Asian countries, and how these ""dojin""s are also needed here? -- ( ) Truly asking that? Specific information that is regularly added to biographical articles now and in the 19thC, has been captured here as a qualifier and you are saying that it isn't pertinent? Why would ask for me to justify that? With burial data, we collect a place. Saying we ignore the cemetery? ignore the plot data?   — Fwiw, such informations that are about fictional things, are called as in Asian countries, and how these ""dojin""s are also needed here? -- ( ) Fwiw, such informations that are about fictional things, are called as in Asian countries, and how these ""dojin""s are also needed here? -- ( ) Delete the proposition seems about right. Not sure why I'm pinged, I almost always use (true, it needs to create a specific items but it's so much better in the end). What would be good is to ping the : @ , , , , , :. Cdlt, ( ) Delete is more adapted. [ ] @ , : My proposal is not to delete the property but to replace it with a new data type; I guess it would be possible to replace this with but a lot of items for streets would have to be created in order for this to happen at all. ( ) @ : I knew and I understood that. Anyway and anyhow, I support the datatype change (which *is* a deletion technically) but for the long run, I still think that people should use , this is what I do at least and I can only advise others to do the same. Cdlt, ( ) Well, case by case, as a Chinese user, I would rather support showing addresses in both ways, this is very like that we the Wikimedia network don't only have one or two, but have five clusters ( , , , and ). -- ( ) No, cannot replace this property, there are countries (e.g. Thailand) where postal addresses usually don't contain a street. ( ) Comment Address in Japan also cannot be represented by and (see ). Before deleting this property, we have to create other properties to represent it. -- ( ) @ : What about creating a lot of dummy items to say * Chōme (*丁目)? Or maybe Cebuano Wikipedia has plan to push them? Doing so can raise up a lot of P669 usage concerns in Japanese IMO. -- ( ) @ : I don’t feel right about regarding ""*丁目"" as ""street"". ""*丁目"" or sometimes ""*丁"" is a block. OSM tags representing Japanese block number addressing system may be helpful ( ). -- ( ) @ , : My proposal is not to delete the property but to replace it with a new data type; I guess it would be possible to replace this with but a lot of items for streets would have to be created in order for this to happen at all. ( ) @ : I knew and I understood that. Anyway and anyhow, I support the datatype change (which *is* a deletion technically) but for the long run, I still think that people should use , this is what I do at least and I can only advise others to do the same. Cdlt, ( ) Well, case by case, as a Chinese user, I would rather support showing addresses in both ways, this is very like that we the Wikimedia network don't only have one or two, but have five clusters ( , , , and ). -- ( ) No, cannot replace this property, there are countries (e.g. Thailand) where postal addresses usually don't contain a street. ( ) Comment Address in Japan also cannot be represented by and (see ). Before deleting this property, we have to create other properties to represent it. -- ( ) @ : What about creating a lot of dummy items to say * Chōme (*丁目)? Or maybe Cebuano Wikipedia has plan to push them? Doing so can raise up a lot of P669 usage concerns in Japanese IMO. -- ( ) @ : I don’t feel right about regarding ""*丁目"" as ""street"". ""*丁目"" or sometimes ""*丁"" is a block. OSM tags representing Japanese block number addressing system may be helpful ( ). -- ( ) @ : I knew and I understood that. Anyway and anyhow, I support the datatype change (which *is* a deletion technically) but for the long run, I still think that people should use , this is what I do at least and I can only advise others to do the same. Cdlt, ( ) Well, case by case, as a Chinese user, I would rather support showing addresses in both ways, this is very like that we the Wikimedia network don't only have one or two, but have five clusters ( , , , and ). -- ( ) Well, case by case, as a Chinese user, I would rather support showing addresses in both ways, this is very like that we the Wikimedia network don't only have one or two, but have five clusters ( , , , and ). -- ( ) No, cannot replace this property, there are countries (e.g. Thailand) where postal addresses usually don't contain a street. ( ) Comment Address in Japan also cannot be represented by and (see ). Before deleting this property, we have to create other properties to represent it. -- ( ) @ : What about creating a lot of dummy items to say * Chōme (*丁目)? Or maybe Cebuano Wikipedia has plan to push them? Doing so can raise up a lot of P669 usage concerns in Japanese IMO. -- ( ) @ : I don’t feel right about regarding ""*丁目"" as ""street"". ""*丁目"" or sometimes ""*丁"" is a block. OSM tags representing Japanese block number addressing system may be helpful ( ). -- ( ) Comment Address in Japan also cannot be represented by and (see ). Before deleting this property, we have to create other properties to represent it. -- ( ) @ : What about creating a lot of dummy items to say * Chōme (*丁目)? Or maybe Cebuano Wikipedia has plan to push them? Doing so can raise up a lot of P669 usage concerns in Japanese IMO. -- ( ) @ : I don’t feel right about regarding ""*丁目"" as ""street"". ""*丁目"" or sometimes ""*丁"" is a block. OSM tags representing Japanese block number addressing system may be helpful ( ). -- ( ) @ : What about creating a lot of dummy items to say * Chōme (*丁目)? Or maybe Cebuano Wikipedia has plan to push them? Doing so can raise up a lot of P669 usage concerns in Japanese IMO. -- ( ) @ : I don’t feel right about regarding ""*丁目"" as ""street"". ""*丁目"" or sometimes ""*丁"" is a block. OSM tags representing Japanese block number addressing system may be helpful ( ). -- ( ) @ : I don’t feel right about regarding ""*丁目"" as ""street"". ""*丁目"" or sometimes ""*丁"" is a block. OSM tags representing Japanese block number addressing system may be helpful ( ). -- ( ) @ : Please see what I said before at , there are really a number of Wikipedias which don't have function to query qualifiers, thus P407 can't actually work for them. -- ( ) @ : Please see what I said before at , there are really a number of Wikipedias which don't have function to query qualifiers, thus P407 can't actually work for them. -- ( ) Delete This property should learn How official name works. -- Caution Concerns similar to above. I am currently using this as a qualifier to based on catalogue records for some 18th century maps, using data from MARC field 264 in the library records. Once all the data is in, it will be valuable to be able to see and sanity-check what different addresses are given for the same person, and how these may correlate to other information in the records. I can guess that the language of that statement corresponds to the language of the work, but I can't be sure (in some cases, it may have been added by the cataloguer, for example). ( ) @ : Why not just specify them as Latin (la)? -- ( ) @ : Why not just specify them as Latin (la)? -- ( ) Delete A nonsense pure-string property, can be migrated to a translateable format, will this fall under snowball closure? -- [MASK] The application was to change the property type from string to monolingual-text not to delete the property itself. A bot can add the missing languages from the country property. The property is used in several wikis which means huge efforts in changing scripts and copying addresses by bots or manually. -- ( ) @ : Then why can be a monolingual text and this cannot be? -- It is very simple: At the phase of application of the English-speaking contributors had no idea about this problem. We discussed the type change to monolingual text several times at Wikidata but the discussions had no effect. -- ( ) Really? At least Canadian people still have concerns against this per 180.97.204.2, where Canada is, as well as we the people around the world know, an en-fr bilingualism country. -- Additionally, @ , : Are you both supporting the United States-only, in fact *vetoed by many other English-speaking countries*, the ? If yes, then you both can strike your votes right now, because Wikidata is a Multilingualism project, not a XXX language-only project. -- ( ) It is very simple: At the phase of application of the English-speaking contributors had no idea about this problem. We discussed the type change to monolingual text several times at Wikidata but the discussions had no effect. -- ( ) Really? At least Canadian people still have concerns against this per 180.97.204.2, where Canada is, as well as we the people around the world know, an en-fr bilingualism country. -- Additionally, @ , : Are you both supporting the United States-only, in fact *vetoed by many other English-speaking countries*, the ? If yes, then you both can strike your votes right now, because Wikidata is a Multilingualism project, not a XXX language-only project. -- ( ) Really? At least Canadian people still have concerns against this per 180.97.204.2, where Canada is, as well as we the people around the world know, an en-fr bilingualism country. -- Additionally, @ , : Are you both supporting the United States-only, in fact *vetoed by many other English-speaking countries*, the ? If yes, then you both can strike your votes right now, because Wikidata is a Multilingualism project, not a XXX language-only project. -- ( ) Delete That said, Canadian users won't agree anythings that are English-only, and this is the only way Chinese users can show translated address without modifying locally. -- Comment Now the discussions reflected some Canadian issues, wondering if members of can tell us more info on this problem: @ , , , , :@ , , , , :, and I will write emails to info wikimedia.org -- Comment It's hard to understand the real impact of all the above discussions, but one thing is certain, . I hope I have focused your questioning. Best regards, ( ) migration to ""monolingual text"" datatype. With 300k uses of this property, I think it'll be difficult to identify the language of each address reliably, which is my only concern about migration. Oppose deletion without migration. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Soccerway_player_ID_(P2369): no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) is used with in Wikipedias: , , , , , , , , , , , , . ( ) Pinging maintainers (maybe) of the English version of that template: @ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , :, maybe other language versions can also be updated by importing or copy-pasting from enwiki. -- ( ) Pinging maintainers (maybe) of the English version of that template: @ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , :, maybe other language versions can also be updated by importing or copy-pasting from enwiki. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Commons_category_(P373): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) Request for clarification: Wikidata went against the general consensus of Commons users by favoring gallery (main space) pages on Commons over the Category pages, which most of us on Commons consider primary. That means there are a lot of items that are sitelinked to an (often useless) Commons gallery (main space) page in preference to a meaningful Commons category. If I understand correctly, your rationale is that in those cases there will always be a corresponding item on Wikidata for the category in question linked via and that the Commons category will always be sitelinked from that item for the category, or that if it is not we can solve that with a bot before eliminating this property. Have I understood you correctly? - ( ) @ : Generally, gallery pages never were a real equivalent of articles. The fact that both of them have no prefix at their projects doesn't mean that they have anything in common. While categories and articles should be unique for its items, one item can have more various gallery pages in one project. is similar to . Gallery pages should have no interproject links, such as file pages have no interwikis and no interproject links at Wikidata. Gallery pages are something like a collage image, in principle. Unique relations to item-unique pages should be linked through interproject/interwiki links, while 1:N links or links to examples or digests (selected images or galleries) should be properties. As long as some items have two item-pages on Wikidata (one for article pages and one for category pages), we should to [MASK] the existing preferences: if the item have its own category on at least one Wikipedia project, the Commons category should by linked with the Wikipedia category and category item page. If the item has no category at non-Commons projects, the Commons category should be joined to the basic Wikidata item page (i.e. directly with articles of that item), unless it is blocked by Commons gallery page. In such case, we are forced to use two Wikidata item pages: first one for article and gallery pages, second one for Commons category page. -- ( ) I agree entirely that Wikidata's preference for gallery pages is misguided, and is based on a misapprehension of their nature. I think where you are headed with this is reasonable: just so long as Commons categories are understood to be the main relevant sitelink to Commons, and they won't ever be omitted entirely in favor of something else on Commons. - ( ) @ : Generally, gallery pages never were a real equivalent of articles. The fact that both of them have no prefix at their projects doesn't mean that they have anything in common. While categories and articles should be unique for its items, one item can have more various gallery pages in one project. is similar to . Gallery pages should have no interproject links, such as file pages have no interwikis and no interproject links at Wikidata. Gallery pages are something like a collage image, in principle. Unique relations to item-unique pages should be linked through interproject/interwiki links, while 1:N links or links to examples or digests (selected images or galleries) should be properties. As long as some items have two item-pages on Wikidata (one for article pages and one for category pages), we should to [MASK] the existing preferences: if the item have its own category on at least one Wikipedia project, the Commons category should by linked with the Wikipedia category and category item page. If the item has no category at non-Commons projects, the Commons category should be joined to the basic Wikidata item page (i.e. directly with articles of that item), unless it is blocked by Commons gallery page. In such case, we are forced to use two Wikidata item pages: first one for article and gallery pages, second one for Commons category page. -- ( ) I agree entirely that Wikidata's preference for gallery pages is misguided, and is based on a misapprehension of their nature. I think where you are headed with this is reasonable: just so long as Commons categories are understood to be the main relevant sitelink to Commons, and they won't ever be omitted entirely in favor of something else on Commons. - ( ) I agree entirely that Wikidata's preference for gallery pages is misguided, and is based on a misapprehension of their nature. I think where you are headed with this is reasonable: just so long as Commons categories are understood to be the main relevant sitelink to Commons, and they won't ever be omitted entirely in favor of something else on Commons. - ( ) Oppose would be useless if Wikidata hadn't preferred the useless galleries over category pages. Therefore, the fix shouldn't be going through a two-step path to find the meaningful Commons category but to have it as preferred option when it comes to an interproject link. -- ( ) @ : There are two basal problems. The first of them is that one item has two item pages on Wikidata, in some cases. The second one is a incomprehension of character of gallery pages. You mention only the second problem, while the first problem is more urgent to be treated and compensated. -- ( ) @ : There are two basal problems. The first of them is that one item has two item pages on Wikidata, in some cases. The second one is a incomprehension of character of gallery pages. You mention only the second problem, while the first problem is more urgent to be treated and compensated. -- ( ) [MASK] has a different datatype and merging would only be possible in the way described by Jmabel which isn't nice outlook. -- ( ) @ : It is rather a bug that has a different datatype than . The proposed merge can solve the bug elegantly. -- ( ) @ : I don't think I'd consider to create ~2M – wild guess, you might want to calculate it – single-sitelink items to be elegant. -- ( ) @ : It is rather a bug that has a different datatype than . The proposed merge can solve the bug elegantly. -- ( ) @ : I don't think I'd consider to create ~2M – wild guess, you might want to calculate it – single-sitelink items to be elegant. -- ( ) @ : I don't think I'd consider to create ~2M – wild guess, you might want to calculate it – single-sitelink items to be elegant. -- ( ) Comment I support this in the long run, but this request is probably a bit early. For background info, has added hundreds of thousands of commons sitelinks over the last year, as the sitelinks are used by . That was primarily based on values, but other matches have also been used (IDs and values in particular). And as a temporary measure, the bot updates P373 values where they differ from the sitelink and they point to a commons category redirect. However, there are still quite a few P373 values that need manually resolving/the correct sitelink adding. Plus the gallery vs. category issue that Jmabel mentions above (although @ : mostly fixed that by creating new category items for those cases, which are linked by / ). And then there are all of the uses of this property outside of Wikidata ... I would however Support marking this property as deprecated, and resolving the remaining issues so that we can move over to using the sitelinks instead - but that will probably still take some time to accomplish. Thanks. ( ) Support marking as deprecated and cleaning up as needed. No definite opinion on the best route to clean up, but I support the effort to reduce redundant maintenance of data. ( ) I don't think P373 can be deprecated as long as there's no official solution to the gallery sitelink problem. There was no consensus to prefer Commons category sitelinks to gallery links, , and category items with only a sitelink to Commons are still prohibited by . I'd also like to know if the Wikimedia software, when creating toolbar links in other projects, actually checks for a linked category item with a Commons sitelink. It's possible that a lot of links to Commons in other projects would be lost (or category links replaced with links to galleries). ( ) I agree. All steps must be taken successively so that no information is lost. -- ( ) Unfortunately, the page is completely out of reality and out of real consensus. It e.g. claims that ""a sitelink cannot point to a redirect"" and ignores consensually existing and useful item-pages for . It claims that ""items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons are allowed if and only if they are linked with category pages on other Wikimedia sites"" while such relations were massively, consensually and effectively used long before the start of Wikidata and there was no consensus to destroy such relations or to make them unfunctional. It claims that a Wikidata item-page ""contains at least one valid sitelink"", while really, there was and is a consensus to import monuments from monument lists (even for monuments which have no separate page – as an analogy of the external tool ) or streets from official street registers (even for streets which have no image uploaded and no category or article created yet). (I would be glad if this note did not inspire anyone to destroy this great work.) -- ( ) I agree. All steps must be taken successively so that no information is lost.-- ( ) Unfortunately, the page is completely out of reality and out of real consensus. It e.g. claims that ""a sitelink cannot point to a redirect"" and ignores consensually existing and useful item-pages for . It claims that ""items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons are allowed if and only if they are linked with category pages on other Wikimedia sites"" while such relations were massively, consensually and effectively used long before the start of Wikidata and there was no consensus to destroy such relations or to make them unfunctional. It claims that a Wikidata item-page ""contains at least one valid sitelink"", while really, there was and is a consensus to import monuments from monument lists (even for monuments which have no separate page – as an analogy of the external tool ) or streets from official street registers (even for streets which have no image uploaded and no category or article created yet). (I would be glad if this note did not inspire anyone to destroy this great work.) -- ( ) It e.g. claims that ""a sitelink cannot point to a redirect"" and ignores consensually existing and useful item-pages for . It claims that ""items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons are allowed if and only if they are linked with category pages on other Wikimedia sites"" while such relations were massively, consensually and effectively used long before the start of Wikidata and there was no consensus to destroy such relations or to make them unfunctional. It claims that a Wikidata item-page ""contains at least one valid sitelink"", while really, there was and is a consensus to import monuments from monument lists (even for monuments which have no separate page – as an analogy of the external tool ) or streets from official street registers (even for streets which have no image uploaded and no category or article created yet). (I would be glad if this note did not inspire anyone to destroy this great work.) -- ( ) Sort of. I don't think your 3rd point is valid, since an item only needs to meet one of the 3 criteria, and the monuments can meet 2) instead of 1). For your first point, there's a footnote that says ""Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata."" The second point is a problem though. I tried a while ago to change it ( ) but there was some opposition and it just got archived without reaching consensus. ( ) Sort of. I don't think your 3rd point is valid, since an item only needs to meet one of the 3 criteria, and the monuments can meet 2) instead of 1). For your first point, there's a footnote that says ""Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata."" The second point is a problem though. I tried a while ago to change it ( ) but there was some opposition and it just got archived without reaching consensus. ( ) Sort of. I don't think your 3rd point is valid, since an item only needs to meet one of the 3 criteria, and the monuments can meet 2) instead of 1). For your first point, there's a footnote that says ""Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata."" The second point is a problem though. I tried a while ago to change it ( ) but there was some opposition and it just got archived without reaching consensus. ( ) Sort of. I don't think your 3rd point is valid, since an item only needs to meet one of the 3 criteria, and the monuments can meet 2) instead of 1). For your first point, there's a footnote that says ""Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata."" The second point is a problem though. I tried a while ago to change it ( ) but there was some opposition and it just got archived without reaching consensus. ( ) [MASK] Per Ghouston. Not the proper channel IMHO. Choosing how Wikidata should model its relation with Commons should not happen in a Property deletion request but... in a RFC. Additionally, I may add es.wikipedia (at least) is using P373 to fill two highly used templates. strakhov ( ) Comment Interesting proposal, but a couple of points: (1) P373 is currently being used massively by the MediaWiki configuration on most Wikipedias to determine what sitelink to show to Commons. Re-tooling to see whether (i) there is a , (ii) with a sitelink, (iii) that goes to Commons would need to be investigated and proven first. (2) That three-step process is significantly slower for big queries than looking up a P373 -- so, for example, in WDQS it is currently possible to count the number of uses of P373; but it is not (I think) possible to count the number of sitelinks within the query time-out. (eg: query to get total number of Commons categories with sitelinks tinyurl.com/y74hneqx already takes 40 seconds; query to see how many of those have P910 tinyurl.com/y89d7mbl times out). This can have implications for various sorts of maintenance queries. ( ) Another long-standing issue with P373 is that there are many categories on Commons that are the target of P373 statements from more than one main-type Wikidata item. See this query for some of the most popular: tinyurl.com/yc8hwteb . Some further queries to try to identify some of the Wikidata items which may not be primary matches to the Commons category can be found here: . The community would need to definitively think about the desirability (or not) of these multi-matches, and which one to choose, or whether to take some other action, before retiring P373. ( ) @ : fyi--- [MASK] massive usage, not a good alternative. ( ) Delete . I have long supported deletion of this property in favor of storing the categories with topic's main category. Let's do that and use Wikidata for the power the property provides us. Yes, we add a few million items, but we're already at 50M. We can figure out which ones are the best targets for creation if we want, or we can take them all. (I'm inclined to take them all TBH; there will be value when we get around to SDC Soon.) Let's get WD:N fixed regarding those category items while we're at it. -- ( ) Oppose too soon, show me the migration plan, with some examples of a process. ( ) Can we at least agree on removing all interproject links to Commons galleries, as they were never supposed to be used that way? -- ( ) I would vote for that proposal. -- ( ) I'm OK with removing gallery sitelinks from everywhere, after copypasting them to . strakhov ( ) If so, it would be needed to verify they are not pseudo-galleries (I mean, ""redirects to categories""). In that case, they should be replaced by the category sitelink. strakhov ( ) I'm OK with removing gallery sitelinks from everywhere, after copypasting them to . strakhov ( ) If so, it would be needed to verify they are not pseudo-galleries (I mean, ""redirects to categories""). In that case, they should be replaced by the category sitelink. strakhov ( ) [MASK] W use it a lot and for a lot of items there is no way of storing this connection in any other way, without creating massive number of additional items. -- ( ) Delete Used by two many items shouldn't be a [MASK] reason, we [MASK] before. -- Neutral Before planning of deleting P373 we should find solution for cases, when one categori is linked form more items. [Wikidata:Database_reports/Complex_constraint_violations/P373#Two_category_items_linking_to_the_same_Commons_category|example 1]], . ( ) [MASK] . is a serviceable compromise solution to the problem described above: Commons uses namespaces differently from Wikipedia, and the Wikidata community doesn't want to cross namespaces among the sitelinks of an item, nor does Wikidata wants items with a Commons category as its sole sitelink. This property sidesteps the issue and has worked for some time, so until we can agree on an alternative way to represent the relationship between a Wikipedia article topic and its relevant Commons category, we should let this property stay. ( ) @ : If the problem is ""the Wikidata community doesn't want to cross namespaces among the sitelinks of an item"", can't we ask re-allowing it? Or can't we ask for storeing both one gallery and one category on same one item? -- We can re-open the discussion on adding Commons categories as sitelinks to items, but until people can agree on that, it isn't time to delete this property. Storing both a gallery and a category to an item as sitelinks is technically impractical given how Wikidata has been running for seven years. ( ) @ : If the problem is ""the Wikidata community doesn't want to cross namespaces among the sitelinks of an item"", can't we ask re-allowing it? Or can't we ask for storeing both one gallery and one category on same one item? -- We can re-open the discussion on adding Commons categories as sitelinks to items, but until people can agree on that, it isn't time to delete this property. Storing both a gallery and a category to an item as sitelinks is technically impractical given how Wikidata has been running for seven years. ( ) We can re-open the discussion on adding Commons categories as sitelinks to items, but until people can agree on that, it isn't time to delete this property. Storing both a gallery and a category to an item as sitelinks is technically impractical given how Wikidata has been running for seven years. ( ) [MASK] . - ( ) [MASK] . -- ( ) [MASK] . In Russian Wikipedia we use in a great deal of temlates including crucial important ones. Removing the property right now just would break links to Commons in a huge number of articles and categories, spoiled their interface. So of course I vote for keeping. But for me it's very strange to be the first editor of Russian Wikipedia who leaving comment here during such big period of time of the discussion. According to the header on the page: ""Validate the property isn't being used in other projects and if it is, leave a message in Village pump of the project."". Can I watch a link on sush message to Village pump in Russian Wikipedia? I want to be sure all involved users in Russian Wikipedia could got such message. -- ( ) Comment , it's by a very far margin the worst issue on WikiData, the perfectly unconvincing redundancy of a ""commonscat"" in ""other sites"" or in this property from hell. Whatever you decide, it be prepared by a bot moving any ""commonscat"" in ""other sites"" to populate the property (if it's kept), or vice versa (if the property is [MASK]), resolving conflicts with Commons galleries in ""other sites"" on the fly, i.e., move any ""commons gallery"" in ""other sites"" to its property first, if this property is [MASK]. And please close this RfC if you (= the next user reading this) are logged in, the rough consensus appears to be rather obvious, no admin required. – ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1773: no consensus to delete -- ( ) no consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete , but deletion is the easiest part, migration has to be done first. -- ( ) Are we sure no other domains are using it besides art? I would like to first complete the migration to the new model. I don't think that can be done fully automatic because it needs a bit of checking and sourcing. When the property is no longer in use it can probably be [MASK]. ( ) @ : This guy usually use this, let's ask him? -- ( ) I don't think I've used it on much more than , which isn't an artwork anyway. ( ) I don't think I've used it on much more than , which isn't an artwork anyway. ( ) [MASK] I think it is very important! I use it frequently for literary works - . It is necessary for many ancient & medieval works. I even built a template in Hebrew Wikisource that uses it. ( ) [MASK] but add a constraint to written works. Standards for visual and written works are different here. ( ) [MASK] I think this a great property to use for both visual and literary works, especially when dealing with ancient, medieval, and early modern stuff. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: participant_in_(P1344): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) There may be situations where one or the other is useful as a qualifier. I agree that it's an unfortunate duplication when they are used directly in statements and are redundant inverses. Perhaps could be marked for use in qualifiers only. ( ) Clear [MASK] . This property is predominantly used as main value in the field of sportspersons. For sportpersons, this property including its qualifiers is the place to look at when filling an infobox with their participations/successes in Wikipedia. It would be very difficult to retrieve all this information from somewhere else, as we cannot use queries while building infoboxes; the same more or less holds for the inverse (and ). — ( ) The inverse thing is unfortunate. When querying data, you'd actually need to run the query in both directions and merge the results, since the inverses are often missing. Some properties, like , exist without inverses, and isn't similar to that? ( ) I don’t care about the inverse character of the property, I just want to have this property kept for use in infoboxes. Together with and it forms kind of a triangle which can’t fully inverse all statements anyway. — ( ) @ : When you said ""as we cannot use queries while building infoboxes"", do you include lua infoboxes or your remark is just concerning wiki infoboxes using some lua subtemplates to retrieve values from WD. ( ) Not sure what you are exactly asking about. The exact infobox technique does not really matter, I just want to ensure that something like the medal record in the infobox in is easily doable with data from Wikidata. It would be the easiest to have this data in the corresponding item , which somehow needs to link to the event and provide a ranking. The native approach is to have claims such as this one: We thus need here. The deletion proposal suggests that de-duplication would be desirable, which means that this information could only be found in with the inverse . It would be difficult to read it from there in the context of infoboxes using Lua. It is easy to read it with SPARQL, of course, but we do not have access to the SPARQL endpoint from Lua or basic template commands. — ( ) The inverse thing is unfortunate. When querying data, you'd actually need to run the query in both directions and merge the results, since the inverses are often missing. Some properties, like , exist without inverses, and isn't similar to that? ( ) I don’t care about the inverse character of the property, I just want to have this property kept for use in infoboxes. Together with and it forms kind of a triangle which can’t fully inverse all statements anyway. — ( ) @ : When you said ""as we cannot use queries while building infoboxes"", do you include lua infoboxes or your remark is just concerning wiki infoboxes using some lua subtemplates to retrieve values from WD. ( ) Not sure what you are exactly asking about. The exact infobox technique does not really matter, I just want to ensure that something like the medal record in the infobox in is easily doable with data from Wikidata. It would be the easiest to have this data in the corresponding item , which somehow needs to link to the event and provide a ranking. The native approach is to have claims such as this one: We thus need here. The deletion proposal suggests that de-duplication would be desirable, which means that this information could only be found in with the inverse . It would be difficult to read it from there in the context of infoboxes using Lua. It is easy to read it with SPARQL, of course, but we do not have access to the SPARQL endpoint from Lua or basic template commands. — ( ) I don’t care about the inverse character of the property, I just want to have this property kept for use in infoboxes. Together with and it forms kind of a triangle which can’t fully inverse all statements anyway. — ( ) @ : When you said ""as we cannot use queries while building infoboxes"", do you include lua infoboxes or your remark is just concerning wiki infoboxes using some lua subtemplates to retrieve values from WD. ( ) Not sure what you are exactly asking about. The exact infobox technique does not really matter, I just want to ensure that something like the medal record in the infobox in is easily doable with data from Wikidata. It would be the easiest to have this data in the corresponding item , which somehow needs to link to the event and provide a ranking. The native approach is to have claims such as this one: We thus need here. The deletion proposal suggests that de-duplication would be desirable, which means that this information could only be found in with the inverse . It would be difficult to read it from there in the context of infoboxes using Lua. It is easy to read it with SPARQL, of course, but we do not have access to the SPARQL endpoint from Lua or basic template commands. — ( ) @ : When you said ""as we cannot use queries while building infoboxes"", do you include lua infoboxes or your remark is just concerning wiki infoboxes using some lua subtemplates to retrieve values from WD. ( ) Not sure what you are exactly asking about. The exact infobox technique does not really matter, I just want to ensure that something like the medal record in the infobox in is easily doable with data from Wikidata. It would be the easiest to have this data in the corresponding item , which somehow needs to link to the event and provide a ranking. The native approach is to have claims such as this one: We thus need here. The deletion proposal suggests that de-duplication would be desirable, which means that this information could only be found in with the inverse . It would be difficult to read it from there in the context of infoboxes using Lua. It is easy to read it with SPARQL, of course, but we do not have access to the SPARQL endpoint from Lua or basic template commands. — ( ) Not sure what you are exactly asking about. The exact infobox technique does not really matter, I just want to ensure that something like the medal record in the infobox in is easily doable with data from Wikidata. It would be the easiest to have this data in the corresponding item , which somehow needs to link to the event and provide a ranking. The native approach is to have claims such as this one: We thus need here. The deletion proposal suggests that de-duplication would be desirable, which means that this information could only be found in with the inverse . It would be difficult to read it from there in the context of infoboxes using Lua. It is easy to read it with SPARQL, of course, but we do not have access to the SPARQL endpoint from Lua or basic template commands. — ( ) Abstain: I'd favour not storing inverse data, in general, but we need a project-wide policy on when and when not to do so, rather than case-by-case deletion proposals. Comment: I've just replaced . Nothing is wrong with P1344, sadly bots can't decide which ""inverse of P710 or P1923"" has to be used if it is missing even bots can figure out human vs. team . – 01:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC) (updated inspired by a . – ) [MASK] both. One serves infoboxes about people; the other serves infoboxes about events. While these properties are inverses of each other in terms of truth value, the two statements may have different ranks (e.g. a competition is important to a particular player, but the player isn't super-important for that competition). ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: NSZL_name_authority_ID_(P3133): no support for deletion -- ( ) no support for deletion -- ( ) The data is still available via the Wayback Machine ( ) and so I have updated the formatter URL accordingly; but for just 36 IDs, it is probably not worth keeping. Hi, I have checked after you changes the Wayback Machine, but there also no any links. This seems to be a really dead thing. ( ) Hi, I have checked after you changes the Wayback Machine, but there also no any links. This seems to be a really dead thing. ( ) VIAF has these IDs stored (HuBpOSK), so we can still potentially add these IDs and use the Wayback link. – ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: charter_URL_(P6378): Kept, no consensus for deletion. ( ) Kept, no consensus for deletion. ( ) @ , , , , , :, @ , :-- ( ) [MASK] . I'm fine with it. ( ) [MASK] I don’t see a lot of value in creating bunches of items for organizational charters which aren’t all that significant in themselves, although if such items exist GZWDer's solution seems appropriate in those (rare?) cases. - ( ) For consistency we should create items for individual charters; they clearly constitutes a structural need and we may expect finding charter URLs by a single way. Also, having such items allow us to add more information to these charters (at least ). -- ( ) For consistency we should create items for individual charters; they clearly constitutes a structural need and we may expect finding charter URLs by a single way. Also, having such items allow us to add more information to these charters (at least ).-- ( ) [MASK] GZWDer's solution is surely appropriate for the cases where the documents are notable by themselves, but I do not think this is the case for the many minor companies that we describe. I don't see an advantage in giving these charters dedicated items, so there is no structural need as far as I can tell. − ( ) Alternatively, you can add as qualifier. -- ( ) Alternatively, you can add as qualifier.-- ( ) [MASK] Completely different from the rest ( ) [MASK] can sometimes violate privacy But this won't. -- @ : Please explain.-- ( ) @ : Please explain. -- ( ) [MASK] Per above, there are concerns to these so-called replacements. -- @ , , , , :@ , , , , : who edited please comment here. -- I don't think I have been involved with this property before? Anyway I've reviewed the discussion above and I'm Neutral . It seems that this property isn't an exact duplicate of something another property can do, but we can emigrate all existing uses by creating new items. ( ) @ , , , , :@ , , , , : who edited please comment here. -- I don't think I have been involved with this property before? Anyway I've reviewed the discussion above and I'm Neutral . It seems that this property isn't an exact duplicate of something another property can do, but we can emigrate all existing uses by creating new items. ( ) I don't think I have been involved with this property before? Anyway I've reviewed the discussion above and I'm Neutral . It seems that this property isn't an exact duplicate of something another property can do, but we can emigrate all existing uses by creating new items. ( ) [MASK] Per above, there are reasons that GZWDer's solutions are not accounted. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: X_username_(P2002): Consensus to [MASK] the property. − ( ) Consensus to [MASK] the property. − ( ) Is there a way to link full Twitter profiles from this new property, rather than ? — ( ) After some searching online, it looks like there isn't another way to link to a full Twitter profile with only the numeric identifier. @ : We can perhaps use to redirect it to the userpage. Every user ID page links directly to the profile page. ( ) Not sure whether this is possible. The ID needs to be resolved to the username, which is probably only possible with a request to Twitter's API, right? — ( ) After some searching online, it looks like there isn't another way to link to a full Twitter profile with only the numeric identifier. @ : We can perhaps use to redirect it to the userpage. Every user ID page links directly to the profile page. ( ) Not sure whether this is possible. The ID needs to be resolved to the username, which is probably only possible with a request to Twitter's API, right? — ( ) Not sure whether this is possible. The ID needs to be resolved to the username, which is probably only possible with a request to Twitter's API, right? — ( ) [MASK] even where the underlying ID remains consistent it can be very useful to know what different usernames people have actively used (e.g. in the UK, many politicians change their twitter name during election campaigns). [MASK] This is independent and useful information, though it may not strictly qualify as an external id any more (user names can be reused right?). On linking via wikidata-externalid-url - that's not really within the scope of the app which was designed for just simple string re-writing; however I could look into it if this property is [MASK] and there's a strong demand for this. ( ) That would be really useful, I think. There's a ticket for it . ( ) That would be really useful, I think. There's a ticket for it . ( ) [MASK] There nothing to be gained from deletion of this property, which is widely used both on and outside Wikidata. [MASK] Why not re-purpose it to function as a qualifier to , when that is more widely adopted? There is some value (at least in theory) in keeping historical usernames i would imagine. ( ) A qualifier property already exists for that, . ( ) A qualifier property already exists for that, . ( ) [MASK] Useful property no need to delete ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: digital_representation_of_(P6243): I misunderstood this as duplicating and , but it's actually related to and the copyright issues around the Commons media files. As such, I withdraw the request. Thanks. ( ) Withdrawn. I misunderstood this as duplicating and , but it's actually related to and the copyright issues around the Commons media files. As such, I withdraw the request. Thanks. ( ) I disagree. This is the ""isA"" predicate for 2D reproductions. P18 is the ""illustrates"" predicate. ( ) @ : I don't understand, can you explain ""isA"" and ""predicate"", please? Thanks. ( ) @ : Sure. ""Predicate"" is the generic formal logic term for what we on Wikidata achieve through properties and their qualifiers. The enwiki article is a not-great introduction; there's much more at but don't read that unless you're intensely curious.  :-) ""isA"" is the identity predicate, an identifies the thing you're talking about, and is the most fundamental predicate. It is represented on Wikidata as . In the specifics of P6243 vs. P31 vs. P180 vs. P18: * faithful ""perfect"" reproductions would be to , the conceptual painting itself, and to ; * pictures including it are merely a to (with qualifiers of to and whatever), and e.g. to too; and finally * pictures demonstrating e.g. how popular it is, , might well be tagged , and to . Real-world 3D items, like individuals or sculptures or cities, could never have a P6243 faithful reproduction, but are very likely to have illustrative items. Conceptual items, like democracy, can also have illustrations, but arguably we should have a different predicate for those. In terms of use and quality restrictions, a media item would have one or zero P6243s (if you have two or more, then you're not faithfully reproducing them, you're just a P180 of them); conversely, it might have multiple P180s. An item would link to a media item via P18 for an example illustration, or a different property for ""is faithfully depicted by"", which we currently lack. A single item might have multiple incoming P6243s ( e.g. before and after some restoration, or re-balanced colours, or whatever) – probably we'd want to tag all the files on as P6243s of Q12418. Hope this clarifies my comment! ( ) @ : I don't understand, can you explain ""isA"" and ""predicate"", please? Thanks. ( ) @ : Sure. ""Predicate"" is the generic formal logic term for what we on Wikidata achieve through properties and their qualifiers. The enwiki article is a not-great introduction; there's much more at but don't read that unless you're intensely curious.  :-) ""isA"" is the identity predicate, an identifies the thing you're talking about, and is the most fundamental predicate. It is represented on Wikidata as . In the specifics of P6243 vs. P31 vs. P180 vs. P18: * faithful ""perfect"" reproductions would be to , the conceptual painting itself, and to ; * pictures including it are merely a to (with qualifiers of to and whatever), and e.g. to too; and finally * pictures demonstrating e.g. how popular it is, , might well be tagged , and to . Real-world 3D items, like individuals or sculptures or cities, could never have a P6243 faithful reproduction, but are very likely to have illustrative items. Conceptual items, like democracy, can also have illustrations, but arguably we should have a different predicate for those. In terms of use and quality restrictions, a media item would have one or zero P6243s (if you have two or more, then you're not faithfully reproducing them, you're just a P180 of them); conversely, it might have multiple P180s. An item would link to a media item via P18 for an example illustration, or a different property for ""is faithfully depicted by"", which we currently lack. A single item might have multiple incoming P6243s ( e.g. before and after some restoration, or re-balanced colours, or whatever) – probably we'd want to tag all the files on as P6243s of Q12418. Hope this clarifies my comment! ( ) @ : Sure. ""Predicate"" is the generic formal logic term for what we on Wikidata achieve through properties and their qualifiers. The enwiki article is a not-great introduction; there's much more at but don't read that unless you're intensely curious.  :-) ""isA"" is the identity predicate, an identifies the thing you're talking about, and is the most fundamental predicate. It is represented on Wikidata as . In the specifics of P6243 vs. P31 vs. P180 vs. P18: * faithful ""perfect"" reproductions would be to , the conceptual painting itself, and to ; * pictures including it are merely a to (with qualifiers of to and whatever), and e.g. to too; and finally * pictures demonstrating e.g. how popular it is, , might well be tagged , and to . Real-world 3D items, like individuals or sculptures or cities, could never have a P6243 faithful reproduction, but are very likely to have illustrative items. Conceptual items, like democracy, can also have illustrations, but arguably we should have a different predicate for those. In terms of use and quality restrictions, a media item would have one or zero P6243s (if you have two or more, then you're not faithfully reproducing them, you're just a P180 of them); conversely, it might have multiple P180s. An item would link to a media item via P18 for an example illustration, or a different property for ""is faithfully depicted by"", which we currently lack. A single item might have multiple incoming P6243s ( e.g. before and after some restoration, or re-balanced colours, or whatever) – probably we'd want to tag all the files on as P6243s of Q12418. Hope this clarifies my comment! ( ) Good explanation, thanks. ( ) @ : I think I should have said that it duplicates rather than . Ideally that property would be used on Commons to point to the Wikidata item depicted in the image, and then in the Wikidata item can be used to describe what the item depicts if that's appropriate, using preferred ranks if needed. Otherwise things get way too complicated, with too much data being stored on Commons rather than on Wikidata (which isn't scalable). Thanks. ( ) @ : I understand, however my (second, expanded) comment explicitly details why is the wrong property to use for that situation. ( ) Good explanation, thanks. ( ) @ : I think I should have said that it duplicates rather than . Ideally that property would be used on Commons to point to the Wikidata item depicted in the image, and then in the Wikidata item can be used to describe what the item depicts if that's appropriate, using preferred ranks if needed. Otherwise things get way too complicated, with too much data being stored on Commons rather than on Wikidata (which isn't scalable). Thanks. ( ) @ : I understand, however my (second, expanded) comment explicitly details why is the wrong property to use for that situation. ( ) Good explanation, thanks. ( ) @ : I think I should have said that it duplicates rather than . Ideally that property would be used on Commons to point to the Wikidata item depicted in the image, and then in the Wikidata item can be used to describe what the item depicts if that's appropriate, using preferred ranks if needed. Otherwise things get way too complicated, with too much data being stored on Commons rather than on Wikidata (which isn't scalable). Thanks. ( ) @ : I understand, however my (second, expanded) comment explicitly details why is the wrong property to use for that situation. ( ) Good explanation, thanks. ( ) @ : I think I should have said that it duplicates rather than . Ideally that property would be used on Commons to point to the Wikidata item depicted in the image, and then in the Wikidata item can be used to describe what the item depicts if that's appropriate, using preferred ranks if needed. Otherwise things get way too complicated, with too much data being stored on Commons rather than on Wikidata (which isn't scalable). Thanks. ( ) @ : I understand, however my (second, expanded) comment explicitly details why is the wrong property to use for that situation. ( ) @ : I understand, however my (second, expanded) comment explicitly details why is the wrong property to use for that situation. ( ) @ : I understand, however my (second, expanded) comment explicitly details why is the wrong property to use for that situation. ( ) Delete I think that it can be indicated some how like , I'm not convinced that we need separate property (and fill it in millions of painting items). -- ( ) @ : I think you have misunderstood the property and what it is for. It's not primarily for use on Wikidata, it's primarily for use on the Commons wikibase. Suppose we have 500 images of the Mona Lisa on Commons. We don't want to have 500 values of on . On Wikidata we just want a single value of to indicate one regular image on the item. But on Commons, we do want to be able to say in Structured Data what each of those 500 images represents. We could use . But it may be useful to have a special property to indicate the case that the image-file is specifically a faithful representation of the painting -- it shows no more, no less; that is its distinctive purpose. That is the use that is proposed for, per Jdforrester above. The purpose of this discussion is to indicate whether this is useful, over just P180. As for ""fill it in for millions of painting items"" -- that is the point of Structured Data for Commons: to be able to record key information for each of those images in wikibase statement form, in the Commons wikibase. ( ) @ : I think you have misunderstood the property and what it is for. It's not primarily for use on Wikidata, it's primarily for use on the Commons wikibase. Suppose we have 500 images of the Mona Lisa on Commons. We don't want to have 500 values of on . On Wikidata we just want a single value of to indicate one regular image on the item. But on Commons, we do want to be able to say in Structured Data what each of those 500 images represents. We could use . But it may be useful to have a special property to indicate the case that the image-file is specifically a faithful representation of the painting -- it shows no more, no less; that is its distinctive purpose. That is the use that is proposed for, per Jdforrester above. The purpose of this discussion is to indicate whether this is useful, over just P180. As for ""fill it in for millions of painting items"" -- that is the point of Structured Data for Commons: to be able to record key information for each of those images in wikibase statement form, in the Commons wikibase. ( ) [MASK] no, it's not complete redundant to image, it's needed for structured data on Commons, see . This is the structured data equivalent of . ( ) @ : So it's completely redundant to ? Thanks. ( ) No it's not. ( ) @ : It seems to be. I've replied on Commons to try to explain why. Did I miss a conversation on Commons about whether this property should be created in the first place? Thanks. ( ) @ : So it's completely redundant to ? Thanks. ( ) No it's not. ( ) @ : It seems to be. I've replied on Commons to try to explain why. Did I miss a conversation on Commons about whether this property should be created in the first place? Thanks. ( ) No it's not. ( ) @ : It seems to be. I've replied on Commons to try to explain why. Did I miss a conversation on Commons about whether this property should be created in the first place? Thanks. ( ) @ : It seems to be. I've replied on Commons to try to explain why. Did I miss a conversation on Commons about whether this property should be created in the first place? Thanks. ( ) [MASK] As I understand it, this property is necessary to talk about copyright of things like paintings and prints versus things like 3-D sculpture. The digital representation of a thing can have many different states of being. This is not true for things depicted - they are just one thing. ( ) @ : That doesn't match up with my understanding - just say = , and you can fetch the relevant copyright information if you want. Thanks. ( ) @ : That doesn't match up with my understanding - just say = , and you can fetch the relevant copyright information if you want. Thanks. ( ) No that is not the same thing. The Mona Lisa is one specific thing, but a plate in a book can have a different copyright due to publication jurisdiction. Something can be somewhere in space and time, and something else is an illustration of it, and that illustration can have multiple forms. So this is a one-to-many concept whereas the depicts/depicted relationship is 1-1. ( ) @ : I still don't understand, sorry. In that case, doesn't that either fall under , or we'd have a separate Wikidata entry that we could link to using ? What do we gain in that situation that this property can cover, but can't? Thanks. ( ) There is a difference between what you are talking about in Commons terms vs Wikidata terms. So the usage of depicts is for wikidata, and this is for Commons. ( ) @ : There is a bit of a difference, but I think it's two ways to use the same property in different contexts, rather than requiring a different property. Perhaps might be a useful example here - that would be = , but the way we record that on Commons should be no different from how we record the info about an image depicting an artwork (even if you want to cover brush strokes, that's then heading towards ). Thanks. ( )` No one picture can show the telescope before storm damage or something. You need to be able to address the various different types of illustrations. They are not equivalent. ( ) No that is not the same thing. The Mona Lisa is one specific thing, but a plate in a book can have a different copyright due to publication jurisdiction. Something can be somewhere in space and time, and something else is an illustration of it, and that illustration can have multiple forms. So this is a one-to-many concept whereas the depicts/depicted relationship is 1-1. ( ) @ : I still don't understand, sorry. In that case, doesn't that either fall under , or we'd have a separate Wikidata entry that we could link to using ? What do we gain in that situation that this property can cover, but can't? Thanks. ( ) There is a difference between what you are talking about in Commons terms vs Wikidata terms. So the usage of depicts is for wikidata, and this is for Commons. ( ) @ : There is a bit of a difference, but I think it's two ways to use the same property in different contexts, rather than requiring a different property. Perhaps might be a useful example here - that would be = , but the way we record that on Commons should be no different from how we record the info about an image depicting an artwork (even if you want to cover brush strokes, that's then heading towards ). Thanks. ( )` No one picture can show the telescope before storm damage or something. You need to be able to address the various different types of illustrations. They are not equivalent. ( ) @ : I still don't understand, sorry. In that case, doesn't that either fall under , or we'd have a separate Wikidata entry that we could link to using ? What do we gain in that situation that this property can cover, but can't? Thanks. ( ) There is a difference between what you are talking about in Commons terms vs Wikidata terms. So the usage of depicts is for wikidata, and this is for Commons. ( ) @ : There is a bit of a difference, but I think it's two ways to use the same property in different contexts, rather than requiring a different property. Perhaps might be a useful example here - that would be = , but the way we record that on Commons should be no different from how we record the info about an image depicting an artwork (even if you want to cover brush strokes, that's then heading towards ). Thanks. ( )` No one picture can show the telescope before storm damage or something. You need to be able to address the various different types of illustrations. They are not equivalent. ( ) There is a difference between what you are talking about in Commons terms vs Wikidata terms. So the usage of depicts is for wikidata, and this is for Commons. ( ) @ : There is a bit of a difference, but I think it's two ways to use the same property in different contexts, rather than requiring a different property. Perhaps might be a useful example here - that would be = , but the way we record that on Commons should be no different from how we record the info about an image depicting an artwork (even if you want to cover brush strokes, that's then heading towards ). Thanks. ( )` No one picture can show the telescope before storm damage or something. You need to be able to address the various different types of illustrations. They are not equivalent. ( ) @ : There is a bit of a difference, but I think it's two ways to use the same property in different contexts, rather than requiring a different property. Perhaps might be a useful example here - that would be = , but the way we record that on Commons should be no different from how we record the info about an image depicting an artwork (even if you want to cover brush strokes, that's then heading towards ). Thanks. ( )` No one picture can show the telescope before storm damage or something. You need to be able to address the various different types of illustrations. They are not equivalent. ( ) No one picture can show the telescope before storm damage or something. You need to be able to address the various different types of illustrations. They are not equivalent. ( ) [MASK] I also find it confusing but I think that P6243 is a subset of and , so every P6243 can be also P18 or P180 but most of those would not be P6243. -- ( ) [MASK] Definitely a distinct concept, this is for structured data on Commons, and to the degree they overlap, it would be the *inverse* of . Did the proposer read the proposal discussion before nominating for deletion here? ( ) @ : If used on Wikidata, I thought it would duplicate . Used on Commons, however, it duplicates . Thanks. ( ) @ : If used on Wikidata, I thought it would duplicate . Used on Commons, however, it duplicates . Thanks. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6623: Since the property now works, the deletion rationale is invalid. Withdrawing. ( ) Since the property now works, the deletion rationale is invalid. Withdrawing. ( ) I totally agree to Delete , if none of the above options work out. -- ( ) « implementing custom redirection through and deleting the property. » I don’t understand: if we implement a custom redirection though wikidata-externalid-url (which we should), then surely we should [MASK] this property no ? ( ) @ : Yes, it would be preferable to [MASK] the property. The primary purpose of creating the deletion discussion (I think...) was to centralize discussion and verify that there were no better solutions. I believe it is possible, so I have suggesting a fix (notifying ) . ( ) Ok, we are in agreement then :-). Submitted . ( ) Fix is implemented and this should be working now! ( ) [MASK] if that wasn't clear... ( ) @ : Yes, it would be preferable to [MASK] the property. The primary purpose of creating the deletion discussion (I think...) was to centralize discussion and verify that there were no better solutions. I believe it is possible, so I have suggesting a fix (notifying ) . ( ) Ok, we are in agreement then :-). Submitted . ( ) Fix is implemented and this should be working now! ( ) [MASK] if that wasn't clear... ( ) Ok, we are in agreement then :-). Submitted . ( ) Fix is implemented and this should be working now! ( ) [MASK] if that wasn't clear... ( ) Fix is implemented and this should be working now! ( ) [MASK] if that wasn't clear... ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: female_form_of_label_(P2521): Kept no consensus for deletion and no alternative available yet. ( ) ) Kept no consensus for deletion and no alternative available yet. ( ) ) Oppose Until an alternative is proposed (which should be a requirement when proposing a deletion). As far as I know, this property is currently being used at least in the French Wikipedia, so it would be a good idea to start with understanding the rational of the property creation. Going in that direction, maybe @ : could elaborate on that in order to move forward. Delete The frwiki usage should be modified, they should query Lexemes. -- Oppose Eventually maybe but there's no replacement now. Data access to lexemes is not possible yet. The same applies to . ( ) Delete but On hold until the access to Lexemes is ready. Cheers, ( ) {{o}} for now per Andreasmperu and Matěj Suchánek. (vote withdrawn given alternatives below) -- ( ) , 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC) There is also . Somehow lexeme contributors haven't found a way yet to link them in a structured way. --- On hold until we migrate all the data to Lexemes and transfer existing external uses to Lexemes, then Support deprecation. ( ) [MASK] Used extensively also in Catalan Wikipedia for infoboxes deppending on . I.e. Nicole Kidman is an actress, not an actor, and this is basic for languages with gender flexion. Previously, you need to have access to Lexemes and move all data. -- ( ) note @ : I've mentioned this discussion in as an urgent case of making Lexeme data accessible by other WMF wikis. Please head over there to discuss how Lexeme access should be implemented. ( ) [MASK] Until now I saw no technical support on querying Lexemes, and even one day available, this property should also be used elsewhere if one wiki can't support it due to Parsoid problems. -- [MASK] this is a very useful and important property for my native Polish and I don't think there is a good alternative in place at the moment ( ) On hold until all data is migrated to lexemes and actually used on all Wikipedias. [MASK] I agree with the comments above about the lack of availability regarding lexemas. Besides, this a useful property for Galician language, as it let us distinguish between sexes in the infoboxes. ( ) [MASK] ; It's often used in gl.wiki. -- ( ) [MASK] The property is being used in a large number of articles, it can not be eliminated until the templates that use it are modified. Bye, -- ( ) Delete (1) This property needlessly inscribes a specific gender model into the (relatively upper) ontology, which (a) raises point-of-view concerns and (b) introduces an imbalance (e.g., in terms of modeling permissions) between concepts’ genders (values of properties) as items and labels’ genders as implicit in this and other properties, allowing editors to create and use new gender items (e.g., ), but not the label forms associated with such genders. (2) To the extent that gender (‘real-world’ gender, not grammatical gender; sexus , not genus , in somewhat dated-seeming linguistic terms) is, or should be, linguistically marked, the imbalance in occurrences of the properties and , respectively, suggests that the conceptualization of these properties or the structures built around them (e.g., infobox-generating code on Wikipedias) at best only leads to a reinforcement of questionable views of male gender being the default, female gender being an aberration in supposed need of explicit mention (and other genders supposedly being a phenomenon below the bar of notability or acceptability). Such views not being universally accepted raises doubts as to whether the current property model behooves a universal ontology. Conclusion: This property (along with ) should be [MASK] and could, while a lexeme-based solution is not yet within reach, be replaced by a new property “gendered form of label” (or perhaps, more generally, “qualified label”), using qualifiers referring to gender items (rather than property-implicit senses of gender). See for what this might look like this when used for as an example. However, . ― ( ) (1) This property needlessly inscribes a specific gender model into the (relatively upper) ontology, which (a) raises point-of-view concerns and (b) introduces an imbalance (e.g., in terms of modeling permissions) between concepts’ genders (values of properties) as items and labels’ genders as implicit in this and other properties, allowing editors to create and use new gender items (e.g., ), but not the label forms associated with such genders. (a) raises point-of-view concerns and (b) introduces an imbalance (e.g., in terms of modeling permissions) between concepts’ genders (values of properties) as items and labels’ genders as implicit in this and other properties, allowing editors to create and use new gender items (e.g., ), but not the label forms associated with such genders. (2) To the extent that gender (‘real-world’ gender, not grammatical gender; sexus , not genus , in somewhat dated-seeming linguistic terms) is, or should be, linguistically marked, the imbalance in occurrences of the properties and , respectively, suggests that the conceptualization of these properties or the structures built around them (e.g., infobox-generating code on Wikipedias) at best only leads to a reinforcement of questionable views of male gender being the default, female gender being an aberration in supposed need of explicit mention (and other genders supposedly being a phenomenon below the bar of notability or acceptability). Such views not being universally accepted raises doubts as to whether the current property model behooves a universal ontology. Conclusion: This property (along with ) should be [MASK] and could, while a lexeme-based solution is not yet within reach, be replaced by a new property “gendered form of label” (or perhaps, more generally, “qualified label”), using qualifiers referring to gender items (rather than property-implicit senses of gender). See for what this might look like this when used for as an example. However, . ― ( ) [MASK] This property is largely used in cawiki infoboxex. Until lexemes were well upload and access to lexemes being available from LUA module, it can not be delete. It's curious to observe that the hardest positions in favor to delete it comes from people with a short number of editions. ( ) [MASK] Same. -- ( ) Wait for Lexemes to mature, then Delete . ( ) [MASK] 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. -- ( ) [MASK] for now used in several wikipedias. Long term, who knows. Not there yet. With regard to ""gendered form of label""-proposal ...feel everyone free to propose that one. Only after getting created that property and copying the data from P2521&P3321 to that new one... propose the deletion of these two. IMHO I don't see much improvement in lumping together ""male"", ""female"" and ""non-binary"" labels in every language ...in the same property. And, after all, if lexemes are gonna be the long-term solution Wikidata probably doesn't need another temporal ""patch"". strakhov ( ) [MASK] : the human gender identity binary division is another problem. Here we just need to say how we deignate a grammatical gender (which is language specific and does not necessarily match the male/female genetic classification even if it also has exceptions in many species, unrelated to the human gender identity which is a sociologic problem). We still need to refer to groups that in some languages may be considered distinct, but not in others (notably for activities or nobility titles). At least these languages (not all) create a binary division and it is common. Note that this also applies to biological species : they may have a single unified gender (masculine or feminine or neutral) independantly of the fact individuals are male or female (e.g. in French : ""une fouine"" is feminine for both males and females, and ""un serpent"" is masculine for both males and females; other species have dictinct names, ""une truie"" if the female domestic pork, ""un cochon"" or ""un porc"" is the male domestic pork, but sometimes ""porc"" is used for any male or female individual ; most domestic animals have gender-based names, and the biological gender is also an important classification useful in agriculture because it is selective for the production). You may argue that ""masculine""/""feminine"" would go to the classification of lexems (instead of items) but this will only apply to the grammatical form of names (which is independant of the group classification of items which need to refer to social gender groups, or to biological genders for species). The grammatical genders of lexems will still very frequently not match the social or biological genders of classes of items, for which we need appropriate properties to create distinct classes of items, even their translated item label is identical in some language but not all; each item in Wikidata will refer to lexems only by language-specific pairing, there will be no 1-to-1 relation between items and lexems and in fact almost very item in Wikidata for classes will have multiple associated lexems with different grammatical properties. And even some instance items, like human individuals, will have multiple lexems to refer to them in the same specific language, including contextual grammatical forms (like genitives or abbreviated names, or different usage names: official, formal, civil, artist names, nicknames, surnames given by others, or names changed/augmented during their life becaue of mariages or given honor or change of nationality or residence, or variants used specifically only in specific regions or situations...). To make things even more complex, the grammatical gender may change depending if this is a different plural form (e.g. in French: ""un amour"" is grammatically masculine in singular independantly of the person gender, ""des amours"" is grammatically feminine in plural also independantly of the gender of persons even if they are only boys/men!) I say [MASK] ""masculine and feminine"" (grammatically and socially for persons) as classes in Wikidata, but at least create another property or classes for male/female biological gender distinctions. And of course add separately the grammatical gender distinctions and forms in lexems. ( ) You may argue that ""masculine""/""feminine"" would go to the classification of lexems (instead of items) but this will only apply to the grammatical form of names (which is independant of the group classification of items which need to refer to social gender groups, or to biological genders for species). The grammatical genders of lexems will still very frequently not match the social or biological genders of classes of items, for which we need appropriate properties to create distinct classes of items, even their translated item label is identical in some language but not all; each item in Wikidata will refer to lexems only by language-specific pairing, there will be no 1-to-1 relation between items and lexems and in fact almost very item in Wikidata for classes will have multiple associated lexems with different grammatical properties. And even some instance items, like human individuals, will have multiple lexems to refer to them in the same specific language, including contextual grammatical forms (like genitives or abbreviated names, or different usage names: official, formal, civil, artist names, nicknames, surnames given by others, or names changed/augmented during their life becaue of mariages or given honor or change of nationality or residence, or variants used specifically only in specific regions or situations...). To make things even more complex, the grammatical gender may change depending if this is a different plural form (e.g. in French: ""un amour"" is grammatically masculine in singular independantly of the person gender, ""des amours"" is grammatically feminine in plural also independantly of the gender of persons even if they are only boys/men!) I say [MASK] ""masculine and feminine"" (grammatically and socially for persons) as classes in Wikidata, but at least create another property or classes for male/female biological gender distinctions. And of course add separately the grammatical gender distinctions and forms in lexems. ( ) [MASK] : useful. ( ) . @ , , , , :@ , , , , : do you all agree with the replacement here? Or you will still vote [MASK], regardless of it? -- ( ) This proposal is interesting but I think this isn't suitable venue for discussing it. or will definitely have greater attention. ( ) Until this proposal (or another accepted alternative) were not totally deployed, the P2521 must be kept. ( ) @ : too? -- ( ) @ : NO. We're not using P3321 in cawiki infoboxes. Thanks, ( ) @ :I agree with , so [MASK] P2125.-- ( ) This proposal is interesting but I think this isn't suitable venue for discussing it. or will definitely have greater attention. ( ) Until this proposal (or another accepted alternative) were not totally deployed, the P2521 must be kept. ( ) @ : too? -- ( ) @ : NO. We're not using P3321 in cawiki infoboxes. Thanks, ( ) @ :I agree with , so [MASK] P2125.-- ( ) Until this proposal (or another accepted alternative) were not totally deployed, the P2521 must be kept. ( ) @ : too? -- ( ) @ : NO. We're not using P3321 in cawiki infoboxes. Thanks, ( ) @ :I agree with , so [MASK] P2125.-- ( ) @ : too? -- ( ) @ : NO. We're not using P3321 in cawiki infoboxes. Thanks, ( ) @ :I agree with , so [MASK] P2125.-- ( ) @ : NO. We're not using P3321 in cawiki infoboxes. Thanks, ( ) @ :I agree with , so [MASK] P2125.-- ( ) via ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: media_legend_(P2096): Kept no consensus for deletion and no alternative available yet. No point of keeping this open as ""on hold"" for months. Once we have a good alternative up and we feel like this property is unneeded, it can be nominated for deletion again. ( ) ) Kept no consensus for deletion and no alternative available yet. No point of keeping this open as ""on hold"" for months. Once we have a good alternative up and we feel like this property is unneeded, it can be nominated for deletion again. ( ) ) On hold This is similar to . It needs to wait until it's possible to fetch the data from Commons due its use in infoboxes. ( ) [MASK] . You're too early. Come back here when you have a good alternative. Let's just close this one for now and don't leave it open for months. ( ) Damage report: Last (2nd) paragraph in , – Damage report: Last (2nd) paragraph in , – [MASK] for now, at least; with no prejudice to renomination when circumstances change as Matěj explains. [MASK] Depending on the context in which an image is shown it makes sense to have different media legends. ❪ ❫ On hold let's make sure this information is migrated to Commons first, then Delete . ( ) [MASK] . It's used by infoboxes on many Wikipedias. If we want to deprecate this, the following needs to happen: Make it feasible for Lua to transclude image captions on Commons. Copy all existing uses of this property to the caption fields in Commons. Migrate and all descendent modules from P2096 to Commons caption fields. Then remove all uses of this property and deprecate it. Make it feasible for Lua to transclude image captions on Commons. Copy all existing uses of this property to the caption fields in Commons. Migrate and all descendent modules from P2096 to Commons caption fields. Then remove all uses of this property and deprecate it. ( ) On hold As many others said, I support deletion, but we do first many other things after remove the property. -- Strongly [MASK] The same file can be used for many different purpose in different situation. The description on Commons cannot fullfill all those purposes. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4603_(P4603): [MASK] the Microsoft Store album ID (P4603). ( ) [MASK] the Microsoft Store album ID (P4603). ( ) Delete looks like it anyway. ( ) Delete Not sure this is useful if this was closed ( ) Delete Per above. ( ) [MASK] While the website is no longer functional, there are thousands of IDs which can still be obtained due to having been saved in the Internet Archive. It may be beneficial to [MASK] this data in Wikidata, although there may not be much of a use case at the moment. ( ) [MASK] per Jc86035. Delete 3 actual uses as of today. --- Delete ; unused so far, it won't be useful in the future. -- Delete . Too few uses to justify keeping a historical identifier. ( ) Delete not used and website closed. -- [MASK] It can still be used ny internet archive. ( ) Delete Not used and never be completed. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6270_(P6270): Delete see the previous discussion for my reasoning. ❪ ❫ [MASK] - to repeat my original comment ""I don't think Boobpedia should be used to prove notability. But I find it no worse of a site than many of the others we have available."" ( ) Delete - I'm an admin on the site, so obviously I'm not ""conservatively minded."" Boobpedia is a user-edited wiki with articles of wildly varying reliability, mostly about living people. Having an official property for it gives a false impression about the quality and accuracy of the site. But how is that any different than, as example, musicbrainz (which is considered authority control), discogs, or imdb? ( ) Musicbrainz appears to be professional spam, this GUID is obviously not better than discogs or allmusic. OTOH your examples don't mention ""boobs"", some celebs might not welcome this name for a property, same idea as some stuff listed in the policy, e.g., weight, and cup size (as plain English version of boob) is worse than weight, here: mass. I'll have a screaming fit if somebody puts ""was 32B, now 34D"" in an enwiki article where I could add the references. Hopefully 34D isn't good enough for boobpedia, but I digress. – But how is that any different than, as example, musicbrainz (which is considered authority control), discogs, or imdb? ( ) Musicbrainz appears to be professional spam, this GUID is obviously not better than discogs or allmusic. OTOH your examples don't mention ""boobs"", some celebs might not welcome this name for a property, same idea as some stuff listed in the policy, e.g., weight, and cup size (as plain English version of boob) is worse than weight, here: mass. I'll have a screaming fit if somebody puts ""was 32B, now 34D"" in an enwiki article where I could add the references. Hopefully 34D isn't good enough for boobpedia, but I digress. – Musicbrainz appears to be professional spam, this GUID is obviously not better than discogs or allmusic. OTOH your examples don't mention ""boobs"", some celebs might not welcome this name for a property, same idea as some stuff listed in the policy, e.g., weight, and cup size (as plain English version of boob) is worse than weight, here: mass. I'll have a screaming fit if somebody puts ""was 32B, now 34D"" in an enwiki article where I could add the references. Hopefully 34D isn't good enough for boobpedia, but I digress. – [MASK] This property is just a property like any other. Qualifying this property like ""creepy shit"" is definitely not an objective criteria that we can use to evaluate our properties. If the scope is considered too broad, it can be narrowed by restricting its uses to professions where this property would be applicable. -- ( ) Delete per -- ( ) Delete - ( ) Delete - -- ( ) Delete I don't think we need property for all user-generated wikis. -- ( ) [MASK] If we got rid of the user-generated wikis, we could very easily delete half our properties. ( ) Not to mention the fact that we are a user-generated wiki. Should other sites discount what we do here? ( ) User-generated wikis . That's for sources on non-structured sites. We aren't sourcing the information, we are simply listing the identifiers. ( ) Not to mention the fact that we are a user-generated wiki. Should other sites discount what we do here? ( ) User-generated wikis . That's for sources on non-structured sites. We aren't sourcing the information, we are simply listing the identifiers. ( ) User-generated wikis . That's for sources on non-structured sites. We aren't sourcing the information, we are simply listing the identifiers. ( ) That's for sources on non-structured sites. We aren't sourcing the information, we are simply listing the identifiers. ( ) [MASK] As said before, qualifying this property like ""creepy shit"" is definitely not an objective criteria that we can use to evaluate our properties, and we do have a large number of other IDs using user generated content. Topics like pornography often deal with ""machismo"" and objectification of people, which is bad. But I do not think these topics should be swept under the rug. How to deal with it? ( ) I'm not sure if you read the discussion, but this is not about pornography (there are other identifiers in this area that are ok) and Boobpedia is not dedicated to porn (""Boobpedia is a free and user-edited encyclopedia of women with big boobs""). Accordingly there might be an article for any women with cup C and above and this id is used on people who have nothing to do with pornography, like , and . While it might be normal to refer to women as ""boobs"" in the pornographic area this kind of objectification is degrading towards others and should not be made ""official"" by dedicating an own id to it. - ( ) I'm not sure if you read the discussion, but this is not about pornography (there are other identifiers in this area that are ok) and Boobpedia is not dedicated to porn (""Boobpedia is a free and user-edited encyclopedia of women with big boobs""). Accordingly there might be an article for any women with cup C and above and this id is used on people who have nothing to do with pornography, like , and . While it might be normal to refer to women as ""boobs"" in the pornographic area this kind of objectification is degrading towards others and should not be made ""official"" by dedicating an own id to it. - ( ) Delete I take a very liberal line to allowing IDs from ""adult"" sites, but this one presents non-trivial BLP issues (not to mention safe-space issues, when people start creating entries there for Wikimedians), and we get very little benefit from using it. Colleagues voting ""[MASK]"" should consider how they would feel if someone created an entry there for their mother/ sister/ daughter/ life-partner. Delete I don't want to lend any support to this dubious site. We have a responsibility to consider BLP and #MeToo issues; this clearly fails both. -- ( ) Delete Facepalm ( ) [MASK] . This is an ID like any other we store. ( ) Delete per Jklamo, ( ) Delete Very problematic, per above. -- As a user who's creating pages about erotic/pornographic models, including female, I can't remember a situation when Boobpedia was helpful for me. There are some catalogues of similar reliability which not mentionned in properties here, such as babesandstars.com, indexxx.com, thenude.eu, eurobabeindex.com... and there are not wiki-powered. However I'm voting Neutral , it's not an inferior-quality source. I'm still adding this to Statements 'cause I'm not much care. -- ( ) [MASK] Wikidata is a meta-database. We're defeating this purpose by deleting this property. I'm pinging some voters of the initial property proposal as well: , , , . -- ( ) [MASK] ( ) In my opinion there is no difference between this property and other ID property to user generated content. It also fits to . [MASK] ( ) 14:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC) What Boobpedia brings to the table is a whole lot of information detailing physical characteristics of people, which is within the scope of the Wikidata project. I think that by counting on that information, Wikidata improves and increases the amount of information stored in it. As for the main critics, I'll address the main four in here: ¿Boobpedia is user-edited? As of right now that can also be said of other property IDs. ¿Boobpedia is disrespectful? The data it brings to the table is comprised of numbers/classes detailing physical characteristics such as height, weight, eye color and many others, and the references to that data, and thus doesn't contravene the policies detailed in the resolution about the biographies of living persons. ¿Boobpedia objectifies those people by providing such a detailed amount of physical data? Wikidata is a user-edited knowledge base, which by design objectifies everything to represent it as properties in a huge graph. For example, every person's data is represented as an object instanced from the class ""human"", with several added physical properties such as height, color or mass. ¿Boobpedia only compiles information about ""women with big boobs""? As many other databases its scoped, which means that it only compiles information regarding its area of interest. The same can also be said about many other properties that we use, such as Musicbrainz which compiles data only about music. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . There seem to be some misunderstandings: I could not find any concern that Boobpedia compiles only information about ""women with big boobs"" in the discussion above (could you point me to it?): There was a concern that Boobpedia's scope is too broad - as it makes no difference between women in the erotic/pornographic business and others. In this context ""objectification"" does not refer to collecting information about a person within a certain model. It is a concept referring to a certain way of representing another person (e.g. as just a means to a certain goal (in the sexual domain: sexual arousal, erotic desires) or reduction to body/appearance (unrelated to their skills and accomplishments and without considering the subject's dignity) - if you want to delve deeper into this topic you may have a look at the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). Given point 2, the disrespectfulness (towards women outside the pornographic/erotic business), the tendency to violate their dignity and thus the violation of goals expressed in should become a bit clearer. It is not respectful towards Aretha Franklin or Lara Logan to reduce them to their ""boobs"" and it is not respectful to speculate (contrary to your impression it seems to me that this information is rather scarcely sourced) about their size of breasts/body measurements and represent this as an issue of general concern. - ( ) There seem to be some misunderstandings: I could not find any concern that Boobpedia compiles only information about ""women with big boobs"" in the discussion above (could you point me to it?): There was a concern that Boobpedia's scope is too broad - as it makes no difference between women in the erotic/pornographic business and others. In this context ""objectification"" does not refer to collecting information about a person within a certain model. It is a concept referring to a certain way of representing another person (e.g. as just a means to a certain goal (in the sexual domain: sexual arousal, erotic desires) or reduction to body/appearance (unrelated to their skills and accomplishments and without considering the subject's dignity) - if you want to delve deeper into this topic you may have a look at the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). Given point 2, the disrespectfulness (towards women outside the pornographic/erotic business), the tendency to violate their dignity and thus the violation of goals expressed in should become a bit clearer. It is not respectful towards Aretha Franklin or Lara Logan to reduce them to their ""boobs"" and it is not respectful to speculate (contrary to your impression it seems to me that this information is rather scarcely sourced) about their size of breasts/body measurements and represent this as an issue of general concern. - ( ) I could not find any concern that Boobpedia compiles only information about ""women with big boobs"" in the discussion above (could you point me to it?): There was a concern that Boobpedia's scope is too broad - as it makes no difference between women in the erotic/pornographic business and others. In this context ""objectification"" does not refer to collecting information about a person within a certain model. It is a concept referring to a certain way of representing another person (e.g. as just a means to a certain goal (in the sexual domain: sexual arousal, erotic desires) or reduction to body/appearance (unrelated to their skills and accomplishments and without considering the subject's dignity) - if you want to delve deeper into this topic you may have a look at the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). Given point 2, the disrespectfulness (towards women outside the pornographic/erotic business), the tendency to violate their dignity and thus the violation of goals expressed in should become a bit clearer. It is not respectful towards Aretha Franklin or Lara Logan to reduce them to their ""boobs"" and it is not respectful to speculate (contrary to your impression it seems to me that this information is rather scarcely sourced) about their size of breasts/body measurements and represent this as an issue of general concern. - ( ) I'd like to point out that per some of the reasoning in the [MASK] votes, stalker-y and doxing sites like , , and would be acceptable sites for properties, as ""just a property like any other."" As I suggested upthread, perhaps limiting website properties to sites Wikipedia would consider acceptable sources is in order? While I see why it would be shocking to have a identifier on those web sites, I can also see value to someone studying the harassement targetting some persons (or quantifying it somehow). -- ( ) While I see why it would be shocking to have a identifier on those web sites, I can also see value to someone studying the harassement targetting some persons (or quantifying it somehow). -- ( ) While I see why it would be shocking to have a identifier on those web sites, I can also see value to someone studying the harassement targetting some persons (or quantifying it somehow). -- ( ) Delete low quality, BLP problems, etc. -- ( ) [MASK] Like the property for Bilibili ID (see archive), copyright problems aren't what Wikidata users concern. -- ( ) Additional Comment @ : For BLP concerns, we may consider adding to this property, hence we warned users to no longer abuse using it. -- ( ) I don't think you are supposed to use on identifiers. And what is it about about abuse you are talking about? -- ( ) @ : I boldly , can't I? -- ( ) Adding doesn't say that people should be careful about adding data. It says that data should be only added when it ""be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves"". I'm doubting that's true for most of the people that currently have the tag. ❪ ❫ is right. While fine to add, that warning does not resolve the issue here. I expect that the vast majority of existing uses of this property are probably against that warning, and more importantly against our BLP policies. Keeping the property in place just invites more violations. -- ( ) Additional Comment @ : For BLP concerns, we may consider adding to this property, hence we warned users to no longer abuse using it. -- ( ) I don't think you are supposed to use on identifiers. And what is it about about abuse you are talking about? -- ( ) @ : I boldly , can't I? -- ( ) Adding doesn't say that people should be careful about adding data. It says that data should be only added when it ""be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves"". I'm doubting that's true for most of the people that currently have the tag. ❪ ❫ is right. While fine to add, that warning does not resolve the issue here. I expect that the vast majority of existing uses of this property are probably against that warning, and more importantly against our BLP policies. Keeping the property in place just invites more violations. -- ( ) I don't think you are supposed to use on identifiers. And what is it about about abuse you are talking about? -- ( ) @ : I boldly , can't I? -- ( ) Adding doesn't say that people should be careful about adding data. It says that data should be only added when it ""be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves"". I'm doubting that's true for most of the people that currently have the tag. ❪ ❫ is right. While fine to add, that warning does not resolve the issue here. I expect that the vast majority of existing uses of this property are probably against that warning, and more importantly against our BLP policies. Keeping the property in place just invites more violations. -- ( ) @ : I boldly , can't I? -- ( ) Adding doesn't say that people should be careful about adding data. It says that data should be only added when it ""be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves"". I'm doubting that's true for most of the people that currently have the tag. ❪ ❫ is right. While fine to add, that warning does not resolve the issue here. I expect that the vast majority of existing uses of this property are probably against that warning, and more importantly against our BLP policies. Keeping the property in place just invites more violations. -- ( ) Adding doesn't say that people should be careful about adding data. It says that data should be only added when it ""be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves"". I'm doubting that's true for most of the people that currently have the tag. ❪ ❫ is right. While fine to add, that warning does not resolve the issue here. I expect that the vast majority of existing uses of this property are probably against that warning, and more importantly against our BLP policies. Keeping the property in place just invites more violations. -- ( ) is right. While fine to add, that warning does not resolve the issue here. I expect that the vast majority of existing uses of this property are probably against that warning, and more importantly against our BLP policies. Keeping the property in place just invites more violations. -- ( ) Delete , for the people who say ""creepiness"" is not a valid deletion criterion, I am at a loss. Wikidata ought to be a safe space. Most of these people did not ask for, and likely do not want, a web site focusing on their breast measurements and bra size. The creepiness factor is one of the most important criteria—Wikidata should have no part in providing a venue for unwanted, sexualized attention being given to women just because they are females in the public eye. ( ) @ : But then, are you asking that ""copyvio"" can be a simple reason to delete a property? -- ( ) I don't see the point of litigating copyright issues with this property, since it should already be [MASK] in any case. ( ) @ : But then, are you asking that ""copyvio"" can be a simple reason to delete a property? -- ( ) I don't see the point of litigating copyright issues with this property, since it should already be [MASK] in any case. ( ) I don't see the point of litigating copyright issues with this property, since it should already be [MASK] in any case. ( ) Delete . A site like this poses a big BLP risk, and a much bigger BLP risk than most other external databases that might be linked. (Given that there is widespread social and moral disapproval of pornography, and in many countries it is even illegal, the BLP risk/impact is a lot higher than e.g. a database of authors of academic papers). While some of the women on the site are well-known in the sex industry, others are very obscure, and in some cases may have only briefly been involved in pornography, and may have now moved on to other things in their lives. I think it is with those more obscure individuals with which the biggest BLP risk lies: someone who briefly got involved in making pornography when younger, and has long left the industry, and may possibly even regret their time in it, and while what's out there is out there, they have a genuine BLP interest in a site like Wikidata not spreading it further. Putting aside the BLP issues of obscure pornographic actresses, it also includes various non-pornographic celebrities (mainstream film actresses, etc), and I think their aggregation with pornographic actresses may be seen by many as disrespectful (including probably in at least some cases by those non-pornographic celebrities themselves), which is an additional BLP problem. ( ) Delete - not appropriate to our mission. -- ( ) [MASK] but limit the use to those in the pornography industry. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5482: consensus to migrate to a new property with datatype ""musical notation"". -- ( ) consensus to migrate to a new property with datatype ""musical notation"". -- ( ) Support Comment The new datatype is currently limited to 400 characters, whereas strings could be of any length. As of today, the longest occurrence is only 125 characters, but for the sake of discussion, I added a 760 character value at . @ : I was aware when floating the existence of a musical notation datatype that the limit for all string-based properties was 400 characters. Did this limit get larger some time ago for regular strings? If so, then the datatype should promptly be adjusted to use the new upper limit. ( ) @ : Dunno what the maximum number of character is, but has one entry with 514 chars ( ), and I had no issue creating a string of 1000 chars . @ , : can you clarify the maximum character limit for properties based on strings? If in fact it is higher than 400, can this new datatype be extended to use that character limit? ( ) @ : the limit for external identifiers, strings and URLs was recently raised to 1500 characters ( ). No comment from me on whether that should apply to musical notation too. -- ( ) I'm open to increasing it if we are confident we can deal with the licensing issues that potentially arise with longer musical pieces. -- ( ) @ : I was aware when floating the existence of a musical notation datatype that the limit for all string-based properties was 400 characters. Did this limit get larger some time ago for regular strings? If so, then the datatype should promptly be adjusted to use the new upper limit. ( ) @ : Dunno what the maximum number of character is, but has one entry with 514 chars ( ), and I had no issue creating a string of 1000 chars . @ , : can you clarify the maximum character limit for properties based on strings? If in fact it is higher than 400, can this new datatype be extended to use that character limit? ( ) @ : the limit for external identifiers, strings and URLs was recently raised to 1500 characters ( ). No comment from me on whether that should apply to musical notation too. -- ( ) I'm open to increasing it if we are confident we can deal with the licensing issues that potentially arise with longer musical pieces. -- ( ) @ : Dunno what the maximum number of character is, but has one entry with 514 chars ( ), and I had no issue creating a string of 1000 chars . @ , : can you clarify the maximum character limit for properties based on strings? If in fact it is higher than 400, can this new datatype be extended to use that character limit? ( ) @ : the limit for external identifiers, strings and URLs was recently raised to 1500 characters ( ). No comment from me on whether that should apply to musical notation too. -- ( ) I'm open to increasing it if we are confident we can deal with the licensing issues that potentially arise with longer musical pieces. -- ( ) @ , : can you clarify the maximum character limit for properties based on strings? If in fact it is higher than 400, can this new datatype be extended to use that character limit? ( ) @ : the limit for external identifiers, strings and URLs was recently raised to 1500 characters ( ). No comment from me on whether that should apply to musical notation too. -- ( ) I'm open to increasing it if we are confident we can deal with the licensing issues that potentially arise with longer musical pieces. -- ( ) @ : the limit for external identifiers, strings and URLs was recently raised to 1500 characters ( ). No comment from me on whether that should apply to musical notation too. -- ( ) I'm open to increasing it if we are confident we can deal with the licensing issues that potentially arise with longer musical pieces. -- ( ) I'm open to increasing it if we are confident we can deal with the licensing issues that potentially arise with longer musical pieces. -- ( ) Support Let's replace it. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: first_flight_(P606)/UTC_date_of_spacecraft_launch_(P619)/UTC_date_of_spacecraft_landing_(P620)/time_of_object_orbit_decay_(P621)/spacecraft_docking/undocking_date_(P622): [MASK] The discussion dragged on for two years and there are more votes to [MASK] the property then to delete it. ❪ ❫ [MASK] The discussion dragged on for two years and there are more votes to [MASK] the property then to delete it. ❪ ❫ Oppose . Specific properties are more user-friendly for new users than generic properties with qualifiers. New users may easily discover specific properties and put useful data in them. They are much less likely to work out how to use P793 with qualifiers. And it is easier for other wikis to work out to consume a specific property than to consume a generic property filtered by qualifiers. If we were to go down this path, should we not to be consistent also delete and since they too can also be replaced by P793 with qualifiers? Also, even for experienced users, specific property is easier than generic property+qualifier because it is less typing/clicking to enter. And it is easier for people writing SPARQL queries, since the syntax for querying on qualifiers is more advanced than just querying for specific properties so this would make the SPARQL learning curve steeper (and it is pretty steep already, in my opinion). ( ) @ : I have some doubt about the affirmation ""New users may easily discover specific properties and put useful data in them"". When you have more than 3000 properties it is difficult to say that a new user can easily find the right property especially when the numbering is not based on any logic. The most problem we have is from the people in WP who want to add one value in an infobox. Most of the time they access WD via the link between the article and the corresponding item. Then they add a new statement and they have to find the right property. They can be lucky by entering the correct words or not. If not what happens ? They don't want to extract all subproperties of using a SPARQL query (most of wikipedians don't know anything about SPARQL) and they don't want to start any search to find the wikiproject responsible of managing the properties structure. So if the wikipedian doesn't find the correct property in the first search he won't continue to look for it and he will abandon. With one property there is a huge probability than the general property is already used in the item and it is easier to copy-paste the existing statements for a new addition. Even if they don't used the correct value for like using maiden flight instead of first flight or the inverse, they can already add the location or the date and the error can be detected and corrected using the constraint violation reports. ( ) start_date, end_date, point_in_time are intuitive qualifiers/properties. Documentation of P793 could be improved to emphasize relevant qualifiers. ( ) @ : I have some doubt about the affirmation ""New users may easily discover specific properties and put useful data in them"". When you have more than 3000 properties it is difficult to say that a new user can easily find the right property especially when the numbering is not based on any logic. The most problem we have is from the people in WP who want to add one value in an infobox. Most of the time they access WD via the link between the article and the corresponding item. Then they add a new statement and they have to find the right property. They can be lucky by entering the correct words or not. If not what happens ? They don't want to extract all subproperties of using a SPARQL query (most of wikipedians don't know anything about SPARQL) and they don't want to start any search to find the wikiproject responsible of managing the properties structure. So if the wikipedian doesn't find the correct property in the first search he won't continue to look for it and he will abandon. With one property there is a huge probability than the general property is already used in the item and it is easier to copy-paste the existing statements for a new addition. Even if they don't used the correct value for like using maiden flight instead of first flight or the inverse, they can already add the location or the date and the error can be detected and corrected using the constraint violation reports. ( ) start_date, end_date, point_in_time are intuitive qualifiers/properties. Documentation of P793 could be improved to emphasize relevant qualifiers. ( ) Delete per Snipre -- ( ) [MASK] . This one is well defined and used. This makes it very easy to query and use as well as to enter in the first place. The method is not a problem, but also doesn't really offer an advantage over having as a distinct property. ( ) Delete P793/P31/P279*/ is easier to query than 5 distinct properties. It's better to create taxonomies of evens than a property for every event IMO. Basic queries with P793 are both easy and narrow: ( ) [MASK] working with separate properties is easier than prop+qualifier. Some another prop+qualifier schemes had moved to separate properties scheme already. So / will be [MASK] too as I think. — ( ) With birth/death events because every person dies... maybe. It isn't obvious to have 2 properties per every event over events +3 qualifiers. @ : almost 2 times less properties-or-events to find with P793. We also need to create properties, when we don't need to create events in most cases with ( ) With birth/death events because every person dies... maybe. It isn't obvious to have 2 properties per every event over events +3 qualifiers. @ : almost 2 times less properties-or-events to find with P793. We also need to create properties, when we don't need to create events in most cases with ( ) [MASK] and because they have almost (or over) 5000 uses . Delete , and because they have at most 350 uses . This doesn't really make sense - these properties form a coherent group for describing concepts and so we should either have them all, or put them all as ""significant event"" qualifiers. All spacecraft go up and so all will have a launch date; not all have come down yet so there will be fewer with landing/decay times. It's natural to expect an imbalance between the two groups, much as we have far more people with ""born"" than ""died"". ( ) Comment we shouldn't make decisions in any direction based on current usage. Maybe we don't have understanding what exactly is better, but we shouldn't make popularity-driven decisions. ( ) This doesn't really make sense - these properties form a coherent group for describing concepts and so we should either have them all, or put them all as ""significant event"" qualifiers. All spacecraft go up and so all will have a launch date; not all have come down yet so there will be fewer with landing/decay times. It's natural to expect an imbalance between the two groups, much as we have far more people with ""born"" than ""died"". ( ) Comment we shouldn't make decisions in any direction based on current usage. Maybe we don't have understanding what exactly is better, but we shouldn't make popularity-driven decisions. ( ) [MASK] seems to be a working set of (sub-)properties. --- [MASK] All of these properties seem to be useful and working with them is much easier than using qualifiers with . -- ( ) @ : in SPARQL difference is in 1 triple, 1 is less than 2, but I wouldn't call it ""much"". Can you show example how one property is far better than event? What happens when one needs to specify a qualifier for this property? But it takes more time to maintain individual property (create, translate in every language) Date-related properties aren't specific to space. 3(4 with location) qualifiers are free from ""...location of ..."" ""...time of..."" restrictions and much faster to enter data by humans . You only need to know 4 properties, not 5-10-300-1000. There is nothing to ""discover"" because so few options to make mistakes between. ( ) @ : in SPARQL difference is in 1 triple, 1 is less than 2, but I wouldn't call it ""much"". Can you show example how one property is far better than event? What happens when one needs to specify a qualifier for this property? But it takes more time to maintain individual property (create, translate in every language) Date-related properties aren't specific to space. 3(4 with location) qualifiers are free from ""...location of ..."" ""...time of..."" restrictions and much faster to enter data by humans . You only need to know 4 properties, not 5-10-300-1000. There is nothing to ""discover"" because so few options to make mistakes between. ( ) @ : I didn't mean just the use of the properties in SPARQL queries. I believe that the users are much more likely to find a distinct property than they are to notice the existence , read it's documentation and remember that they can use it for inserting date of landing, docking etc. Distinct properties are easy to search, so the users don't even have to know/remember the property exists and they can still find it easily. The use of wouldn't probably spare any time at all, because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it and to check constraint violations regularly (so that users wouldn't be using eg. instead of ). The only change I would support would be to delete and replace it with two properties for docking and undocking. -- ( ) @ : because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it Only for events never described in Wikipedia as separate article (something rare). E.g.: . We don't have specific properties to both of them, we will spend time on property creation. 300-1000 distinct events aren't stretched at all. Furthermore, when we use Q1764062, Q331055 and Q35856 in 793 users could read Wikipedia articles if they never heard about such event. ( ) @ : we are using this approach in Point in time is not something we need to know every time, but additional information. E.g. ""was it ever sequenced?"" ""how many times burial ceremony happened?"" Where and when should be qualifiers ( ) @ : I didn't mean just the use of the properties in SPARQL queries. I believe that the users are much more likely to find a distinct property than they are to notice the existence , read it's documentation and remember that they can use it for inserting date of landing, docking etc. Distinct properties are easy to search, so the users don't even have to know/remember the property exists and they can still find it easily. The use of wouldn't probably spare any time at all, because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it and to check constraint violations regularly (so that users wouldn't be using eg. instead of ). The only change I would support would be to delete and replace it with two properties for docking and undocking. -- ( ) @ : because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it Only for events never described in Wikipedia as separate article (something rare). E.g.: . We don't have specific properties to both of them, we will spend time on property creation. 300-1000 distinct events aren't stretched at all. Furthermore, when we use Q1764062, Q331055 and Q35856 in 793 users could read Wikipedia articles if they never heard about such event. ( ) @ : we are using this approach in Point in time is not something we need to know every time, but additional information. E.g. ""was it ever sequenced?"" ""how many times burial ceremony happened?"" Where and when should be qualifiers ( ) @ : I didn't mean just the use of the properties in SPARQL queries. I believe that the users are much more likely to find a distinct property than they are to notice the existence , read it's documentation and remember that they can use it for inserting date of landing, docking etc. Distinct properties are easy to search, so the users don't even have to know/remember the property exists and they can still find it easily. The use of wouldn't probably spare any time at all, because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it and to check constraint violations regularly (so that users wouldn't be using eg. instead of ). The only change I would support would be to delete and replace it with two properties for docking and undocking. -- ( ) @ : because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it Only for events never described in Wikipedia as separate article (something rare). E.g.: . We don't have specific properties to both of them, we will spend time on property creation. 300-1000 distinct events aren't stretched at all. Furthermore, when we use Q1764062, Q331055 and Q35856 in 793 users could read Wikipedia articles if they never heard about such event. ( ) @ : we are using this approach in Point in time is not something we need to know every time, but additional information. E.g. ""was it ever sequenced?"" ""how many times burial ceremony happened?"" Where and when should be qualifiers ( ) @ : because it would still be needed to translate labels of the items used with it Only for events never described in Wikipedia as separate article (something rare). E.g.: . We don't have specific properties to both of them, we will spend time on property creation. 300-1000 distinct events aren't stretched at all. Furthermore, when we use Q1764062, Q331055 and Q35856 in 793 users could read Wikipedia articles if they never heard about such event. ( ) @ : we are using this approach in Point in time is not something we need to know every time, but additional information. E.g. ""was it ever sequenced?"" ""how many times burial ceremony happened?"" Where and when should be qualifiers ( ) @ : I agree that the + qualifiers approach might be more useful for rare events. However, I believe that in case of common events the time spent with the property creation is outweighted by the user-friendliness of distinct properties. Also, I don't see any point in deleting properties which are already in use and replacing them with as it doesn't seem to have any major advantages. -- ( ) @ : I agree that the + qualifiers approach might be more useful for rare events. However, I believe that in case of common events the time spent with the property creation is outweighted by the user-friendliness of distinct properties. Also, I don't see any point in deleting properties which are already in use and replacing them with as it doesn't seem to have any major advantages. -- ( ) @ : I agree that the + qualifiers approach might be more useful for rare events. However, I believe that in case of common events the time spent with the property creation is outweighted by the user-friendliness of distinct properties. Also, I don't see any point in deleting properties which are already in use and replacing them with as it doesn't seem to have any major advantages. -- ( ) @ : I agree that the + qualifiers approach might be more useful for rare events. However, I believe that in case of common events the time spent with the property creation is outweighted by the user-friendliness of distinct properties. Also, I don't see any point in deleting properties which are already in use and replacing them with as it doesn't seem to have any major advantages. -- ( ) @ : I agree that the + qualifiers approach might be more useful for rare events. However, I believe that in case of common events the time spent with the property creation is outweighted by the user-friendliness of distinct properties. Also, I don't see any point in deleting properties which are already in use and replacing them with as it doesn't seem to have any major advantages. -- ( ) Delete Not user-friendly for new users at all, because you must know these property before adding them, and don't forget to check if they exist! There are too many dates properties. This method (creating new properties) is very painstaking: if you want to add and event that doesn't have its own property, you must ask for a property creation, wait weeks... ""Good"" events have their own properties, ""bad"" have not... And why do we a have a ""date of (event)"" property and not others? For example, a ""first flight"" might be described not only by a date, but by the airport(s), the crew (pilot(s) and so on), important people who attended... Are we going to split each event into multiple properties? Please, have a look at . ( ) Delete per 's arguments -- ( ) Delete . Consistency is important. Storing data so many different ways makes it difficult to use. -- ( ) [MASK] . They are used by several Wikipedias using the {{#Property:P622}} etc syntax. Deleting these properties will break those infoboxes and there is no easy replacement solution in the proposed migration scheme that doesn't involve bespoke, locally hosted Lua scripts to let the infoboxes find the relevant + dates. Until parser functions become sufficiently advanced that these can be migrated by changing wikitext alone, we'll need to [MASK] these properties. ( ) [MASK] As . [MASK] and delete the rest. / This is a drive of complex problems, and at the moment I don't think [MASK] all or delete all are good either. If there's some spikes that prevents us to safety use P793, as well as other properties, then those are just bugs, we should actually fix em. And @ : isn't {{#Property:}} somewhat deprecated now? What's the technical block on migrating usages to be {{#statements:}} (at least, as you're a Cantonese user, what's problem on )? @ : I looked at the property talk pages and checked the templates that used these properties. is an example that uses the {{#Property:}} syntax (through ) to fetch this property. I'm not aware of any use of these properties on yue.wp. So my suggested plan of action is (0) mark these properties as deprecated (1) copy these statements into the proposed new statement structure (2) modify all the relevant templates to transfer all uses of these properties in other Wikimedia sites to the new statement structure (3) finally delete the property. ( ) I've recently learned that it's not possible to select statements based on qualifier values using {{#statements:}}. and don't currently have that functionality either. So I think we should [MASK] these properties until that becomes possible. ( ) Some versions of can read out statements based on qualifiers, e.g. the version on frwiki. Moreover, also requires qualifiers. Infoboxes need to select statements based on qualifier values to properly display the data of . -- ( ) @ : I looked at the property talk pages and checked the templates that used these properties. is an example that uses the {{#Property:}} syntax (through ) to fetch this property. I'm not aware of any use of these properties on yue.wp. So my suggested plan of action is (0) mark these properties as deprecated (1) copy these statements into the proposed new statement structure (2) modify all the relevant templates to transfer all uses of these properties in other Wikimedia sites to the new statement structure (3) finally delete the property. ( ) I've recently learned that it's not possible to select statements based on qualifier values using {{#statements:}}. and don't currently have that functionality either. So I think we should [MASK] these properties until that becomes possible. ( ) Some versions of can read out statements based on qualifiers, e.g. the version on frwiki. Moreover, also requires qualifiers. Infoboxes need to select statements based on qualifier values to properly display the data of . -- ( ) I've recently learned that it's not possible to select statements based on qualifier values using {{#statements:}}. and don't currently have that functionality either. So I think we should [MASK] these properties until that becomes possible. ( ) Some versions of can read out statements based on qualifiers, e.g. the version on frwiki. Moreover, also requires qualifiers. Infoboxes need to select statements based on qualifier values to properly display the data of . -- ( ) Some versions of can read out statements based on qualifiers, e.g. the version on frwiki. Moreover, also requires qualifiers. Infoboxes need to select statements based on qualifier values to properly display the data of . -- ( ) [MASK] I vote to [MASK]. There is no such thing as ""too much specific"". We have ""subproperty"" property for a reason. -- ( ) [MASK] I'm Okay with SJK ( ) [MASK] I vote to [MASK]. There is no such thing as ""too much specific"". This is easier to use by new users. ( ) [MASK] Because of its wide used and related with common concepts. We shouldn't abuse of P793 and reserve it for unusual/open points in time that are difficult to foresee as property. ( ) Delete because we can replace them with other properties-- Delete : Why have a bunch of “time of spacecraft [event]” properties when most of the events (launch, landing, docking/undocking) apply to many kinds of vehicles, and the remaining one (orbital decay) applies to all kinds of spaceborne objects. ( ) [MASK] As an editor of space related things, I find this properties very useful, and as said above, this could lead to problems on infoboxes, and there is no such thing as ""too much specific"". -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P5367_(P5367): [MASK] − ( ) [MASK] − ( ) Internet Archive gives me an Your browser isn't supported :( error so i don't really think that's an option. Are there any other video game properties or video game databases that you think we should finish or create before they inevitable close down? -- ( ) I can confirm you, that at the moment we have only two video game streaming platforms, it's and also now closed . For all other platforms that exist, most of whom are not diffused, there is no identifier property, so there’s no need to worry about that. To create, I think, we still have for a moment ( ) as other video game streaming platform, but it's not really diffused as Twitch, so I don't know. ( ) I was thinking about gaming databases as a whole, not just streaming websites. Personally i'm concerned about ( - ). I've had trouble making a property proposal due to the nature of the URL. -- ( ) Internet Archive gives me an Your browser isn't supported :( error so i don't really think that's an option. Are there any other video game properties or video game databases that you think we should finish or create before they inevitable close down? -- ( ) I can confirm you, that at the moment we have only two video game streaming platforms, it's and also now closed . For all other platforms that exist, most of whom are not diffused, there is no identifier property, so there’s no need to worry about that. To create, I think, we still have for a moment ( ) as other video game streaming platform, but it's not really diffused as Twitch, so I don't know. ( ) I was thinking about gaming databases as a whole, not just streaming websites. Personally i'm concerned about ( - ). I've had trouble making a property proposal due to the nature of the URL. -- ( ) I can confirm you, that at the moment we have only two video game streaming platforms, it's and also now closed . For all other platforms that exist, most of whom are not diffused, there is no identifier property, so there’s no need to worry about that. To create, I think, we still have for a moment ( ) as other video game streaming platform, but it's not really diffused as Twitch, so I don't know. ( ) I was thinking about gaming databases as a whole, not just streaming websites. Personally i'm concerned about ( - ). I've had trouble making a property proposal due to the nature of the URL. -- ( ) I was thinking about gaming databases as a whole, not just streaming websites. Personally i'm concerned about ( - ). I've had trouble making a property proposal due to the nature of the URL. -- ( ) Delete . Looks like this has already been deprecated so we can safely delete the property. ( ) Delete : useless to [MASK] a deprecated property. ( ) . Delete unused. --- Delete for the same reasons. ( ) . ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5482_2: [MASK] , use instead. − ( ) [MASK] , use instead. − ( ) Speedy delete No reason to [MASK], as the replacement property is created. -- ( ) Delete ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete straightforward. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5924: [MASK] − ( ) [MASK] − ( ) Delete . ( ) . Delete . I copied all data to . There were less only 71 uses, so it was quickly done. Delete Seems clear. ( ) Delete per nomination -- ( ) Delete per nomination - ( ) Delete if there were more uses (than 71), I'd have kept it. Wikis can move to another farm. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P7082: [MASK] , moved to -- ( ) [MASK] , moved to -- ( ) As it seems to be minor issue, I went ahead and moved it. --- Speedy delete Creator's error. -- ( ) Delete per Jura1 -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6085: Done − ( ) Done − ( ) No strong feelings on this. ( ) (Note: I created both property proposals. I forgot to mention this.) ( ) @ : On the other hand, it would be sort of pointless to do this for all original newspaper articles (assuming that those get imported at some point in the future), since we would then have thousands of properties just for newspapers instead of using , and most of those article items (excluding those for AP/AFP/Reuters articles) would only use at most one identifier property. ( ) @ : On the other hand, it would be sort of pointless to do this for all original newspaper articles (assuming that those get imported at some point in the future), since we would then have thousands of properties just for newspapers instead of using , and most of those article items (excluding those for AP/AFP/Reuters articles) would only use at most one identifier property. ( ) Delete URL are good enough to reference articles. Having the property means that we get plenty of other requests for properties for the articles of other newspapers that create additional work for property creation that's better spend dealing with already existing proposals. ❪ ❫ Delete Convinced by Jc & Christian. ( ) . ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5000: [MASK] (was: ""analog or derivative of"", property proposal: ) − ( ) [MASK] (was: ""analog or derivative of"", property proposal: ) − ( ) [MASK] I see it is useful and has no problem.The description can be improved ( ) Could you explain how this property is useful? ( ) I have to ping you, , as I would like to know the answer or some argument for keeping this property. Especially in the light of my comment of September 24 (below, the long one beginning with I'm not sure ), in which I pointed out major problems with the sources that were to be used to populate this property. ( ) Could you explain how this property is useful? ( ) I have to ping you, , as I would like to know the answer or some argument for keeping this property. Especially in the light of my comment of September 24 (below, the long one beginning with I'm not sure ), in which I pointed out major problems with the sources that were to be used to populate this property. ( ) I understand your concern. Do you have any plans to create more specific properties replacing this property? Or should we force this property to be used with a qualifier of ( , , , or )? Actually, the term ""analog"" is used ambiguously in molecular biology and in medicine, such as and . Also, I'd like to hear what is the chemically correct relationships between and , or between and . Regards, -- ( ) I'm not sure that properties are needed here at all. We had in Wikiproject Chemistry some initial discussions about chemical classification (e.g. ), but these discussions are not finished, as we in WP Chemistry have a lot to do before this (e.g. determining what we already have in WD and cleaning up after mass bot imports). From my POV the basic chemical classification should be based on classes of chemical compounds using instance of/subclass of (e.g. diazepam has a benzodiazepine, chloroaromatic classes; these classes are subclasses of more general classes etc.; this way diazepam and 2-chlorodiazepam are a member of the same classes). But this is my POV that has not been accepted (as any other) to be used in WD; and that's not the only option that can be present in WD. With the analogs, derivatives and so on there are IMHO too many problems: one can say that 2-chlorodiazepam is an analogue of diazepam, but there are really no clear and objective boundaries – methanol is an analog of methane? one can say that; diazepam is a structural analog of methane? some may argue that this is also true, really, I had that kind of discussions in pl.wiki, because we have 'derivatives' and 'similar compounds' parameteres in infoboxes... The problem here is also that we would have several thousands of statements imported to WD and that's it. Many users like to import data to WD, but no one likes to curate that data, no one is checking whether imported data is correct or not. And in this case it would certainly be incorrect: just look what is the purpose of 'analogs & derivatives' in MeSH: It is used when the specific chemical heading is not available and no appropriate group heading exists i.e. it is used where there is no chemical class to be used for classification, so this is a kind of a substitute property, a replacement for something that is missing right now. ChEBI 'functional parent' have more sense ( A has_functional_parent B if and only if given any a, a instantiates A , has molecular graph ag and a obo: has_part some functional group fg, then there is some b such that b instantiates B, has molecular graph bg and has functional group fg’ such that bg is the result of a graph transformation process on ag resulting in the conversion of fg into fg'. ), but I don't think that such relationships are needed in WD, at least not right now. My point is that: classification should be thoroughly discussed first and there should not be mass imports before that, because there are always people who wants to import something (no matter if this is correct or not), but there are no volunteers for cleaning this up. ( ) I agree that before mass imports we have to discuss about this matter. I don't think is the best solution, but a link from to , in some way, is needed, isn't it? -- ( ) Not necessarily a direct link between these two. It depends on the information we want to have in WD. For some uses, having these two items in one class would be sufficient, but there may be other uses in which there is a need to directly link these items — but we have to know why we have to link these items and how it would work for all the compounds in WD, i.e. what is the purpose and what is the intended result. For example, I think there should be some way for linking compounds used as a medicine (active ingredients) with their salts used in consumer products. But how to do this properly, e.g. which item should be linked from a ? or ? how to indicate the relation between these three items? Right now we have thousands of cases like that – cases resulted from mass import of data without any thought about proper linking between items – and is an active ingredient of without any link to (so without any link to the data about the active ingredient) and with the situation is the opposite. We already have some properties for linking different compounds based on precise criteria: , ; we already have some classes being a mix of chemical and pharmacological classification, e.g. (being a reflection of MeSH classification), that can be used for classification of biologically active compounds (but should it be used? I don't know which option for classification should be better). So thinking and discussion first (what we want to have and how to accomplish it), action then; not the opposite. ( ) I had noticed the issues on active ingredient (see ). -- ( ) @ : For the relation between and we can create a property "" is a salt derivatve of"". For and , en:WP says that is a functional analog of but the definition of functional analog is not clear (can be structural or not) so this can be everything. Science requires better definition than that. ( ) I'm not sure that properties are needed here at all. We had in Wikiproject Chemistry some initial discussions about chemical classification (e.g. ), but these discussions are not finished, as we in WP Chemistry have a lot to do before this (e.g. determining what we already have in WD and cleaning up after mass bot imports). From my POV the basic chemical classification should be based on classes of chemical compounds using instance of/subclass of (e.g. diazepam has a benzodiazepine, chloroaromatic classes; these classes are subclasses of more general classes etc.; this way diazepam and 2-chlorodiazepam are a member of the same classes). But this is my POV that has not been accepted (as any other) to be used in WD; and that's not the only option that can be present in WD. With the analogs, derivatives and so on there are IMHO too many problems: one can say that 2-chlorodiazepam is an analogue of diazepam, but there are really no clear and objective boundaries – methanol is an analog of methane? one can say that; diazepam is a structural analog of methane? some may argue that this is also true, really, I had that kind of discussions in pl.wiki, because we have 'derivatives' and 'similar compounds' parameteres in infoboxes... The problem here is also that we would have several thousands of statements imported to WD and that's it. Many users like to import data to WD, but no one likes to curate that data, no one is checking whether imported data is correct or not. And in this case it would certainly be incorrect: just look what is the purpose of 'analogs & derivatives' in MeSH: It is used when the specific chemical heading is not available and no appropriate group heading exists i.e. it is used where there is no chemical class to be used for classification, so this is a kind of a substitute property, a replacement for something that is missing right now. ChEBI 'functional parent' have more sense ( A has_functional_parent B if and only if given any a, a instantiates A , has molecular graph ag and a obo: has_part some functional group fg, then there is some b such that b instantiates B, has molecular graph bg and has functional group fg’ such that bg is the result of a graph transformation process on ag resulting in the conversion of fg into fg'. ), but I don't think that such relationships are needed in WD, at least not right now. My point is that: classification should be thoroughly discussed first and there should not be mass imports before that, because there are always people who wants to import something (no matter if this is correct or not), but there are no volunteers for cleaning this up. ( ) I agree that before mass imports we have to discuss about this matter. I don't think is the best solution, but a link from to , in some way, is needed, isn't it? -- ( ) Not necessarily a direct link between these two. It depends on the information we want to have in WD. For some uses, having these two items in one class would be sufficient, but there may be other uses in which there is a need to directly link these items — but we have to know why we have to link these items and how it would work for all the compounds in WD, i.e. what is the purpose and what is the intended result. For example, I think there should be some way for linking compounds used as a medicine (active ingredients) with their salts used in consumer products. But how to do this properly, e.g. which item should be linked from a ? or ? how to indicate the relation between these three items? Right now we have thousands of cases like that – cases resulted from mass import of data without any thought about proper linking between items – and is an active ingredient of without any link to (so without any link to the data about the active ingredient) and with the situation is the opposite. We already have some properties for linking different compounds based on precise criteria: , ; we already have some classes being a mix of chemical and pharmacological classification, e.g. (being a reflection of MeSH classification), that can be used for classification of biologically active compounds (but should it be used? I don't know which option for classification should be better). So thinking and discussion first (what we want to have and how to accomplish it), action then; not the opposite. ( ) I had noticed the issues on active ingredient (see ). -- ( ) @ : For the relation between and we can create a property "" is a salt derivatve of"". For and , en:WP says that is a functional analog of but the definition of functional analog is not clear (can be structural or not) so this can be everything. Science requires better definition than that. ( ) I agree that before mass imports we have to discuss about this matter. I don't think is the best solution, but a link from to , in some way, is needed, isn't it? -- ( ) Not necessarily a direct link between these two. It depends on the information we want to have in WD. For some uses, having these two items in one class would be sufficient, but there may be other uses in which there is a need to directly link these items — but we have to know why we have to link these items and how it would work for all the compounds in WD, i.e. what is the purpose and what is the intended result. For example, I think there should be some way for linking compounds used as a medicine (active ingredients) with their salts used in consumer products. But how to do this properly, e.g. which item should be linked from a ? or ? how to indicate the relation between these three items? Right now we have thousands of cases like that – cases resulted from mass import of data without any thought about proper linking between items – and is an active ingredient of without any link to (so without any link to the data about the active ingredient) and with the situation is the opposite. We already have some properties for linking different compounds based on precise criteria: , ; we already have some classes being a mix of chemical and pharmacological classification, e.g. (being a reflection of MeSH classification), that can be used for classification of biologically active compounds (but should it be used? I don't know which option for classification should be better). So thinking and discussion first (what we want to have and how to accomplish it), action then; not the opposite. ( ) I had noticed the issues on active ingredient (see ). -- ( ) @ : For the relation between and we can create a property "" is a salt derivatve of"". For and , en:WP says that is a functional analog of but the definition of functional analog is not clear (can be structural or not) so this can be everything. Science requires better definition than that. ( ) Not necessarily a direct link between these two. It depends on the information we want to have in WD. For some uses, having these two items in one class would be sufficient, but there may be other uses in which there is a need to directly link these items — but we have to know why we have to link these items and how it would work for all the compounds in WD, i.e. what is the purpose and what is the intended result. For example, I think there should be some way for linking compounds used as a medicine (active ingredients) with their salts used in consumer products. But how to do this properly, e.g. which item should be linked from a ? or ? how to indicate the relation between these three items? Right now we have thousands of cases like that – cases resulted from mass import of data without any thought about proper linking between items – and is an active ingredient of without any link to (so without any link to the data about the active ingredient) and with the situation is the opposite. We already have some properties for linking different compounds based on precise criteria: , ; we already have some classes being a mix of chemical and pharmacological classification, e.g. (being a reflection of MeSH classification), that can be used for classification of biologically active compounds (but should it be used? I don't know which option for classification should be better). So thinking and discussion first (what we want to have and how to accomplish it), action then; not the opposite. ( ) I had noticed the issues on active ingredient (see ). -- ( ) @ : For the relation between and we can create a property "" is a salt derivatve of"". For and , en:WP says that is a functional analog of but the definition of functional analog is not clear (can be structural or not) so this can be everything. Science requires better definition than that. ( ) I had noticed the issues on active ingredient (see ). -- ( ) @ : For the relation between and we can create a property "" is a salt derivatve of"". For and , en:WP says that is a functional analog of but the definition of functional analog is not clear (can be structural or not) so this can be everything. Science requires better definition than that. ( ) @ : For the relation between and we can create a property "" is a salt derivatve of"". For and , en:WP says that is a functional analog of but the definition of functional analog is not clear (can be structural or not) so this can be everything. Science requires better definition than that. ( ) I understand that a property like this makes interesting browsing, but I think it can be done differently. I agree with the point that analog and derivative are not so well defined, but my worries stems particularly from the fact that it is unbound and will lead to many links between chemical structures. I'm slightly in favor of removing. -- ( ) Delete or at least rename based on a more specific relation. We already discussed the problem in WikiProject Chemistry and only relations based on a clear definition have to be used. ( ) Delete We do need better chemical relationship properties, but they need to be extremely clearly defined. -- ( ) Given that this has only 3 uses currently, I think it's save to throw out the existing usages and rename the property into a more specific one (and not let the nice P5000 go to waste). I propose to go for ""structural analog"" here. ❪ ❫ I think that this property should be [MASK] a long time ago. This discussion is open for more than a year, most comments are in favor of deleting, the only comment to [MASK] this property (BTW from a person with no particular interest in chemistry and who votes for creating every property and for keeping every property) lacks any arguments, even after I asked twice. I'm regularly deleting incorrect uses of this property, because it is used incorrectly in many fields (fortunately not in chemistry). ( ) Delete I also agree with a instance/subclass hierarchy which is already realized in ChEBI (they even get by with usage of is-a, only). -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P3905: [MASK] (was: ""GINCO ID"") − ( ) [MASK] (was: ""GINCO ID"") − ( ) @ : could we have some more in-depth explanations? I think it's better to have one property for one database on one website. Just because this database has subparts means we need to have differents property (see. for an other example of a database with subparts). Plus, if we would use and , then some fixing seems to be needed (I fixed the already). Also @ : who did the proposal for P4979 and P4980 (who were accepted with only 2 votes each). Cheers, ( ) The main reason I think that it is better to have two seperate properties, is that for instance has an entry in both and now yields a constraint violation for . ( ) Oh, good point, thanks . Is there a lot of case like that? by design, there should be few so they could easily be dealt with exceptions on the constraint (like I did ), but if there is a lot (more than 10% of the total?) then indeed we should maybe have separate properties. @ : signaled me that there is indeed a problem with the identifiers for P4979 and P4980 (what I thought was a fix caused some problems…), does someone has more informations (or even better specifications) on how this database(s) works? Cdlt, ( ) I have not really investigated if there are many of those cases, but I assume less than 10%. Still, the property now combines two thesauruses, which I think is not wise. ( ) The main reason I think that it is better to have two seperate properties, is that for instance has an entry in both and now yields a constraint violation for . ( ) Oh, good point, thanks . Is there a lot of case like that? by design, there should be few so they could easily be dealt with exceptions on the constraint (like I did ), but if there is a lot (more than 10% of the total?) then indeed we should maybe have separate properties. @ : signaled me that there is indeed a problem with the identifiers for P4979 and P4980 (what I thought was a fix caused some problems…), does someone has more informations (or even better specifications) on how this database(s) works? Cdlt, ( ) I have not really investigated if there are many of those cases, but I assume less than 10%. Still, the property now combines two thesauruses, which I think is not wise. ( ) Oh, good point, thanks . Is there a lot of case like that? by design, there should be few so they could easily be dealt with exceptions on the constraint (like I did ), but if there is a lot (more than 10% of the total?) then indeed we should maybe have separate properties. @ : signaled me that there is indeed a problem with the identifiers for P4979 and P4980 (what I thought was a fix caused some problems…), does someone has more informations (or even better specifications) on how this database(s) works? Cdlt, ( ) I have not really investigated if there are many of those cases, but I assume less than 10%. Still, the property now combines two thesauruses, which I think is not wise. ( ) I have not really investigated if there are many of those cases, but I assume less than 10%. Still, the property now combines two thesauruses, which I think is not wise. ( ) Delete @ : @ : GINCO is an application (of the French Ministry of Culture), not a website, not a database, and not a single thesaurus. So indeed ""identifiant GINCO"" does not make sense. What would make sense could be ""identifiant of the French Ministry of Culture"", but that does not give much information either. So indeed having separate properties for separate thesaurus is more appropriate. ( ) Comment based on the explanations given, I'd delete either the above or the two other ones. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1773_2: consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) @ , , , , : Do we have an agreed deprecation plan? I can try to adapt my for this, but we need to agree on what qualifier-target combination to tag these statements with. ( ) There are some unusual usages - see where “attributed to” is used to mean “credited to” or “as by” for whose name was given as the composer at a performance. I think we need to manually tweak some of these outliers. - ( ) Nevertheless, I think the ""base case"" migration might be: IF = ""unknown value"" or or /any of its subclasses AND is qualified with = Qnnnn THEN REPLACE the creator statement with = Qnnn qualified with -> PRESERVE any references Does that sound right? - ( ) Yes, sounds right to me! -- ( ) Yes this soounds right to me too. ( ) @ , , : redirected to . Do we want to use or unmerge? Also what do you want to do with the entries where the main property is , , ? ( ) There are some unusual usages - see where “attributed to” is used to mean “credited to” or “as by” for whose name was given as the composer at a performance. I think we need to manually tweak some of these outliers. - ( ) Nevertheless, I think the ""base case"" migration might be: IF = ""unknown value"" or or /any of its subclasses AND is qualified with = Qnnnn THEN REPLACE the creator statement with = Qnnn qualified with -> PRESERVE any references IF = ""unknown value"" or or /any of its subclasses AND is qualified with = Qnnnn = ""unknown value"" or or /any of its subclasses AND is qualified with = Qnnnn THEN REPLACE the creator statement with = Qnnn qualified with -> PRESERVE any references REPLACE the creator statement with = Qnnn qualified with -> PRESERVE any references Does that sound right? - ( ) Yes, sounds right to me! -- ( ) Yes this soounds right to me too. ( ) @ , , : redirected to . Do we want to use or unmerge? Also what do you want to do with the entries where the main property is , , ? ( ) Yes, sounds right to me! -- ( ) Yes this soounds right to me too. ( ) @ , , : redirected to . Do we want to use or unmerge? Also what do you want to do with the entries where the main property is , , ? ( ) @ , , : redirected to . Do we want to use or unmerge? Also what do you want to do with the entries where the main property is , , ? ( ) Perhaps we should change the English label to ""attributed to (DEPRECATED)"" and accordingly for other languages? Perhaps that can reduce usage of the property. Or is there any reason not to do that? -- ( ) Yes, a good first step. I suppose we should formally vote to delete the property here. - ( ) Done : . -- ( ) Yes, a good first step. I suppose we should formally vote to delete the property here. - ( ) Done : . -- ( ) Done : . -- ( ) Delete - deprecate, migrate, and delete. - ( ) Delete - deprecate, migrate, and delete. - ( ) Comment so, after migration-deletion, any query for author would return fictional authors too? -- ( ) @ : wasn't meant to express ""fictional authorship"" either. The best way to model it I can think of is . -- ( ) @ : wasn't meant to express ""fictional authorship"" either. The best way to model it I can think of is . -- ( ) Delete - deprecate, migrate, and delete. - ( ) Delete per above. -- ( ) Migration completed! is at 0. Does anyone want to go ahead and execute the deletion, ? Perhaps should be [MASK] as well. Thanks, -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6482: Kept nothing wrong here. Plenty of usage (2000+) so I don't see any reason to delete this property. ( ) Kept nothing wrong here. Plenty of usage (2000+) so I don't see any reason to delete this property. ( ) @ : please ping the participants in the property proposal: @ , , , : proposes for deletion. − ( ) Seems to work as intended. has with contents ""Q53454"" on it. This links to which resolves to . So what do you think went wrong here? It's nice they adopted our identifiers. ( ) Value is identical with subject! Yes, thats intended. The database contains image sources of places, objects, events, persons, organizations, etc. If a Wikidata identifier is found for an entity (for example, Q53454 - John III Şoboski), it is stored in its associated record. Property ""P6482"" works like a beacon and determines the corresponding image sources in the database. The link refers to the image sources associated with John III Şoboski. ( ) [MASK] as per Urban 3th. It's uncommon but somehow really nice to see QIDs in use as persistent identifiers for web access in an external database. ( ) Delete and create a third-party formatter URL for . [MASK] - it will not be identical in case of merge to another item. Also, does not explain how to store the information that for a given item in WD there is an ID in Herder. The formatter cannot tell that. The formatter [sic] does not need to do so; that's what http response headers are for. , in which Wikidata property would the ""http response headers"" be stored, so that the information about existence of an ID in Herder is available in Wikidata? Delete Per 78.55.63.171 , in which WMF policy, such http response headers can be disclosed on a wiki page? Disclosure of them are always violating . -- ( ) The formatter [sic] does not need to do so; that's what http response headers are for. , in which Wikidata property would the ""http response headers"" be stored, so that the information about existence of an ID in Herder is available in Wikidata? Delete Per 78.55.63.171 , in which WMF policy, such http response headers can be disclosed on a wiki page? Disclosure of them are always violating . -- ( ) , in which Wikidata property would the ""http response headers"" be stored, so that the information about existence of an ID in Herder is available in Wikidata? Delete Per 78.55.63.171 , in which WMF policy, such http response headers can be disclosed on a wiki page? Disclosure of them are always violating . -- ( ) Delete Per 78.55.63.171 , in which WMF policy, such http response headers can be disclosed on a wiki page? Disclosure of them are always violating . -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6482: Since so-called ""Second discussion"" never happened after my responding request to Jura, I'm non-admin closed this as not happened . Maybe Jura1 should [MASK] calm for several months before their next PFD here. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . Since so-called ""Second discussion"" never happened after my responding request to Jura, I'm non-admin closed this as not happened . Maybe Jura1 should [MASK] calm for several months before their next PFD here. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . @ : Given that it's a controversial property, I don't think a participating administrator should be closing this. Number of uses is irrelevant to reason for which this was listed. --- So @ : are you asking to re-start PFD process here? -- ( ) So @ : are you asking to re-start PFD process here? -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6482: consensus to [MASK]. -- ( ) consensus to [MASK]. -- ( ) [MASK] Unless if Jura1 has a fresh new reason that this property should be [MASK], I doubt if there's need to restart any discussions here. -- Liuxinyu970226, this is about the closure(s), I don't understand why you start a 2nd or a 3rd discussion. --- @ : When you repeat your reason of deletion, you are just re-starting it, it's true for every humans that edit wikis, anyone, anywhere and anyhow, please do not make so-called ""connections"" between and me, this IP range has nothing to 5W1H-do and be with me, and just a violation of . -- ( ) Sorry, I thought it was you logged out. Anyways, no it's not another deletion discussion as you and the ip seem to think. It's a meta question for administrators. Would you know if the IP is one? --- @ : When you repeat your reason of deletion, you are just re-starting it, it's true for every humans that edit wikis, anyone, anywhere and anyhow, please do not make so-called ""connections"" between and me, this IP range has nothing to 5W1H-do and be with me, and just a violation of . -- ( ) Sorry, I thought it was you logged out. Anyways, no it's not another deletion discussion as you and the ip seem to think. It's a meta question for administrators. Would you know if the IP is one? --- Sorry, I thought it was you logged out. Anyways, no it's not another deletion discussion as you and the ip seem to think. It's a meta question for administrators. Would you know if the IP is one? --- @ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ : Do you all still think that this property should be kept? -- ( ) [MASK] , for the reasons given above. ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] , for the reasons given above. ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) I'm also wondering that why in our world does Jura1 want this property to be [MASK], even they know that there are too many [MASK] concerns, what's their ""solutions""? I can't believe that any person that does never do things like can frequently PFD a property for more than 3 times, just because they want that ""to be [MASK]"" even won't happen. -- ( ) Why this section is restored by you, @ :? -- ( ) [MASK] What a nonsense PFD. -- [MASK] , I don't see any reason to delete this… − ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5660: consensus to delete . -- ( ) consensus to delete . -- ( ) Delete − ( ) The property is now not used anymore, so it can effectively be [MASK]. ( ) The property is now not used anymore, so it can effectively be [MASK]. ( ) Delete as it's mostly gone by now. Personally, I'd have kept it. It's a different identifier for these people. It wasn't exactly high use though (ca. 350). --- If the links had worked, I would have kept them too. ( ) Agree, but they're broken. ( ) . Don't we usually just de-activate the formatter URL? --- If the links had worked, I would have kept them too. ( ) Agree, but they're broken. ( ) . Don't we usually just de-activate the formatter URL? --- Agree, but they're broken. ( ) . Don't we usually just de-activate the formatter URL? --- Don't we usually just de-activate the formatter URL? --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2157: consensus to delete . Replace statements with . -- ( ) consensus to delete . Replace statements with . -- ( ) Other participants of the proposal: @ , : Participants of the more recent : @ , , , : ( ) Other participants of the proposal: @ , : Participants of the more recent : @ , , , : ( ) Delete Using makes sense to me. ( ) I would vote Delete , but not without discussing its usage in templates. Over-simplifying Wikidata by removing properties in favour of qualifiers is not the best solution for those uses. Let discuss at the Spanish Wikipedia, and depending the consensus, this property should be [MASK] or kept. -- ( ) Template use is a good question, I can see a link to on the talk page, and it's visible on , for example. My suggested alternative would be using a different property, not a qualifier, but it would have a wider range of possible values: any manufacturing process. ( ) Template use is a good question, I can see a link to on the talk page, and it's visible on , for example. My suggested alternative would be using a different property, not a qualifier, but it would have a wider range of possible values: any manufacturing process. ( ) I already broke it a bit by changing a few of the English labels, before I figured out what was going on, and that they were supposed to have a special format. E.g., , which originally resembled . ( ) Is it really that bad if there is a property that describes the production size of microprocessors? Should all information (eg. 8nm FinFET) really be stored in one property? Or would it be better to split it to production size (8nm) and production method (FinFET)? What if you know one, but not the other. In that case the provided entry would not be correct. However, there may is a better name other than lithography for that. Since I don't see any good other way I go with [MASK] for now -- ( ) Unmentioned that this property (the microprocessors' structure size) is a very important information for all microprocessors and improves over time. I don't really care how the information is added, but it is an important piece of information. -- ( ) It seems that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for removing the property, or much interest in it all really. I suppose we should just leave the status-quo. Reading the original discussion for the creation of the property, it's clear the the items are supposed to represent fabrication processes, and the labels like ""14 nanometer"" are just inherited from the English Wikipedia. I don't think it would do any harm to change them to ""14nm lithography process"" and make them subclasses of . It should also be fine to further distinguish fabrication techniques, e.g., 14LPE or 14LPP discussed at . It can be clarified that the property P2157 is purely a subproperty of for semiconductor lithography. ( ) Unmentioned that this property (the microprocessors' structure size) is a very important information for all microprocessors and improves over time. I don't really care how the information is added, but it is an important piece of information. -- ( ) It seems that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for removing the property, or much interest in it all really. I suppose we should just leave the status-quo. Reading the original discussion for the creation of the property, it's clear the the items are supposed to represent fabrication processes, and the labels like ""14 nanometer"" are just inherited from the English Wikipedia. I don't think it would do any harm to change them to ""14nm lithography process"" and make them subclasses of . It should also be fine to further distinguish fabrication techniques, e.g., 14LPE or 14LPP discussed at . It can be clarified that the property P2157 is purely a subproperty of for semiconductor lithography. ( ) It seems that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for removing the property, or much interest in it all really. I suppose we should just leave the status-quo. Reading the original discussion for the creation of the property, it's clear the the items are supposed to represent fabrication processes, and the labels like ""14 nanometer"" are just inherited from the English Wikipedia. I don't think it would do any harm to change them to ""14nm lithography process"" and make them subclasses of . It should also be fine to further distinguish fabrication techniques, e.g., 14LPE or 14LPP discussed at . It can be clarified that the property P2157 is purely a subproperty of for semiconductor lithography. ( ) Delete The template using isn't a problem: Lua modules can be useful in those cases. -- Delete after migrating data from to . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P7728_(P7728): [MASK] by , 03:40 - 25 décembre 2019 à 03:40 — ( ) [MASK] by , 03:40 - 25 décembre 2019 à 03:40 — ( ) Delete ( ) Dear , I hope the end of the year is going well for you. Would you be so kind as to look at the ? Maybe you will see the same thing there as I do? An intervention by someone external would have more weight on this avalanche of ""support"", especially someone of your stature. My opinion: group all types of catalog entries to make only one property and announce that the proposed property is not in conformity. Since I am the only opponent, I appear to be , but I sense that the votes reflect the desire to have a property and not the fact that it is feasible (without explanation votes). Cordially et bonnes fêtes. — ( ) Dear , I hope the end of the year is going well for you. Would you be so kind as to look at the ? Maybe you will see the same thing there as I do? An intervention by someone external would have more weight on this avalanche of ""support"", especially someone of your stature. My opinion: group all types of catalog entries to make only one property and announce that the proposed property is not in conformity. Since I am the only opponent, I appear to be , but I sense that the votes reflect the desire to have a property and not the fact that it is feasible (without explanation votes). Cordially et bonnes fêtes. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P7478_(P7478): consensus to delete -- ( ) consensus to delete -- ( ) Delete per above. -- @ : Ok for the deletion, but why a stringa datatype and not a numeric value ? ( ) I didn't propose the string datatype. I think item makes more sense as it allows us to store information about what a given rating means (and which we do in other rating properties). ❪ ❫ I didn't propose the string datatype. I think item makes more sense as it allows us to store information about what a given rating means (and which we do in other rating properties). ❪ ❫ Delete per nom. ( ) Delete per above. -- Delete per above. -- ( ) Question @ : Can you give me 2 or 3 examples with the Item type ? I'm curious. Otherwise the scale goes from 0 to 10, 0 being the most complicated (and the most expensive) Teardown and 10 being the easiest Teardown, . — ( ) For examples look at the properties I referenced and how they use items. ❪ ❫ OK. I thought you had something special in mind. So 11 new Items labeled respectively from 0 to 10. The Items must be able to describe what they are, but I did not find a ""description"" on the site, other than ""repairability score"". Here, we only know the ends of the scale: the numbers between 1 and 9 are completely abstract. Does one describe an adhesive or a solder? We do not know it. Finally, I think that a Quantity datatype is not such a bad idea. — ( ) For examples look at the properties I referenced and how they use items. ❪ ❫ OK. I thought you had something special in mind. So 11 new Items labeled respectively from 0 to 10. The Items must be able to describe what they are, but I did not find a ""description"" on the site, other than ""repairability score"". Here, we only know the ends of the scale: the numbers between 1 and 9 are completely abstract. Does one describe an adhesive or a solder? We do not know it. Finally, I think that a Quantity datatype is not such a bad idea. — ( ) OK. I thought you had something special in mind. So 11 new Items labeled respectively from 0 to 10. The Items must be able to describe what they are, but I did not find a ""description"" on the site, other than ""repairability score"". Here, we only know the ends of the scale: the numbers between 1 and 9 are completely abstract. Does one describe an adhesive or a solder? We do not know it. Finally, I think that a Quantity datatype is not such a bad idea. — ( ) Delete Just for the name: it is specified on the site that Repairability is different from Teardown . The Formatter URL only leads to Teardowns (≠ ...). The property does not only concern smartphones and the property has been corrected to no longer correspond to the proposal. Premature. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P7777: There is consensus to [MASK] as examples provided shows the difference between two. ‐‐ ( ) There is consensus to [MASK] as examples provided shows the difference between two. ‐‐ ( ) [MASK] and Not OK with this request. Uh no, it's not a duplicate of Allociné, it's another language. AdoroCinema is a collaborative site. This does not remind you of anything, a collaborative site in another language: we are not going to say that fr.wikipedia.org must be [MASK] because it is a duplicate of en.wikipedia.org. I just created this property 20 days ago; the proposal had the support of the community by 8 votes (no opposition and additional support after creation). If didn't want this property, he could vote, but with better reason. Jura1 is in a hurry to create properties and delete others, why ?! Best regards. — ( ) The idea of property proposals is to discuss the proposal, review various aspects and build a consensus on that. The aspect was raised in the discussion, but the discussion was cut off before a consensus could emerge on that aspect. Unfortunately, I didn't get to comment on the proposal. The idea of property proposals is to discuss the proposal, review various aspects and build a consensus on that. The aspect was raised in the discussion, but the discussion was cut off before a consensus could emerge on that aspect. Unfortunately, I didn't get to comment on the proposal. Personally, I added these identifiers with P1265. As there is no use of adding the same identifier twice hence this request. --- Personally, I added these identifiers with P1265. As there is no use of adding the same identifier twice hence this request. --- What is the difference between information on AdoroCinema and information on Allociné, besides the language? ( ) @ : There remain differences inherent in the countries represented by these 2 sites which I quote below: dubbing, distribution, character name in the language and maybe others. — ( ) @ : There remain differences inherent in the countries represented by these 2 sites which I quote below: dubbing, distribution, character name in the language and maybe others. — ( ) Delete Just compare and . Same database, same identifier, just translation. Note that adorocinema is already set up as with at . Having different property for each language version of same database is not a good idea. -- ( ) A little clarification for everyone. Albert Einstein's page on enwiki probably has about the same information as on frwiki. This means that it is a unique identifier (Albert Einstein). Let's also delete this page on enwiki, it's redundant! Do not Portuguese or Brazilians have the right to have information in their language, whether it is the same identifier or similar information? I have no link with these sites. It is not only a translation: there are differences by Internet users, press reviews, spectator reviews, media, posters in the language, etc. The 2 links on Farenheit 451 are not exactly the same, sorry . Cordially. — ( ) sitelinks to Wikipedia are based on . These are different for every language. Maybe a better comparison could be Wiktionary .. sitelinks there are automatically generated for all languages. --- @ : « The 2 links on Farenheit 451 are not exactly the same » indeed but what Wikidata stores *is* exactly the same. If the identifier is the same everytime then there is no reason to have 2 properties (or more). Cdlt, ( ) @ : There are many other properties that store the same identifiers on Wikidata (still recently), but with different content. I just cited differences in content, but it is not for us to judge the use of identifiers from third-party sites. The bulk may be copied to all Webedia sites (Filmstarts, etc.), but other additions are independent, specially made for language. — ( ) Webedia offers information that the 2 sites do not share. I just watched 3 movies. Apart from the title and the poster of course, I found differences on , on or on . — ( ) @ : is there? I know no properties that are exact duplicate, out of curiosity: could you give an example? Content is not really relevant, we don't store the content, just linking to it. As I said before, the question is very simple: is there a difference in the identifier? If yes, then [MASK] if no then Delete . Cheers, ( ) A little clarification for everyone. Albert Einstein's page on enwiki probably has about the same information as on frwiki. This means that it is a unique identifier (Albert Einstein). Let's also delete this page on enwiki, it's redundant! Do not Portuguese or Brazilians have the right to have information in their language, whether it is the same identifier or similar information? I have no link with these sites. It is not only a translation: there are differences by Internet users, press reviews, spectator reviews, media, posters in the language, etc. The 2 links on Farenheit 451 are not exactly the same, sorry . Cordially. — ( ) sitelinks to Wikipedia are based on . These are different for every language. Maybe a better comparison could be Wiktionary . . sitelinks there are automatically generated for all languages. --- @ : « The 2 links on Farenheit 451 are not exactly the same » indeed but what Wikidata stores *is* exactly the same. If the identifier is the same everytime then there is no reason to have 2 properties (or more). Cdlt, ( ) @ : There are many other properties that store the same identifiers on Wikidata (still recently), but with different content. I just cited differences in content, but it is not for us to judge the use of identifiers from third-party sites. The bulk may be copied to all Webedia sites (Filmstarts, etc.), but other additions are independent, specially made for language. — ( ) Webedia offers information that the 2 sites do not share. I just watched 3 movies. Apart from the title and the poster of course, I found differences on , on or on . — ( ) @ : is there? I know no properties that are exact duplicate, out of curiosity: could you give an example? Content is not really relevant, we don't store the content, just linking to it. As I said before, the question is very simple: is there a difference in the identifier? If yes, then [MASK] if no then Delete . Cheers, ( ) sitelinks to Wikipedia are based on . These are different for every language. Maybe a better comparison could be Wiktionary . . sitelinks there are automatically generated for all languages. --- @ : « The 2 links on Farenheit 451 are not exactly the same » indeed but what Wikidata stores *is* exactly the same. If the identifier is the same everytime then there is no reason to have 2 properties (or more). Cdlt, ( ) @ : There are many other properties that store the same identifiers on Wikidata (still recently), but with different content. I just cited differences in content, but it is not for us to judge the use of identifiers from third-party sites. The bulk may be copied to all Webedia sites (Filmstarts, etc.), but other additions are independent, specially made for language. — ( ) Webedia offers information that the 2 sites do not share. I just watched 3 movies. Apart from the title and the poster of course, I found differences on , on or on . — ( ) @ : is there? I know no properties that are exact duplicate, out of curiosity: could you give an example? Content is not really relevant, we don't store the content, just linking to it. As I said before, the question is very simple: is there a difference in the identifier? If yes, then [MASK] if no then Delete . Cheers, ( ) @ : « The 2 links on Farenheit 451 are not exactly the same » indeed but what Wikidata stores *is* exactly the same. If the identifier is the same everytime then there is no reason to have 2 properties (or more). Cdlt, ( ) @ : There are many other properties that store the same identifiers on Wikidata (still recently), but with different content. I just cited differences in content, but it is not for us to judge the use of identifiers from third-party sites. The bulk may be copied to all Webedia sites (Filmstarts, etc.), but other additions are independent, specially made for language. — ( ) Webedia offers information that the 2 sites do not share. I just watched 3 movies. Apart from the title and the poster of course, I found differences on , on or on . — ( ) @ : is there? I know no properties that are exact duplicate, out of curiosity: could you give an example? Content is not really relevant, we don't store the content, just linking to it. As I said before, the question is very simple: is there a difference in the identifier? If yes, then [MASK] if no then Delete . Cheers, ( ) @ : There are many other properties that store the same identifiers on Wikidata (still recently), but with different content. I just cited differences in content, but it is not for us to judge the use of identifiers from third-party sites. The bulk may be copied to all Webedia sites (Filmstarts, etc.), but other additions are independent, specially made for language. — ( ) Webedia offers information that the 2 sites do not share. I just watched 3 movies. Apart from the title and the poster of course, I found differences on , on or on . — ( ) @ : is there? I know no properties that are exact duplicate, out of curiosity: could you give an example? Content is not really relevant, we don't store the content, just linking to it. As I said before, the question is very simple: is there a difference in the identifier? If yes, then [MASK] if no then Delete . Cheers, ( ) @ : is there? I know no properties that are exact duplicate, out of curiosity: could you give an example? Content is not really relevant, we don't store the content, just linking to it. As I said before, the question is very simple: is there a difference in the identifier? If yes, then [MASK] if no then Delete . Cheers, ( ) Neutral two different websites in different languages but indeed AdoroCinema database seems to be a copy of AlloCiné database. The, the important question here is: is it a full copy and only a mirror or is there differents identifier between the two? Like identifiers in one database and not the other (and to what extent) that would justify to [MASK] both properties (just like we have and for instance), all other questiosn is irrelevant or at least secundary. Cheers, ( ) Well, hard to say... Most of references are both identical indeed. However, some films on AlloCiné are not listed on AdoroCinema (for instance some French short films). I dont' know if the opposite is true, maybe we should check if films released only in Brazil are also present on AlloCiné or not (I don't have any title in mind for now, but I'll try to think about it.). --- Can you link the French examples you found as well please ? Hi @ : Sure! Here are some examples of titles that are not listed on AdoroCinema: # , on AlloCiné ; # Sigma , on AlloCiné ; # Monstrus Circus , on AlloCiné . And so on. The list is long, I could give you tons of other examples. Additionally, please note that directors for those movies are not listed on AdoroCinema as well, contrary to Allociné. But here is a detail that could be important: these examples are only small works (short or middle-length films that were not internationally released). Conversely, it would be wise to check whether exclusively brazilian films that are listed on AdoroCinema, are also present on Allociné or not. Unfortunately, I don't have any title in mind. For short films, I think the answer is no: unless I'm mistaken, I cannot find a short films section on AdoroCinema. Hope this helps --- Thanks a lot, it is. And here the proof that AdoroCinema have their own unique movie ID too. a brasilian movie title Ed Mort long-lenght but seems not internationally released. It has a page on AdoroCinema but the ID used give an on AlloCiné. So I join the advice of Liuxinyu, we should [MASK] AdoroCinema property. Great job! I'm convinced we should [MASK] it now. A funny fact is that the director of ( ) is French (and lives in Brazil). We find him both on AlloCiné and AdoroCinema, but his filmography is really much important on AdoroCinema (those films are therefore other examples) --- Can you link the French examples you found as well please ? Hi @ : Sure! Here are some examples of titles that are not listed on AdoroCinema: # , on AlloCiné ; # Sigma , on AlloCiné ; # Monstrus Circus , on AlloCiné . And so on. The list is long, I could give you tons of other examples. Additionally, please note that directors for those movies are not listed on AdoroCinema as well, contrary to Allociné. But here is a detail that could be important: these examples are only small works (short or middle-length films that were not internationally released). Conversely, it would be wise to check whether exclusively brazilian films that are listed on AdoroCinema, are also present on Allociné or not. Unfortunately, I don't have any title in mind. For short films, I think the answer is no: unless I'm mistaken, I cannot find a short films section on AdoroCinema. Hope this helps --- Thanks a lot, it is. And here the proof that AdoroCinema have their own unique movie ID too. a brasilian movie title Ed Mort long-lenght but seems not internationally released. It has a page on AdoroCinema but the ID used give an on AlloCiné. So I join the advice of Liuxinyu, we should [MASK] AdoroCinema property. Great job! I'm convinced we should [MASK] it now. A funny fact is that the director of ( ) is French (and lives in Brazil). We find him both on AlloCiné and AdoroCinema, but his filmography is really much important on AdoroCinema (those films are therefore other examples) --- Hi @ : Sure! Here are some examples of titles that are not listed on AdoroCinema: # , on AlloCiné ; # Sigma , on AlloCiné ; # Monstrus Circus , on AlloCiné . And so on. The list is long, I could give you tons of other examples. Additionally, please note that directors for those movies are not listed on AdoroCinema as well, contrary to Allociné. But here is a detail that could be important: these examples are only small works (short or middle-length films that were not internationally released). Conversely, it would be wise to check whether exclusively brazilian films that are listed on AdoroCinema, are also present on Allociné or not. Unfortunately, I don't have any title in mind. For short films, I think the answer is no: unless I'm mistaken, I cannot find a short films section on AdoroCinema. Hope this helps --- Thanks a lot, it is. And here the proof that AdoroCinema have their own unique movie ID too. a brasilian movie title Ed Mort long-lenght but seems not internationally released. It has a page on AdoroCinema but the ID used give an on AlloCiné. So I join the advice of Liuxinyu, we should [MASK] AdoroCinema property. Great job! I'm convinced we should [MASK] it now. A funny fact is that the director of ( ) is French (and lives in Brazil). We find him both on AlloCiné and AdoroCinema, but his filmography is really much important on AdoroCinema (those films are therefore other examples) --- Thanks a lot, it is. And here the proof that AdoroCinema have their own unique movie ID too. a brasilian movie title Ed Mort long-lenght but seems not internationally released. It has a page on AdoroCinema but the ID used give an on AlloCiné. So I join the advice of Liuxinyu, we should [MASK] AdoroCinema property. Great job! I'm convinced we should [MASK] it now. A funny fact is that the director of ( ) is French (and lives in Brazil). We find him both on AlloCiné and AdoroCinema, but his filmography is really much important on AdoroCinema (those films are therefore other examples) --- Great job! I'm convinced we should [MASK] it now. A funny fact is that the director of ( ) is French (and lives in Brazil). We find him both on AlloCiné and AdoroCinema, but his filmography is really much important on AdoroCinema (those films are therefore other examples) --- I would rather say [MASK] , if some films can be queried by one source, but not another, then this one source has benefit to [MASK] separately. -- ( ) Delete merge with and add AdoroCinema title as alias if the difference is only movies content's side and all IDs are sames since it's means it's the same database and so the same concept, both sites could be use as source. Language isn't relevant here, since ID is canonical and can be use in both site indistinctly (the purpose of WikiData). Delete if some movies are only missing from AdoroCinema site, [MASK] merging with P1265 but add a flag like AdoroCinema=yes/no (to include their site or no during query) because it's means the database is duplicated and then parsed from AlloCiné. So IDs are the same but only somes results are omitted by AdoroCinema site, so here again no need nor purpose to duplicate the IDs imho. But [MASK] if the situation like ""some movies are presents in one site but not the other"" occures in both sites then, yes I agree with Liu because it means that even if the database was widely dumped from AlloCiné then AdoroCinema somehow customized it (and not just parsed it like just above but add some custom IDs). We must list separately then, since some IDs can be only found on one-side from the two-site, with the possibility in distant future that same IDs refers to different results on the two sites since the database may differ. The scenario n°3 is tested and confirmed by links provided by WikiSyn, Eihel and me, both sites have their own unique movie entries. Maybe we should contact them both in order to know if they follow a common ID's creation politics, in that case only we could merge. But at the moment we should [MASK] the property. The scenario n°3 is tested and confirmed by links provided by WikiSyn, Eihel and me, both sites have their own unique movie entries. Maybe we should contact them both in order to know if they follow a common ID's creation politics, in that case only we could merge. But at the moment we should [MASK] the property. Hello @ , , , , , :, Contrary to what VIGNERON writes, if identifiers are identical, but there are differences in content, a property can be kept, in the idea of the propagation of knowledge, the key word of WM. There is nothing in the rules that talk about identical IDs. To reassure everyone, there are also titles specific to Adoro that are not present in Allociné , examples: → → the film of → → the film of and many others… But to satisfy VIGNERON, there is : → for → for → for → for So the two sites are different. Cordially. — ( ) [Edition conflict] Thanks, I found out the same, so I change my votes, we must kept the property. [MASK] Apparently there are differences between the two and the identifier isn't always the same at the two sites. ( ) Oui. Et j'espère qu'on recommencera pas le même… cinéma avec SensaCine, Beyazperde ou Filmstarts Sorry, it sounds better in French. — ( ) [Edition conflict] Thanks, I found out the same, so I change my votes, we must kept the property. [MASK] Apparently there are differences between the two and the identifier isn't always the same at the two sites. ( ) Oui. Et j'espère qu'on recommencera pas le même… cinéma avec SensaCine, Beyazperde ou Filmstarts Sorry, it sounds better in French. — ( ) [MASK] Apparently there are differences between the two and the identifier isn't always the same at the two sites. ( ) Oui. Et j'espère qu'on recommencera pas le même… cinéma avec SensaCine, Beyazperde ou Filmstarts Sorry, it sounds better in French. — ( ) Oui. Et j'espère qu'on recommencera pas le même… cinéma avec SensaCine, Beyazperde ou Filmstarts Sorry, it sounds better in French. — ( ) Comment A little parenthesis: If a single piece of information, for example the director, is complementary to the other site, a property can be [MASK] by adding on the property still in production. But it is not the case here. — ( ) Question Hello, @ :. Jklamo and Jura1 haven't changed their vote on the facts given in the last lines. Before I close this request on P7777 in [MASK] (after 2 months : 2d 5k 1n ), would you like to give another opinion for proven proof that it is not a ""Dup of P1265""? Cordially. — ( ) @ : I'm still neutral but I have no problem with keeping this property. Cheers, ( ) @ : I'm still neutral but I have no problem with keeping this property. Cheers, ( ) Question do we know something about the differences between the two? Is it just a random film or are there systematic differences? In the first case, it's sufficient to add this to the identifier statement. There are also differences between Wikidata and Wikidata Query Server for the same QID, but I don't think anybody would use different identifiers for that. --- , Each site hosts many indigenous films, as I wrote. nb. — ( ) Let's double-check that. --- Hello , I don't understand your last intervention. What do you want to double-check? It had been 2 months of presence, I notified the project concerned and the voters, no more movement was noticeable, I also contacted the neutral voter for a change of position. You had a questioning before the closing of discussion to which you received a reply. In short, the opinions are frozen and the observation is the conservation of this property by 5 votes to 2. Your opposition has been recorded. Now, it is time to close this request as I did, without deletion. Here I notify a sysop-participant, , to check if what I note makes sense and maybe see with his community what it is worth doing. Cordially. — ( ) We need to double-check if there is actually a difference. I'm not really comfortable with you saying this or that, nor closing deletion requests for properties you created yourself. --- Hello , For these sites, the differences still exist. The examples given above still work. You could check it yourself instead of blocking the inevitable. The goal is not to save my creation, but to simply follow the opinion of the community. Wouldn't it rather be you who want to [MASK] your proposal for deletion that will not succeed? As I wrote, the situation has been frozen for a long time, the opinion of the community has been given: 2 delete, 5 [MASK], 1 neutral. As stated in the header: , I ask the administrators to decide on this proposal and to close it, one way or the other, . Best regards. — ( ) , Each site hosts many indigenous films, as I wrote. nb. — ( ) Let's double-check that. --- Hello , I don't understand your last intervention. What do you want to double-check? It had been 2 months of presence, I notified the project concerned and the voters, no more movement was noticeable, I also contacted the neutral voter for a change of position. You had a questioning before the closing of discussion to which you received a reply. In short, the opinions are frozen and the observation is the conservation of this property by 5 votes to 2. Your opposition has been recorded. Now, it is time to close this request as I did, without deletion. Here I notify a sysop-participant, , to check if what I note makes sense and maybe see with his community what it is worth doing. Cordially. — ( ) We need to double-check if there is actually a difference. I'm not really comfortable with you saying this or that, nor closing deletion requests for properties you created yourself. --- Hello , For these sites, the differences still exist. The examples given above still work. You could check it yourself instead of blocking the inevitable. The goal is not to save my creation, but to simply follow the opinion of the community. Wouldn't it rather be you who want to [MASK] your proposal for deletion that will not succeed? As I wrote, the situation has been frozen for a long time, the opinion of the community has been given: 2 delete, 5 [MASK], 1 neutral. As stated in the header: , I ask the administrators to decide on this proposal and to close it, one way or the other, . Best regards. — ( ) Let's double-check that. --- Hello , I don't understand your last intervention. What do you want to double-check? It had been 2 months of presence, I notified the project concerned and the voters, no more movement was noticeable, I also contacted the neutral voter for a change of position. You had a questioning before the closing of discussion to which you received a reply. In short, the opinions are frozen and the observation is the conservation of this property by 5 votes to 2. Your opposition has been recorded. Now, it is time to close this request as I did, without deletion. Here I notify a sysop-participant, , to check if what I note makes sense and maybe see with his community what it is worth doing. Cordially. — ( ) We need to double-check if there is actually a difference. I'm not really comfortable with you saying this or that, nor closing deletion requests for properties you created yourself. --- Hello , For these sites, the differences still exist. The examples given above still work. You could check it yourself instead of blocking the inevitable. The goal is not to save my creation, but to simply follow the opinion of the community. Wouldn't it rather be you who want to [MASK] your proposal for deletion that will not succeed? As I wrote, the situation has been frozen for a long time, the opinion of the community has been given: 2 delete, 5 [MASK], 1 neutral. As stated in the header: , I ask the administrators to decide on this proposal and to close it, one way or the other, . Best regards. — ( ) Hello , I don't understand your last intervention. What do you want to double-check? It had been 2 months of presence, I notified the project concerned and the voters, no more movement was noticeable, I also contacted the neutral voter for a change of position. You had a questioning before the closing of discussion to which you received a reply. In short, the opinions are frozen and the observation is the conservation of this property by 5 votes to 2. Your opposition has been recorded. Now, it is time to close this request as I did, without deletion. Here I notify a sysop-participant, , to check if what I note makes sense and maybe see with his community what it is worth doing. Cordially. — ( ) We need to double-check if there is actually a difference. I'm not really comfortable with you saying this or that, nor closing deletion requests for properties you created yourself. --- Hello , For these sites, the differences still exist. The examples given above still work. You could check it yourself instead of blocking the inevitable. The goal is not to save my creation, but to simply follow the opinion of the community. Wouldn't it rather be you who want to [MASK] your proposal for deletion that will not succeed? As I wrote, the situation has been frozen for a long time, the opinion of the community has been given: 2 delete, 5 [MASK], 1 neutral. As stated in the header: , I ask the administrators to decide on this proposal and to close it, one way or the other, . Best regards. — ( ) We need to double-check if there is actually a difference. I'm not really comfortable with you saying this or that, nor closing deletion requests for properties you created yourself. --- Hello , For these sites, the differences still exist. The examples given above still work. You could check it yourself instead of blocking the inevitable. The goal is not to save my creation, but to simply follow the opinion of the community. Wouldn't it rather be you who want to [MASK] your proposal for deletion that will not succeed? As I wrote, the situation has been frozen for a long time, the opinion of the community has been given: 2 delete, 5 [MASK], 1 neutral. As stated in the header: , I ask the administrators to decide on this proposal and to close it, one way or the other, . Best regards. — ( ) Hello , For these sites, the differences still exist. The examples given above still work. You could check it yourself instead of blocking the inevitable. The goal is not to save my creation, but to simply follow the opinion of the community. Wouldn't it rather be you who want to [MASK] your proposal for deletion that will not succeed? As I wrote, the situation has been frozen for a long time, the opinion of the community has been given: 2 delete, 5 [MASK], 1 neutral. As stated in the header: , I ask the administrators to decide on this proposal and to close it, one way or the other, . Best regards. — ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: iHeart_artist_ID_(P7317): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] If that's just the URL scheme change then @ : the value should be changed (add the current scheme as the preferred value, and optionally add until property to the Old one). -- Huh? URL scheme change? Change the value? Add the current scheme? The pages do not exist any more . Not in this schema, not in another schema. - ( ) Huh? URL scheme change? Change the value? Add the current scheme? The pages do not exist any more . Not in this schema, not in another schema. - ( ) Comment Delete Links to artists found on the site also lead to the same link found by Andre Engels. If iHeartMedia put these links elsewhere, I did not find them on this site. So P1630 changes nothing. : the IDs are lost for this property. — ( ) 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC) — ( ) [MASK] Redirect the formatter URL to the internet archive. -- ( ) Seems like @ : does not want me to redirect the formatter URL to the internet archive. -- ( ) The site is working the same as it always has for me. I'm not sure where you all are located, but maybe there's some geoblocking going on? ( ) [MASK] Value still works for me leading to a page for the artist with list of songs, albums, similar artists, bio, etc. I am USA based if this could be a geo thing as to why others aren't seeing the same page. ( ) Comment 1) Could you give me ALL the archives concerning ALL the Items containing this property, please? 2) Wikidata is only made for the United States, because with me, it doesn't work? I find it difficult to understand all these opinions. — ( ) I wonder, what should I say? All the three [MASK] votes above are claiming things like ""hey there are archive.org archive records of these identifiers."" Are there any professors of archive.org can tell me if there are archives of P7317 values or not? -- ( ) @ , , , : I have not tried with a proxy, since it does not interest WD. My last comment in 2 points was purely rhetorical. Archives exist if someone creates them, QED. Out of more than 300 IDs, if 100 IDs remain, it's miraculous. As a reminder, 100 IDs is the threshold for creating a property. The artist pages on this site are updated with each news (Latest Release, Top Songs, Albums, article, etc.). So the archives are useless (new archive on a new date and change of ID). In addition, IDs on the archive can be of the form \d* or preceded by the artist name and a dash. Since the site doesn't want to share these pages, they no longer concern WD. Contributors who want to have this property because they see the pages can fork WD. Conservation votes are irrelevant. For others, important changes should be discussed beforehand. Txs. Cordially. — ( ) The site *is* accessible, without using proxies, to a large number of users, so I don’t see why the property should be [MASK]. Surely there are other properties that link to things that aren’t available to everyone, like sites behind paywalls or requiring membership. ( ) @ : A little doubted, because I recently visited that site, and at same time I ran the Wireshark software, the console of Wireshark told me that I have met 3 times of 403 redirects and a 421 misdirected request, no idea why an ""accessible"" website can result those on my Wireshark, bug? -- ( ) @ : If you access the site from outside of North America, you are redirected to their podcasts page. I am guessing that is why you and others have been getting errors. ( ) proxy = * * — ( ) @ , , , : I have not tried with a proxy, since it does not interest WD. My last comment in 2 points was purely rhetorical. Archives exist if someone creates them, QED. Out of more than 300 IDs, if 100 IDs remain, it's miraculous. As a reminder, 100 IDs is the threshold for creating a property. The artist pages on this site are updated with each news (Latest Release, Top Songs, Albums, article, etc.). So the archives are useless (new archive on a new date and change of ID). In addition, IDs on the archive can be of the form \d* or preceded by the artist name and a dash. Since the site doesn't want to share these pages, they no longer concern WD. Contributors who want to have this property because they see the pages can fork WD. Conservation votes are irrelevant. For others, important changes should be discussed beforehand. Txs. Cordially. — ( ) The site *is* accessible, without using proxies, to a large number of users, so I don’t see why the property should be [MASK]. Surely there are other properties that link to things that aren’t available to everyone, like sites behind paywalls or requiring membership. ( ) @ : A little doubted, because I recently visited that site, and at same time I ran the Wireshark software, the console of Wireshark told me that I have met 3 times of 403 redirects and a 421 misdirected request, no idea why an ""accessible"" website can result those on my Wireshark, bug? -- ( ) @ : If you access the site from outside of North America, you are redirected to their podcasts page. I am guessing that is why you and others have been getting errors. ( ) @ : A little doubted, because I recently visited that site, and at same time I ran the Wireshark software, the console of Wireshark told me that I have met 3 times of 403 redirects and a 421 misdirected request, no idea why an ""accessible"" website can result those on my Wireshark, bug? -- ( ) @ : If you access the site from outside of North America, you are redirected to their podcasts page. I am guessing that is why you and others have been getting errors. ( ) @ : If you access the site from outside of North America, you are redirected to their podcasts page. I am guessing that is why you and others have been getting errors. ( ) proxy = * * — ( ) proxy = * * — ( ) proxy = * * — ( ) proxy = * * — ( ) [MASK] (just realized that I never actually voted). Site is still accessible and useful to a large number of users. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Scoresway_baseball_person_ID_(archived)_(P6062): consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) A little [MASK] per above. -- ( ) Had never more than 50 uses .. I'd tend to delete this --- [MASK] Available at scoresway.us, I changed the formatter URL accordingly. ( ) @ : Thanks, I didn't know it's repairable. I reverted my removals aswell. So the . us works for all these IDs? ( ) It seems so, but only for the ""american sports"". ( ) @ : Thanks, I didn't know it's repairable. I reverted my removals aswell. So the . us works for all these IDs? ( ) It seems so, but only for the ""american sports"". ( ) It seems so, but only for the ""american sports"". ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Scoresway_basketball_person_ID_(archived)_(P6063): Property kept: The only reason to delete that has been provided has been addressed, and there is no consensus to delete. -- ( ) Property kept: The only reason to delete that has been provided has been addressed, and there is no consensus to delete. -- ( ) A little [MASK] per above. -- ( ) [MASK] Available at scoresway.us. I fixed the formatter URL. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1016: consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) consensus to [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] : the property is very similar to , but has specific constraints ( type , value type and specific values ) that cannot be checked using a general property as . -- ( ) [MASK] : quoting Paperoastro motivations.-- ( ) [MASK] Per Paperoastro, should better be used in other cuts of Astronomy. -- ( ) Delete per nom. ( ) Please STOP @ : there are many astronomic things that are serving their own names, own concepts, own items and own properties. Do you really know the astronomy? Absolutely [MASK] [MASK] [MASK]. -- ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P8252: [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) If this is really better to use item instead of string, I guess one should also ""convert"" . ( ) @ : See above... The equivalent to link to category items there is , although category sitelinks also go in the topic items unless there is an existing category item or a gallery. Thanks. ( ) @ : See above... The equivalent to link to category items there is , although category sitelinks also go in the topic items unless there is an existing category item or a gallery. Thanks. ( ) As you can see from the proposal, I modeled this on P373, which I did not realize was controversial. Having read the discussions, though, I am just left confused, as it doesn't seem like any of the options are really an improvement. I see the problem, but I think introducing a system that requires users to create a new item with the correct sitelink statement as a prerequisite to adding the P8252 statement to the original item is a pretty ugly user experience. You say you would migrate the existing ones, but that doesn't help the workflow for future uses. I don't think I even understood that was how Commons category properties worked before now, and I have a million Wikidata edits, so I'm not new. ( ) @ : Unfortunately I haven't found a better solution to this yet. The core problem is that you can't have multiple sitelinks to Commons from the same item, and that's unlikely to change (the assumption is built into the Wikidata data model). I come at this from the Commons side of things, where the sitelinks are essential for the Wikidata Infobox to work without it becoming a maintenance nightmare of manually defined QIDs everywhere. For the workflow in the future, it is a pain to do it manually for a lot of cases, but I think QuickStatements can do it in bulk, and if there's a list of QIDs and categories then I can always run pywikibot through a batch. For background, the bot code I used for the map categories is at , which is QuickStatements-esq (the 'newitem' function creates the item, ""wd_item.addClaim"" adds the link). Thanks. ( ) @ : Is there a Phabricator ticket for this? It seems like the ideal solution is to have a data type that allows us to link a page in a Wikimedia project, rather than having to create an item for each one we might want to refer to. ( ) @ : Probably. might be a good starting point. It quickly goes into wider issues like . Any solution needs to be bi-directional, not just linking from here to Commons, but also having the reverse link back from Commons to here. Thanks. ( ) @ : Unfortunately I haven't found a better solution to this yet. The core problem is that you can't have multiple sitelinks to Commons from the same item, and that's unlikely to change (the assumption is built into the Wikidata data model). I come at this from the Commons side of things, where the sitelinks are essential for the Wikidata Infobox to work without it becoming a maintenance nightmare of manually defined QIDs everywhere. For the workflow in the future, it is a pain to do it manually for a lot of cases, but I think QuickStatements can do it in bulk, and if there's a list of QIDs and categories then I can always run pywikibot through a batch. For background, the bot code I used for the map categories is at , which is QuickStatements-esq (the 'newitem' function creates the item, ""wd_item.addClaim"" adds the link). Thanks. ( ) @ : Is there a Phabricator ticket for this? It seems like the ideal solution is to have a data type that allows us to link a page in a Wikimedia project, rather than having to create an item for each one we might want to refer to. ( ) @ : Probably. might be a good starting point. It quickly goes into wider issues like . Any solution needs to be bi-directional, not just linking from here to Commons, but also having the reverse link back from Commons to here. Thanks. ( ) @ : Is there a Phabricator ticket for this? It seems like the ideal solution is to have a data type that allows us to link a page in a Wikimedia project, rather than having to create an item for each one we might want to refer to. ( ) @ : Probably. might be a good starting point. It quickly goes into wider issues like . Any solution needs to be bi-directional, not just linking from here to Commons, but also having the reverse link back from Commons to here. Thanks. ( ) @ : Probably. might be a good starting point. It quickly goes into wider issues like . Any solution needs to be bi-directional, not just linking from here to Commons, but also having the reverse link back from Commons to here. Thanks. ( ) @ : Re , did I do it correctly this time? Thanks. ( ) I would say so. Now users can decide without being presented with a fait accompli. -- ( ) I would say so. Now users can decide without being presented with a fait accompli. -- ( ) Delete use item datatype as every other similar property we created recently. --- Delete Seems too prematurely created. -- ( ) @ : Just to defend Pamputt a bit here, properties are commonly created with fewer supports than that (as long as there is not opposition), and the proposal was open for over 2 months. I don't think it was premature to create it, just that no one objected when the discussion was held. ( ) Delete The problem isn't premature creation but lack of sanity checking which Pamputt should have done. It's fine when people who don't know a lot about how properties get constructed sometimes created proposals that need improvement but those shouldn't be created in the problematic state by property creators. ❪ ❫ I don't view this as @ 's fault at all, given the available information and the existence of , the creation of the property in this form would seem reasonable. And as it stands, the property works as intended - I just think it could have been done better using the 'item' format. I really should have noticed this property proposal earlier and commented on it, and again, apologies for not doing that. Thanks. ( ) Thanks for pinging me :). Mike Peel has indeed well explained what happened in my mind. I wonder whether the datatype was good and indeed I have taken the example of which is by far the most used similar item. Moreover, the property was proposed on March 5th and I created it on May 22nd. So it remained visible for debate for more than 2 months and no one noticed the ""wrong"" type either. Considering the debate about above, it seems that the community does not have a unanimous opinion on the best way to model the Commons categories. Anyway, I do not understand really the debate here (if there is one). This property is not widely used yet so we can easily delete it and create a new one with another type; it is not a big deal. ( ) @ : would you do so? --- @ : Just to defend Pamputt a bit here, properties are commonly created with fewer supports than that (as long as there is not opposition), and the proposal was open for over 2 months. I don't think it was premature to create it, just that no one objected when the discussion was held. ( ) Delete The problem isn't premature creation but lack of sanity checking which Pamputt should have done. It's fine when people who don't know a lot about how properties get constructed sometimes created proposals that need improvement but those shouldn't be created in the problematic state by property creators. ❪ ❫ I don't view this as @ 's fault at all, given the available information and the existence of , the creation of the property in this form would seem reasonable. And as it stands, the property works as intended - I just think it could have been done better using the 'item' format. I really should have noticed this property proposal earlier and commented on it, and again, apologies for not doing that. Thanks. ( ) Thanks for pinging me :). Mike Peel has indeed well explained what happened in my mind. I wonder whether the datatype was good and indeed I have taken the example of which is by far the most used similar item. Moreover, the property was proposed on March 5th and I created it on May 22nd. So it remained visible for debate for more than 2 months and no one noticed the ""wrong"" type either. Considering the debate about above, it seems that the community does not have a unanimous opinion on the best way to model the Commons categories. Anyway, I do not understand really the debate here (if there is one). This property is not widely used yet so we can easily delete it and create a new one with another type; it is not a big deal. ( ) @ : would you do so? --- Delete The problem isn't premature creation but lack of sanity checking which Pamputt should have done. It's fine when people who don't know a lot about how properties get constructed sometimes created proposals that need improvement but those shouldn't be created in the problematic state by property creators. ❪ ❫ I don't view this as @ 's fault at all, given the available information and the existence of , the creation of the property in this form would seem reasonable. And as it stands, the property works as intended - I just think it could have been done better using the 'item' format. I really should have noticed this property proposal earlier and commented on it, and again, apologies for not doing that. Thanks. ( ) Thanks for pinging me :). Mike Peel has indeed well explained what happened in my mind. I wonder whether the datatype was good and indeed I have taken the example of which is by far the most used similar item. Moreover, the property was proposed on March 5th and I created it on May 22nd. So it remained visible for debate for more than 2 months and no one noticed the ""wrong"" type either. Considering the debate about above, it seems that the community does not have a unanimous opinion on the best way to model the Commons categories. Anyway, I do not understand really the debate here (if there is one). This property is not widely used yet so we can easily delete it and create a new one with another type; it is not a big deal. ( ) @ : would you do so? --- I don't view this as @ 's fault at all, given the available information and the existence of , the creation of the property in this form would seem reasonable. And as it stands, the property works as intended - I just think it could have been done better using the 'item' format. I really should have noticed this property proposal earlier and commented on it, and again, apologies for not doing that. Thanks. ( ) Thanks for pinging me :). Mike Peel has indeed well explained what happened in my mind. I wonder whether the datatype was good and indeed I have taken the example of which is by far the most used similar item. Moreover, the property was proposed on March 5th and I created it on May 22nd. So it remained visible for debate for more than 2 months and no one noticed the ""wrong"" type either. Considering the debate about above, it seems that the community does not have a unanimous opinion on the best way to model the Commons categories. Anyway, I do not understand really the debate here (if there is one). This property is not widely used yet so we can easily delete it and create a new one with another type; it is not a big deal. ( ) @ : would you do so? --- Thanks for pinging me :). Mike Peel has indeed well explained what happened in my mind. I wonder whether the datatype was good and indeed I have taken the example of which is by far the most used similar item. Moreover, the property was proposed on March 5th and I created it on May 22nd. So it remained visible for debate for more than 2 months and no one noticed the ""wrong"" type either. Considering the debate about above, it seems that the community does not have a unanimous opinion on the best way to model the Commons categories. Anyway, I do not understand really the debate here (if there is one). This property is not widely used yet so we can easily delete it and create a new one with another type; it is not a big deal. ( ) @ : would you do so? --- @ : would you do so? --- Just to note, it may look like it is not widely used yet, but data from this field is being displayed in over 700,000 pages on Commons already (via transclusions of ), and any changes may require us to update the template and run a bot to purge them all to update the category links. This should be kept in mind when making changes, and weighing the costs of that. ( ) Delete use standard datatype ( ) @ : Thanks! I can run through these this evening per , unless you'd prefer to do it. Thanks. ( ) Also, I've created as the value to use, demo at . Thanks. ( ) ... and bot demo at and . Thanks. ( ) Hi , sorry for missing the ping :S. No problem, you can do it with your bot. Thanks a lot. ( ) @ , : The bot is running, please check to make sure that there aren't any problems. I also changed to use the new property. If everything looks OK, then once the bot run is complete then can go. Thanks. ( ) Most of the cases have now been bot-migrated, please check the remaining ones. Thanks. ( ) @ : nothing remains. There is just . Is it possible to delete this catalog and create a new one with , or something else (@ :)? ( ) Hi , sorry for missing the ping :S. No problem, you can do it with your bot. Thanks a lot. ( ) @ , : The bot is running, please check to make sure that there aren't any problems. I also changed to use the new property. If everything looks OK, then once the bot run is complete then can go. Thanks. ( ) Most of the cases have now been bot-migrated, please check the remaining ones. Thanks. ( ) @ : nothing remains. There is just . Is it possible to delete this catalog and create a new one with , or something else (@ :)? ( ) @ , : The bot is running, please check to make sure that there aren't any problems. I also changed to use the new property. If everything looks OK, then once the bot run is complete then can go. Thanks. ( ) Most of the cases have now been bot-migrated, please check the remaining ones. Thanks. ( ) @ : nothing remains. There is just . Is it possible to delete this catalog and create a new one with , or something else (@ :)? ( ) @ : nothing remains. There is just . Is it possible to delete this catalog and create a new one with , or something else (@ :)? ( ) @ : obviously, Mix'n'match is still adding the . As far as I know, it is not possible to delete a catalogue in Mix'n'match. So, should we tag all remaining entries to N/A in order to be pretty sure that will not be used anymore in the future and so we can delete it? ( ) I've run the bot through the new cases to migrate them over. I've also Magnus about the mix'n'match catalog to see if he can help remove/update/disable it. Thanks. ( ) @ : The mix'n'match catalog has been disabled, and there are no more uses of it. I think this property is ready to go away now. Thanks. ( ) Thanks . I've just [MASK] the property. ( ) I've run the bot through the new cases to migrate them over. I've also Magnus about the mix'n'match catalog to see if he can help remove/update/disable it. Thanks. ( ) @ : The mix'n'match catalog has been disabled, and there are no more uses of it. I think this property is ready to go away now. Thanks. ( ) Thanks . I've just [MASK] the property. ( ) @ : The mix'n'match catalog has been disabled, and there are no more uses of it. I think this property is ready to go away now. Thanks. ( ) Thanks . I've just [MASK] the property. ( ) Thanks . I've just [MASK] the property. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Theses.fr_person_ID_(P4285): Not [MASK] : The discussion suggests that both properties are different enough that they need to remain separate. ( ) Not [MASK] : The discussion suggests that both properties are different enough that they need to remain separate. ( ) It seems to me that I already found researchers who have and no or the opposite (have and no ). Maybe a SPARQL query can find all these cases. ( ) I already heard about that oddity too. Any example, perhaps? ( ) . @ : FYI. ( ) . I already heard about that oddity too. Any example, perhaps? ( ) . @ : FYI. ( ) . @ : FYI. ( ) . Pour les francophones, voir aussi . ( ) IF we can be sure that ALL people with also are in IDRef, then OK to Delete . -- ( ) IF we can be sure that ALL people with also are in IDRef, then OK to Delete . -- ( ) [MASK] As , because one property is a subset of the other, you need to [MASK] both (if you have only , you can't guess if a value in theses.fr exists). Participants of the previous discussion should be notified. — ( ) I'm afraid that only @ : can tell us that if there are archive.org records (or like) of former theses.fr URL schemes or not, if yes, I would consider [MASK] and change its , if not, there's no problems anymore to delete. -- ( ) @ : What are you talking about? ( ) As Envlh said that Participants of the previous discussion should be notified , @ , , , , :@ : -- ( ) @ : What are you talking about? ( ) As Envlh said that Participants of the previous discussion should be notified , @ , , , , :@ : -- ( ) [MASK] all people who has a do not have a . And I've already seen two different identifiers used for IDref and theses.fr. I then contacted SUDOC and they merge both ID but it may happen. ( ) , tu as des exemples de personnes avec un identifiant theses.fr mais pas SUDOC ? Merci, ( ) . @ :, non pas en tête. Et peut-être que ça a été corrigé depuis. Mais une requête SPARQL devrait permettre de les trouver. ( ) , tu as des exemples de personnes avec un identifiant theses.fr mais pas SUDOC ? Merci, ( ) . @ :, non pas en tête. Et peut-être que ça a été corrigé depuis. Mais une requête SPARQL devrait permettre de les trouver. ( ) @ :, non pas en tête. Et peut-être que ça a été corrigé depuis. Mais une requête SPARQL devrait permettre de les trouver. ( ) [MASK] Per Pamputt, not enough be a reason to replace. -- ( ) [MASK] . Per Pamputt and Envlh. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P8031: Not [MASK] : It seems that the open questions were resolved, and the discussion suggests that this should remain separate from . ( ) Not [MASK] : It seems that the open questions were resolved, and the discussion suggests that this should remain separate from . ( ) No need due to . -- ( ) @Trade , I do not see ""participant"" in the property, I may miss some context, could you detail ? -- ( ) Infovarius thinks that the property is unnecessary since we just can use ""participant"" instead. -- ( ) Infovarius thinks that the property is unnecessary since we just can use ""participant"" instead. -- ( ) [MASK] I think this level of property detail is ok, given precedents here already. ( ) In the meantime, the question has been resolved in the proposal discussion. If no other reasons for deletion had come up, I'd withdraw this. --- [MASK] ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P8032: Not [MASK] : The discussion suggests that this should remain as a property. ( ) Not [MASK] : The discussion suggests that this should remain as a property. ( ) Probably covered with . -- ( ) It's not very practical if someone wants to extract the name of a murder victim into to infobox @ , , , , : -- ( ) is something radically different than a victim. ( ) @ : A victim is a participant in a crime (although they don't want to be one) with a role of : is something radically different than a victim. ( ) @ : A victim is a participant in a crime (although they don't want to be one) with a role of : @ : A victim is a participant in a crime (although they don't want to be one) with a role of : ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P8531: Not [MASK] , no willingness to delete except that of the proposer. ( ) Not [MASK] , no willingness to delete except that of the proposer. ( ) You and were the only ones opposed to the creation of this property. responded on the creation proposal page to all your arguments. This property is also similar to others we already have such as . ( ) [MASK] The ""proposer"", It's me ! You might have the courage of your convictions: when you write about a contributor, you notify him. It's the least of politeness, because what you write is completely false and you know it very well. The deletion procedure is clearly explained in the header of this page. I don't understand your eagerness to suppress these properties. The examples and opinions show that the identifiers of the proposition are not always the same. The proponent (me) has clearly explained the gain in having this property and not citing other properties on the proposal is not a valid criterion. 's opposition has already been rejected twice, and then again in the debate. Therefore, like the last time, I will immediately request the early closure (without waiting 7 days) of this deletion request, because it has no serious basis. Thanks for the contributors' waste of time. — ( ) Not mentioning this was previously listed for deletion by the same person seems bad faith to me. [MASK] if only on those grounds. ( ) Neutral Maybe another datatype would be better? -- ( ) [MASK] Description of is ""German movie website"" (filmstarts. de ) and so it is. I don't know if the identifier is equal to Allocine-ID, but the content is not, e.g. for there is and . This is absolutely NOT redundant. -- ( ) It's frequent that the same identifier is shared by several sites. It's even the purpose of identifiers. --- It's frequent that the same identifier is shared by several sites. It's even the purpose of identifiers. --- The sites are different. -- ( ) The sites are different. -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6428_(P6428): [MASK] : Superseded by . ( ) [MASK] : Superseded by . ( ) Delete You make a good case that this is superfluous now that we have . ( ) Speedy delete Entirely replaced, there seems no usages anymore. -- ( ) Delete seems to have been created in error. --- Delete ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P8960: Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) [MASK] as no one opposed the creation. The discussion can go on, e.g. on the talk page. ( ) . [MASK] Disruptive nominaton. [MASK] . For the same reasons. ( ) We should have the information available before creating the property, especially as the discussion about that aspect was still ongoing. It seems that even after three days, the proposer wasn't able to provide it. There are just too many case on where such items are missing. Anyways, seems that next time, one needs to oppose creation until the necessary is provided. --- What exactly seems to be the problem? Labels? -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: father_(P22): Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) [MASK] Being a mother is one of the semantic primitives and the ability to query it easily is useful. ❪ ❫ [MASK] per above. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: mother_(P25): Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) by this argument they are all redundant with ""relative"" plus qualifiers. ( ) Well relative is not used for immediate family, so no. ( ) Well relative is not used for immediate family, so no. ( ) [MASK] Given that Lua can't handle inverse property relationships yet, we need some of them and this seems a clearly useful case. Once the Lua issue is fixed then I'd definitely support cleaning up as many Wikidata inverse properties as we can. ( ) [MASK] Being a mother is one of the semantic primitives and the ability to query it easily is useful. ❪ ❫ [MASK] Note in SPARQL it is easy to query male-line all descendents via ? item wdt:P22* wd:Q### and it is impossible with only P40.-- ( ) Star is impossible, but in a real world applications with some level of sanity you won't be able to fetch all descendants in a tree (I say this as an author of : just try to load what you have suggested without limits and your browser tab will probably die or fail due to timeout). And as for limited iteration, is is still possible with .... UNION ... UNION {wd:Q### wdt:P40 [wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097; wdt:P40 [wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097; wdt:P40 ?item] ] } . Not pretty, but who cares, especially for such a specific usecase. -- ( ) Star is impossible, but in a real world applications with some level of sanity you won't be able to fetch all descendants in a tree (I say this as an author of : just try to load what you have suggested without limits and your browser tab will probably die or fail due to timeout). And as for limited iteration, is is still possible with . ... UNION ... UNION {wd:Q### wdt:P40 [wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097; wdt:P40 [wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097; wdt:P40 ?item] ] } . Not pretty, but who cares, especially for such a specific usecase. -- ( ) Replace with and Delete . Reason is that father/mother does not match any existing vocab -> Wikidata should not invent bicycles and use ""parent"" as W3C/schema.org suggest. Do not forget: just recently we had brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother and after these properties were merged. I don't see a reason why we can merge stepfather+stepmother and can not merge mother/father. -- ( ) Delete and replace with and eventually delete that one once inverse properties are no longer needed . ’s argument sticks: Even just has parent . Most (albeit not all) arguments in the 2016 discussion are ideological/political in nature. -- ( ) I could be convinced of this (especially if we had a qualifier for mother/father in the cases where it really matters). Especially with trans people it's unclear what to label a trans-male who gave birth (father v. mother is mainly useful to distinguish who gave birth but at least in English we lack the right words). ( ) springs to mind, it’s already used as . It’s conceivable (no pun intended) to create items like person who gave birth , person whose DNA was passed on , etc. if the need should arise. -- ( ) I could be convinced of this (especially if we had a qualifier for mother/father in the cases where it really matters). Especially with trans people it's unclear what to label a trans-male who gave birth (father v. mother is mainly useful to distinguish who gave birth but at least in English we lack the right words). ( ) springs to mind, it’s already used as . It’s conceivable (no pun intended) to create items like person who gave birth , person whose DNA was passed on , etc. if the need should arise. -- ( ) springs to mind, it’s already used as . It’s conceivable (no pun intended) to create items like person who gave birth , person whose DNA was passed on , etc. if the need should arise. -- ( ) [MASK] Per . Extracting the full patrilineal ancestry of a person (in order) is very much a real-world application. Modifying what GZWDer gave above, this is straightforward with a line like wd:Q### wdt:P22* ? item -- and impossible without P22. Even for queries that don't involve paths, having P22 can be a useful help for efficiency -- a generic 'parent' property would produce a solution set twice as large, taking longer to assemble; then having to do a join with ? item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097 takes even longer. As somebody who spends a lot of time on queries that go right to the 60s limit, or have to be split into multiple separate runs, so each one can fit inside 60s, any additional inefficiency is something I really don't need. Finally 'father' and 'mother' are straightforward intuitive concepts. I don't see any benefit at all in abolishing them for something less concrete and less precise. So, a strong [MASK] from me. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: PQ104664465_(PQ104664465): [MASK] , by . Creator error. — ( ) [MASK] , by . Creator error. — ( ) @ : was created by you but it's not a property, it's an item. To request a property please see . If you are proposing a property for this, you can leave this item as is and use it for the ""subject item"" of the property in the proposal template. The statements on this item do need to be fixed though! ( ) I did [MASK] the item per author request. While it could be reused for some subject item that would involve both changing it's properties and name. In general would be the place for this. As Arthur said is the venue for proposing new properties. ❪ ❫ ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P9091: Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) Kept . No consensus for deletion. ( ) [MASK] All the remarks have been addressed. ( ) . [MASK] The property is a main statement for 3,685 items, and is the sole external identifier for many of those creative works of cultural and other significance. ― ( ) [MASK] Already used by more that 3000 items. -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P9099_(P9099): [MASK] Duplicate ( ) [MASK] Duplicate ( ) Delete It is redundant. For the three examples in the property proposal from P9099 the external link from P7900 doesn't work until now because the release of the monument map is not complete yet. -- ( ) If no one opposes, I will delete this property at the end of the week. ( ) @ , : I tried to add on (id: 3523283) and (id: 32809496) but it leads to an error page. Does it mean they are not valid identifiers for but valid for ? ( ) The ids are correct, but the database ""Denkmalatlas Niedersachsen"" is not completely published, so you get an error page. I hope in the near future all monuments will be published. A few days ago I wrote an email to and they confirmed that the ids are stable and valid. -- ( ) @ : the related de-WP-user seems to be . -- ( ) @ , : I tried to add on (id: 3523283) and (id: 32809496) but it leads to an error page. Does it mean they are not valid identifiers for but valid for ? ( ) The ids are correct, but the database ""Denkmalatlas Niedersachsen"" is not completely published, so you get an error page. I hope in the near future all monuments will be published. A few days ago I wrote an email to and they confirmed that the ids are stable and valid. -- ( ) @ : the related de-WP-user seems to be . -- ( ) The ids are correct, but the database ""Denkmalatlas Niedersachsen"" is not completely published, so you get an error page. I hope in the near future all monuments will be published. A few days ago I wrote an email to and they confirmed that the ids are stable and valid. -- ( ) @ : the related de-WP-user seems to be . -- ( ) @ : the related de-WP-user seems to be . -- ( ) Delete dup. Similar problem as above (not all identifiers link). --- I've [MASK] the property and removed it from the items where it was used. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P9127_(P9127): [MASK] , by . Creator error. — ( ) [MASK] , by . Creator error. — ( ) Please @ :, put {{ }} on Property talk page next time — ( ) No need to talk too much, simply (speedy) Delete . Txs. — ( ) Delete Pretty obvious case. -- ( ) Done @ , : -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Google_Play_Music_artist_ID_(former_scheme)_(P4198): Not [MASK] The existing data is still valid, and there is no consensus for deletion. ( ) Not [MASK] The existing data is still valid, and there is no consensus for deletion. ( ) Why delete a valid property? The data is potentially useful for joining to other databases or through archives. [MASK] but deprecate. ( ) Comment Marked as by Liuxinyu970226. [MASK] to anyone thinking of deleting this. I archived all the URLs referenced in wikidata for this identifier. ( ) Comment: @ : Maybe it's just me, but I can't understand what you're saying here, or how it relates to the deletion request -- could you clarify? Specifically, did you archive them within Wikidata, or is that something you did on a personal PC, or on a public website that is not Wikidata, or. .? And regardless of the answer, how does it relate to the nomination? - ( ) @ : I archived all the URLs on archive.org. We should not remove identifiers in general (it is still valuable information) but especially not when all the data matching to them is publicly archived. This property should be deprecated but not [MASK]. ( ) Ah OK, that makes sense -- and now that I visit the examples on the property page, I can see there are already some example links to these archived pages, such as . I can see how that would be useful. Not sure I'm comfortable voting, as I don't know Wikidata's policies well, but I am inclined to agree with you. Thanks for explaining. - ( ) Comment: @ : Maybe it's just me, but I can't understand what you're saying here, or how it relates to the deletion request -- could you clarify? Specifically, did you archive them within Wikidata, or is that something you did on a personal PC, or on a public website that is not Wikidata, or. .? And regardless of the answer, how does it relate to the nomination? - ( ) @ : I archived all the URLs on archive.org. We should not remove identifiers in general (it is still valuable information) but especially not when all the data matching to them is publicly archived. This property should be deprecated but not [MASK]. ( ) Ah OK, that makes sense -- and now that I visit the examples on the property page, I can see there are already some example links to these archived pages, such as . I can see how that would be useful. Not sure I'm comfortable voting, as I don't know Wikidata's policies well, but I am inclined to agree with you. Thanks for explaining. - ( ) @ : I archived all the URLs on archive.org. We should not remove identifiers in general (it is still valuable information) but especially not when all the data matching to them is publicly archived. This property should be deprecated but not [MASK]. ( ) Ah OK, that makes sense -- and now that I visit the examples on the property page, I can see there are already some example links to these archived pages, such as . I can see how that would be useful. Not sure I'm comfortable voting, as I don't know Wikidata's policies well, but I am inclined to agree with you. Thanks for explaining. - ( ) Ah OK, that makes sense -- and now that I visit the examples on the property page, I can see there are already some example links to these archived pages, such as . I can see how that would be useful. Not sure I'm comfortable voting, as I don't know Wikidata's policies well, but I am inclined to agree with you. Thanks for explaining. - ( ) [MASK] might still be useful-- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: writing_language_(P6886): Not [MASK] , clear majority of supporter for keeping this property (15 vs 6). ( ) Not [MASK] , clear majority of supporter for keeping this property (15 vs 6). ( ) @ : You know that I gave my support conditioned to a clear definition adjusting the boundaries to avoid overlapping with . In my opinion, the definition of P1412 must be changed to avoid people say that both are duplicated. ( ) [MASK] The property is well-delimited (only the language used in written work) and there's a clear rational for its inception ( is not appropriate for Wikisource). ( ) It is not well-delimited. What limits it? If an author publishes an edition of a work by another author, with added commentary in a different language, then is the language of the original work considered or just the language of the commentary? This is a very real situation, as editors of Classical works often publish edited editions of Classical works in the original language, along with a translation and notes. So, if an author publishes an Ancient Greek edition of Menander, with an English translation, and footnotes in French, German, Greek, and English, then which language(s) has the author written in? this is about the language of each writer/author... the language for the editor is their own... the fact that they comment a work in another language doesn't make this other language their language... -- ( ) Why is ""languages spoken, written, or signed"" not appropriate for Wikisource? Don't speeches and orations count towards ""language written""? Wikisource hosts many transcribed speeches and lectures. Wikisource also hosts audio recordings of works, which are not written. And do works recorded secondhand by another individual count as written by the original author or speaker, or is this a language written by the secondhand writer only? This matters for authors like Jesus and Socrates, who have no known works written by the authors themselves. Do we count personal correspondence to family and colleagues (which can be hosted on Wikisource), or only published works, and what if the correspondence is later published? And once we see how broad ""writing language"" is in this light, then how is it any different from ""languages spoken, written, or signed""? Clearly this is a property of individual works written by the author. Each work has a language (or languages) it which it was written, and some works (such as musical works) are written in no language at all. If we are to use this property, it should be justified by a work written in that language, which shows that it is a property of the work written, and not the author who wrote it. -- ( ) It is not well-delimited. What limits it? If an author publishes an edition of a work by another author, with added commentary in a different language, then is the language of the original work considered or just the language of the commentary? This is a very real situation, as editors of Classical works often publish edited editions of Classical works in the original language, along with a translation and notes. So, if an author publishes an Ancient Greek edition of Menander, with an English translation, and footnotes in French, German, Greek, and English, then which language(s) has the author written in? this is about the language of each writer/author... the language for the editor is their own... the fact that they comment a work in another language doesn't make this other language their language... -- ( ) this is about the language of each writer/author... the language for the editor is their own... the fact that they comment a work in another language doesn't make this other language their language... -- ( ) Why is ""languages spoken, written, or signed"" not appropriate for Wikisource? Don't speeches and orations count towards ""language written""? Wikisource hosts many transcribed speeches and lectures. Wikisource also hosts audio recordings of works, which are not written. And do works recorded secondhand by another individual count as written by the original author or speaker, or is this a language written by the secondhand writer only? This matters for authors like Jesus and Socrates, who have no known works written by the authors themselves. Do we count personal correspondence to family and colleagues (which can be hosted on Wikisource), or only published works, and what if the correspondence is later published? And once we see how broad ""writing language"" is in this light, then how is it any different from ""languages spoken, written, or signed""? Clearly this is a property of individual works written by the author. Each work has a language (or languages) it which it was written, and some works (such as musical works) are written in no language at all. If we are to use this property, it should be justified by a work written in that language, which shows that it is a property of the work written, and not the author who wrote it. -- ( ) Delete as redundant. @ : Ping doesn't work with groups that large. Also, why notify only ""Books"" but not participants in other publication-related groups such as , , or ? Books are not the only kind of written works that exist. -- ( ) @ :, you are always free to ping these project participants also.  :-) -- ( ) @ :, you are always free to ping these project participants also.  :-) -- ( ) Technically [MASK] , unless if I haven't heard some Phabricator tasks in order to resolve some bugs, it's still true that is incompatible with some Wikisource gadgets. -- ( ) Could you please clarify which Wikisource projects are affected by this, and how? English Wikisource is not affected at all. -- ( ) Another [MASK] reason: There are some J-pop teams e.g. , which they write their songs in English, then translate to Japanese, and officially publich their songs in Japanese. -- ( ) Could you please clarify which Wikisource projects are affected by this, and how? English Wikisource is not affected at all. -- ( ) Another [MASK] reason: There are some J-pop teams e.g. , which they write their songs in English, then translate to Japanese, and officially publich their songs in Japanese. -- ( ) Comment Which is the purpose of this property ? To describe the language in which a work was written, we use the . So why do we need a new property ? To get the language(s) used by a writer, just extract the language(s) of all his works. ( ) Please try the following query (language of works by Joseph Conrad): No need to duplicate the data. ( ) no, this is not to indicate in what language a work was originally written ; it is to indicate in which languages a writer wrote : if X only wrote in French, a text in English must be a translation - all works from all writers are not on wikidata, and will never be (not for decades). also, it helps to autocategorize, while generates many wrong categories, especially for esperantists... -- ( ) Firstly, a lot of authors don't have their works in Wikidata. Secondly, I don't think it's possible to do a SPARQL query on Wikipedia or Wikisource. Please try the following query (language of works by Joseph Conrad): No need to duplicate the data. ( ) no, this is not to indicate in what language a work was originally written ; it is to indicate in which languages a writer wrote : if X only wrote in French, a text in English must be a translation - all works from all writers are not on wikidata, and will never be (not for decades). also, it helps to autocategorize, while generates many wrong categories, especially for esperantists... -- ( ) Firstly, a lot of authors don't have their works in Wikidata. Secondly, I don't think it's possible to do a SPARQL query on Wikipedia or Wikisource. no, this is not to indicate in what language a work was originally written ; it is to indicate in which languages a writer wrote : if X only wrote in French, a text in English must be a translation - all works from all writers are not on wikidata, and will never be (not for decades). also, it helps to autocategorize, while generates many wrong categories, especially for esperantists... -- ( ) no, this is not to indicate in what language a work was originally written ; it is to indicate in which languages a writer wrote : if X only wrote in French, a text in English must be a translation - all works from all writers are not on wikidata, and will never be (not for decades). also, it helps to autocategorize, while generates many wrong categories, especially for esperantists... -- ( ) Firstly, a lot of authors don't have their works in Wikidata. Secondly, I don't think it's possible to do a SPARQL query on Wikipedia or Wikisource. [MASK] If a person grew up in China and wrote letters in Chinese, but published works only in Spanish, how would you know that person could write in both languages without this property? Not every published work will be in Wikidata, and certainly not most private correspondence. This property adds information not available otherwise. ( ) @ : You've misunderstood this property. It's not about what the author chose to publish, but for the language of their works as published by anyone . If they wrote letters in Chinese, and those letters were published (even after their death) than that qualifies under this property. It is not unusual for a person's diary or letters to be discovered and published once they have died. -- ( ) @ : I don't see how anything I expressed is a misunderstanding. Whether or not their works were published, these are languages they wrote in. I don't see how existing properties can express this. ( ) @ : already encodes this. -- ( ) @ : Ah, I was responding to Snipre's claim. Regarding P1412, the proposal explicitly discussed this: ""We used languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) for long, but it is now flooded with all sorts of languages that people read, or speak, or even understand, which leads to nonsense info about the writing languages of an author, like saying Jules Verne (Q33977) wrote in esperanto, and a discussion on frws, aiming to remove info coming from wikidata because of this..."" ( ) @ : Snipre said that the property is a duplication, and it is. Wikidata does not duplicate information. Snipre also showed that the information you desire can be extracted from their works. Their works are anything they produced, whether published or not, but Wikisource is concerned only with works published in some form, so I do not understand how your response pertains to that. Why would French Wikisource need information about languages in which a person wrote, but are used in works that will not be hosted on Wikisource? Also, there is nothing on Wikidata that says Jules Verne wrote in Esperanto. Fr.WS can correct the problem by relabelling their template output to match the content coded at Wikidata. -- ( ) to be able to know whether texts in French from a certain author could have been written by them, or are necessarily translations ! (an then search for who the translator is, and if they are Public domain too ! all wikisources do not do this search as thoroughly as we do on frws... but it is important ! -- ( ) @ : You've misunderstood this property. It's not about what the author chose to publish, but for the language of their works as published by anyone . If they wrote letters in Chinese, and those letters were published (even after their death) than that qualifies under this property. It is not unusual for a person's diary or letters to be discovered and published once they have died. -- ( ) @ : I don't see how anything I expressed is a misunderstanding. Whether or not their works were published, these are languages they wrote in. I don't see how existing properties can express this. ( ) @ : already encodes this. -- ( ) @ : Ah, I was responding to Snipre's claim. Regarding P1412, the proposal explicitly discussed this: ""We used languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) for long, but it is now flooded with all sorts of languages that people read, or speak, or even understand, which leads to nonsense info about the writing languages of an author, like saying Jules Verne (Q33977) wrote in esperanto, and a discussion on frws, aiming to remove info coming from wikidata because of this..."" ( ) @ : Snipre said that the property is a duplication, and it is. Wikidata does not duplicate information. Snipre also showed that the information you desire can be extracted from their works. Their works are anything they produced, whether published or not, but Wikisource is concerned only with works published in some form, so I do not understand how your response pertains to that. Why would French Wikisource need information about languages in which a person wrote, but are used in works that will not be hosted on Wikisource? Also, there is nothing on Wikidata that says Jules Verne wrote in Esperanto. Fr.WS can correct the problem by relabelling their template output to match the content coded at Wikidata. -- ( ) to be able to know whether texts in French from a certain author could have been written by them, or are necessarily translations ! (an then search for who the translator is, and if they are Public domain too ! all wikisources do not do this search as thoroughly as we do on frws... but it is important ! -- ( ) @ : I don't see how anything I expressed is a misunderstanding. Whether or not their works were published, these are languages they wrote in. I don't see how existing properties can express this. ( ) @ : already encodes this. -- ( ) @ : already encodes this. -- ( ) @ : Ah, I was responding to Snipre's claim. Regarding P1412, the proposal explicitly discussed this: ""We used languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) for long, but it is now flooded with all sorts of languages that people read, or speak, or even understand, which leads to nonsense info about the writing languages of an author, like saying Jules Verne (Q33977) wrote in esperanto, and a discussion on frws, aiming to remove info coming from wikidata because of this..."" ( ) @ : Snipre said that the property is a duplication, and it is. Wikidata does not duplicate information. Snipre also showed that the information you desire can be extracted from their works. Their works are anything they produced, whether published or not, but Wikisource is concerned only with works published in some form, so I do not understand how your response pertains to that. Why would French Wikisource need information about languages in which a person wrote, but are used in works that will not be hosted on Wikisource? Also, there is nothing on Wikidata that says Jules Verne wrote in Esperanto. Fr.WS can correct the problem by relabelling their template output to match the content coded at Wikidata. -- ( ) to be able to know whether texts in French from a certain author could have been written by them, or are necessarily translations ! (an then search for who the translator is, and if they are Public domain too ! all wikisources do not do this search as thoroughly as we do on frws... but it is important ! -- ( ) @ : Ah, I was responding to Snipre's claim. Regarding P1412, the proposal explicitly discussed this: ""We used languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) for long, but it is now flooded with all sorts of languages that people read, or speak, or even understand, which leads to nonsense info about the writing languages of an author, like saying Jules Verne (Q33977) wrote in esperanto, and a discussion on frws, aiming to remove info coming from wikidata because of this..."" ( ) @ : Snipre said that the property is a duplication, and it is. Wikidata does not duplicate information. Snipre also showed that the information you desire can be extracted from their works. Their works are anything they produced, whether published or not, but Wikisource is concerned only with works published in some form, so I do not understand how your response pertains to that. Why would French Wikisource need information about languages in which a person wrote, but are used in works that will not be hosted on Wikisource? Also, there is nothing on Wikidata that says Jules Verne wrote in Esperanto. Fr.WS can correct the problem by relabelling their template output to match the content coded at Wikidata. -- ( ) @ : Snipre said that the property is a duplication, and it is. Wikidata does not duplicate information. Snipre also showed that the information you desire can be extracted from their works. Their works are anything they produced, whether published or not, but Wikisource is concerned only with works published in some form, so I do not understand how your response pertains to that. Why would French Wikisource need information about languages in which a person wrote, but are used in works that will not be hosted on Wikisource? Also, there is nothing on Wikidata that says Jules Verne wrote in Esperanto. Fr.WS can correct the problem by relabelling their template output to match the content coded at Wikidata. -- ( ) to be able to know whether texts in French from a certain author could have been written by them, or are necessarily translations ! (an then search for who the translator is, and if they are Public domain too ! all wikisources do not do this search as thoroughly as we do on frws... but it is important !-- ( ) [MASK] The property is clearly delimited (only for languages used in written works) and there's a good for its existence (it's needed on the French Wikisource). Maybe can explain better how this property is used on the French Wikisource and why it's needed. [MASK] , the removal is contrary to the sense in Wikidata. -- ( ) [MASK] per Robin van der Vliet. -- Delete as nominator. The only rationale I've seen presented for keeping this property is that French Wikisource wants it. It is not the purpose of Wikidata to cater to desires of individual projects. -- ( ) first, we used , but this property is now flooded by all languages that a person can use , which is not equivalent to the language used to write works - this led to many wrong categories... - and written language is not equivalent to writing language (as a work language for a writer) on frwikisource, our author pages are managed totally frow wikidata : i.e. ALL data about an author are stored here, NOT on wikisource... if wikidata leads to wrong categories or wrong info for the specific use of wikisource (we edit texts, and are preoccupied with copyright matters), this could lead to a lot of misunderstanding, and contributors loosing trust in wd... -- ( ) first, we used , but this property is now flooded by all languages that a person can use , which is not equivalent to the language used to write works - this led to many wrong categories... - and written language is not equivalent to writing language (as a work language for a writer) on frwikisource, our author pages are managed totally frow wikidata : i.e. ALL data about an author are stored here, NOT on wikisource... if wikidata leads to wrong categories or wrong info for the specific use of wikisource (we edit texts, and are preoccupied with copyright matters), this could lead to a lot of misunderstanding, and contributors loosing trust in wd... -- ( ) Delete Redundant. with qualifier and does the same job.-- ( ) @ : Can also work for B'z? -- ( ) [MASK] it is not a duplicate : it is the only way to know, for people who practice more than 1 language, in which language they really published... please read the - it is really important ! -- ( ) [MASK] . This property is indeed useful to know in which language(s) an author wrote. A qualifier on might to the job but a stand alone property seems nicer to me. We use this property to fill the categories by author language on the French Wikisource Author: pages. ( ) @ : Can also work for B'z? -- ( ) [MASK] it is not a duplicate : it is the only way to know, for people who practice more than 1 language, in which language they really published... please read the - it is really important ! -- ( ) [MASK] . This property is indeed useful to know in which language(s) an author wrote. A qualifier on might to the job but a stand alone property seems nicer to me. We use this property to fill the categories by author language on the French Wikisource Author: pages. ( ) Weakly Delete . I see that it is possible to make a logical distinction between and , but this discussion shows disagreement about where the line is drawn. Some editors advocate keeping P6886 because we want to record the subset of languages that an author can write in, even if there is no notable published works in that written language; other editors advocate keeping P6886 to record the subset of languages that an author has published in . It seems that the first purpose is redundant over with qualifier ; the second purpose is redundant to an auto-generated list from Wikidata items of one's published works. I think this property can add value, but we need to make a strong, clearly demarcated case for an infobox field, for this property to be useful. ( ) [MASK] En français la propriété est très clairement limitée et précise, j'invite donc les contributeurs locuteurs d'autres langues à effectuer une vérification. ( ) [MASK] I think this is relevant. Some time ago I stumbled over writer who does not publish in her mother tongue (yet). I wondered how to express that her mother tongue is Russian, she speaks Russian and German, but publishes in German. In my opinion the descriptions and the property proposal make it quite clear that this is intended for the languages they wrote their work in, not for any language they use(d) to write. There may be misinterpretations by people who use it (as it is the case for many properties) but in this case I don't think that it is the fault of the property itself (one could add some clarification or improve the label). As pointed out by Hsarrazin there will be always authors without a complete list of their work in Wikidata - for those it won't be possible to deduce this property from their work. I also like Hsarrazin's point that such a property would allow to find possible errors in the metadata of their work/works related to them. One could use with a qualifier, but I see no advantage in this. - ( ) Similar example is who is known ( ) for his Russian works and who has never published in his (probable) mother language Ukrainian (but for sure ). -- ( ) Similar example is who is known ( ) for his Russian works and who has never published in his (probable) mother language Ukrainian (but for sure ). -- ( ) [MASK] ; semantics of this property is different from what represents. @ : I think it is unrealistic to expect complete modeling of all individual works of an author/creator, so auto-generating the list of languages is generally unfeasible. I do agree, however, that the definition of this property could be clarified regarding translations, notability, etc. Comment Do we have a property akin to “works have been translated into [language]”? ― ( ) [MASK] since is different. ( ) [MASK] as this property is more suitable than to Wikisource projects. -- ( ) Delete . Redundant, per above. -- ( ) Delete redundant. --- Delete Translations can be merged. -- [MASK] No socalled conflicts here. -- [MASK] since is different. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: writing_language_(P6886): Withdrawn — ( ) Withdrawn — ( ) [MASK] It's back. - ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: CinemaRX_title_ID_(archived)_(P9204): Withdrawn — ( ) Withdrawn — ( ) Neutral It could be temporary. Since the site's inception in 2006, it experienced a syncope some years ago. - ( ) [MASK] I have monitored this site since it's addition and it's up and down fairly frequently but always comes back and appears to have a long history. I think [MASK] for now unless it has a prolonged outage. . -- ( ) Txs for infos @ : — ( ) Txs for infos @ : — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: demonym_(P1549): No consensus . After a multi-year discussion, there's no consensus to delete or [MASK] this, but the ! votes are leaning towards [MASK] (8 for delete, 12 for [MASK]). In particular, there's no clear migration plan, and the information stored using this property is used a lot in infoboxes and elsewhere. Thanks. ( ) No consensus . After a multi-year discussion, there's no consensus to delete or [MASK] this, but the ! votes are leaning towards [MASK] (8 for delete, 12 for [MASK]). In particular, there's no clear migration plan, and the information stored using this property is used a lot in infoboxes and elsewhere. Thanks. ( ) Eventually, but maybe we should have the discussion at one place: . --- Oh, I didn't realize there was already such a proposal. ( ) Oh, I didn't realize there was already such a proposal. ( ) This is also the case for WD powered templates at svwiki, frwiki and probably many more. / ( ) @ , : Where is it used on huwiki/svwiki/frwiki? Those are not listed in the box on the talk page, perhaps the script which looks for property usage can be improved. @ : Please notify the projects using this property too. - ( ) @ : of the top of my head. – ( ) @ : On svwp, it is used by the module , which in invoked by a lot of templates (like in biografies). I know frwiki had a similar system a year ago (it's possible it has change since then). / ( ) @ : Do you have any specific place where this spcific property is used on svwiki? I see many potential problems with this property in the Swedish language, so at least I have never tried to use or even edit it. ( ) @ : It is used to display nationality in (via ). In the article , the template does not return ""USA"" but ""Amerikan"", which is the value of [ , ] of (the of ). / ( ) @ , : Where is it used on huwiki/svwiki/frwiki? Those are not listed in the box on the talk page, perhaps the script which looks for property usage can be improved. @ : Please notify the projects using this property too. - ( ) @ : of the top of my head. – ( ) @ : On svwp, it is used by the module , which in invoked by a lot of templates (like in biografies). I know frwiki had a similar system a year ago (it's possible it has change since then). / ( ) @ : Do you have any specific place where this spcific property is used on svwiki? I see many potential problems with this property in the Swedish language, so at least I have never tried to use or even edit it. ( ) @ : It is used to display nationality in (via ). In the article , the template does not return ""USA"" but ""Amerikan"", which is the value of [ , ] of (the of ). / ( ) @ : of the top of my head. – ( ) @ : On svwp, it is used by the module , which in invoked by a lot of templates (like in biografies). I know frwiki had a similar system a year ago (it's possible it has change since then). / ( ) @ : Do you have any specific place where this spcific property is used on svwiki? I see many potential problems with this property in the Swedish language, so at least I have never tried to use or even edit it. ( ) @ : It is used to display nationality in (via ). In the article , the template does not return ""USA"" but ""Amerikan"", which is the value of [ , ] of (the of ). / ( ) @ : On svwp, it is used by the module , which in invoked by a lot of templates (like in biografies). I know frwiki had a similar system a year ago (it's possible it has change since then). / ( ) @ : Do you have any specific place where this spcific property is used on svwiki? I see many potential problems with this property in the Swedish language, so at least I have never tried to use or even edit it. ( ) @ : It is used to display nationality in (via ). In the article , the template does not return ""USA"" but ""Amerikan"", which is the value of [ , ] of (the of ). / ( ) @ : Do you have any specific place where this spcific property is used on svwiki? I see many potential problems with this property in the Swedish language, so at least I have never tried to use or even edit it. ( ) @ : It is used to display nationality in (via ). In the article , the template does not return ""USA"" but ""Amerikan"", which is the value of [ , ] of (the of ). / ( ) @ : It is used to display nationality in (via ). In the article , the template does not return ""USA"" but ""Amerikan"", which is the value of [ , ] of (the of ). / ( ) Delete but probably wait some weeks/months until Lexemes are more stable. Cdlt, ( ) I agree that we should eventually replace the existing property with lexemes, but we shouldn't delete this until people are able to switch to using lexemes. We still need to decide how we want to link things together. - ( ) Delete The property has been created. This one can now be [MASK] (first declare obsolete, move content, then delete). -- ( ) Comment If this property is being used in an infobox or by a Lua module, it will need to be retained and to go on having its values added to and extended, at least and until such time as inverse property values become obtainable via Lua - as at present they are not. ( ) On hold . I agree with that we need a place -> demonym property to [MASK] infoboxes working. We should [MASK] this property until we have a new Item -> Lexeme ""demonym"" property, migrate all existing uses and infoboxes, then delete P1549. ( ) Delete Very barely used, and replacement is even available for these not more than 100 usages. -- ( ) On hold . Until infoboxes (as happens in cawiki) can be transformed after have access via LUA module. Thanks, ( ) Comment . As noted, 1) there is no wikibase client for lexemes, 2) there is no Lua function available for backlinks or API queries, pending of that it seems silently declined for a year now. There is not any path from a wiki page like to reach . If these blockers are solved, there are still some concerns. How to deal with or ? How to obtain the demonym for a given language and a lexical category? At the end, it will be one more, or several, arbitrary access and it is expensive in Lua time usage that has limitations in infoboxes powered by Wikidata. -- ( ) [MASK] [MASK] this property because with this property is very easy to add some data. -- ( ) [MASK] Very helpful, easy to use. ( ) [MASK] Useful. -- ( ) Neutral [MASK] How to call an inhabitant of a neighborhood? We must also think of other languages. Nothing can replace it, for the moment. Examples: Germanopratin in , Planpalistain in . — ( ) @ , : Please do not just for things that are under deletion discussions as simple and confusing ""useful"", (landmass) was also useful until we have consensus for its deletion. -- ( ) @ , : Please do not just for things that are under deletion discussions as simple and confusing ""useful"", (landmass) was also useful until we have consensus for its deletion. -- ( ) Delete Doesn't useful, replacement available. -- [MASK] Used in Wikipedias, no replacement for infoboxes seems to be available. ( ) @ , , , , : Why do you all can't agree with as replacement? -- ( ) I already put a comment on my opinion , so I return 2 questions to you: How to assemble planpalistain with since planpalalistain does not exist? How to add in without this page appearing in ? With , it's possible without error. — ( ) Opinion changed — ( ) @ , , , , : Why do you all can't agree with as replacement? -- ( ) I already put a comment on my opinion , so I return 2 questions to you: How to assemble planpalistain with since planpalalistain does not exist? How to add in without this page appearing in ? With , it's possible without error. — ( ) Opinion changed — ( ) I already put a comment on my opinion , so I return 2 questions to you: How to assemble planpalistain with since planpalalistain does not exist? How to add in without this page appearing in ? With , it's possible without error. — ( ) Opinion changed — ( ) Opinion changed — ( ) Delete Use instead. -- [MASK] : it is used in too many places and its replacement is immature. ( ) Delete : With we have now a good option to link from lexeme senses to locality items and since the items work without demonyms, but the words/lexemes are literally filled with sense, the connection should come from that end. -- ( ) [MASK] : I think this one is very simple to maintain. I didnt very much understand the point for suppression? Too complicated to query both Qid and Lexemes.Infobox should be looking only on Qid not on lexemes. ( ) Too complicated to query both Qid and Lexemes.Infobox should be looking only on Qid not on lexemes. ( ) Delete Replacement available. -- Delete Having the information on the country makes country items that are already quite big bigger. The information is much better stored as sense. ❪ ❫ [MASK] : Designating the inhabitants of a place by a specific name can be useful. Otherwise should we replace it with a longer expression ? ( ) On hold : the comments of and sound pretty relevant to me, there are blocking points, so [MASK] it for now. -- ( ) [MASK] useful to designate inhabitants of a place. ( ) [MASK] Using lexeme senses is a poor replacement since there will be one claim per language instead, severely bloating the item. It's better that the sense links to an item like we do today. ( ) [MASK] Extremely useful when translating label, descriptions, including in wikipedia templates. -- ( ) [MASK] This is good for Wikidata but bad for infoboxes: Inverse properties is problematic, since is harder to code templates or modules to emulate the expected behaviour with inverse properties, and most of the nominators of those deletion request don't even address the problems that leads this deletions. One of the warnings says clearly: Validate the property isn't being used in other projects (using {{ }} ) and if it is leave a message in Village pump of those projects! and this is an obvious case of potential use, and as this is already used, this request should be speedy closed. This should be discussed on other projects like Wikipedia first! -- ( ) [MASK] Nouns of countries are usually well known, Gentilés could be a question. I cannot understand how ""Gentilé of"" would help to find the gentilé of a country or a place. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: doctoral_student_(P185): Kept . From the discussion it seems clear that while the data is redundant, the inverse is still important for uses of the data. Thanks. ( ) Kept . From the discussion it seems clear that while the data is redundant, the inverse is still important for uses of the data. Thanks. ( ) [MASK] because it appears in infobox templates. ( ) [MASK] : useful IMHO. ( ) 18:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC). Delete : in reflection, could probably be replaced by . ( ) . You are suggesting to replace with ? ( ) You are suggesting to replace with ? ( ) Delete : redundant with . ( ) ? for 'teacher', for 'student'. What proposed mechanism of replacement in templates? -- ( ) I voted delete because I don't like redundancy in databases. But you are right, if it's used in templates then there's no proper mechanism for obtaining inverse properties. It's a technical flaw and the inverse properties may be needed. I'd have to look at it in more detail before voting. ( ) I voted delete because I don't like redundancy in databases. But you are right, if it's used in templates then there's no proper mechanism for obtaining inverse properties. It's a technical flaw and the inverse properties may be needed. I'd have to look at it in more detail before voting. ( ) I voted delete because I don't like redundancy in databases. But you are right, if it's used in templates then there's no proper mechanism for obtaining inverse properties. It's a technical flaw and the inverse properties may be needed. I'd have to look at it in more detail before voting. ( ) [MASK] Because pair p184-p185 oldest and specialized than universal , . @@ : It's clear for me (and You). I asked about mechanism of merging. And seeing propose souris + suricate now. For why? Because they Tetrapoda :) -- ( ) [MASK] Because pair p184-p185 oldest and specialized than universal , . @@ : It's clear for me (and You). I asked about mechanism of merging. And seeing propose souris + suricate now. For why? Because they Tetrapoda :) -- ( ) Delete : redundant with . Moreover, ""student"" word does not make understand that the activity of a PhD is the one of a researcher, ""PhD candidate"" would have been more convenient -- ( ) Delete : It is true. Redundant with . -- ( ) Delete - redundant with . Many-to-one database relationships should be one-directional in Wikidata. ( ) [MASK] @ , , , : it isn't redundant, it is an opposition to that item. As Dim Grits said, is for ""teacher"", but is for student! Sincerely, ( ) @ : Of course they mean different things, that's obvious. I meant that it's a redundant database relationship. As an analogy, we don't list all the species that fall under a genus item in Wikidata, instead we list the genus from the species item. Many-to-one database relationships should be one-directional in Wikidata. ( ) Comment this may also sometimes be a many-to-many relationship as one student can have multiple advisors. -- ( ) @ : Of course they mean different things, that's obvious. I meant that it's a redundant database relationship. As an analogy, we don't list all the species that fall under a genus item in Wikidata, instead we list the genus from the species item. Many-to-one database relationships should be one-directional in Wikidata. ( ) Comment this may also sometimes be a many-to-many relationship as one student can have multiple advisors. -- ( ) Comment this may also sometimes be a many-to-many relationship as one student can have multiple advisors. -- ( ) @ , :: I realize I did not gave the international references on which I based my point, thank you for making me remind this: and do not designate the usual context of professor (or teacher) and student, since ""PhD candidates are persons professionally engaged in R&D"" (researchers) as stated in the Euraxess Charter & Code principles ( page 28-29). They details ""The term Early-Stage Researcher 19 refers to researchers in the first four years (full-time equivalent) of their research activity, including the period of research training"". This doc is endorsed by a lot of famous institutions and countries (see ). Also @ , , , , :@ , , , : Those who recently edited this property. -- ( ) Also @ : who opened a related discussion on French Bistro, and who just suggested only keeping . ( ) . Also @ : who opened a related discussion on French Bistro, and who just suggested only keeping . ( ) . [MASK] . Infoboxes about professors often include a short list of prominent doctoral students. The inverse may be sufficient to generate a list of all students who have their own Wikidata items, but this property allows further curation of who are the most important students using ranks. @ : ""PhD candidate"" and ""doctoral student"" have different boundaries (other kinds of doctorate are not included) and different universities use different names, so I wouldn't advise rescoping the property. Ok, I understand. So you would use this property for medicine doctorate for instance, I understand. Then ""doctoral candidate"" could then be much more convenient than ""doctoral student"". Do you agree? -- ( ) Probably not , but likely to include other kinds of doctorates conferred after academic study: , , and the University of Oxford which call their doctors of philosophy ""DPhil"" rather than ""PhD"". ( ) If I formulate it differently, you argue that doctoral ""student"" would be more convenient to use for medicine doctor candidate than doctoral candidate which should be used for research doctor candidate. I understand that either the difference between both people is notable and we should classify medicine doctors as students with field medicine or it is not and we should consider them as candidates. ( ) Yes, that's right. ( ) Ok, I understand. So you would use this property for medicine doctorate for instance, I understand. Then ""doctoral candidate"" could then be much more convenient than ""doctoral student"". Do you agree? -- ( ) Probably not , but likely to include other kinds of doctorates conferred after academic study: , , and the University of Oxford which call their doctors of philosophy ""DPhil"" rather than ""PhD"". ( ) If I formulate it differently, you argue that doctoral ""student"" would be more convenient to use for medicine doctor candidate than doctoral candidate which should be used for research doctor candidate. I understand that either the difference between both people is notable and we should classify medicine doctors as students with field medicine or it is not and we should consider them as candidates. ( ) Yes, that's right. ( ) Probably not , but likely to include other kinds of doctorates conferred after academic study: , , and the University of Oxford which call their doctors of philosophy ""DPhil"" rather than ""PhD"". ( ) If I formulate it differently, you argue that doctoral ""student"" would be more convenient to use for medicine doctor candidate than doctoral candidate which should be used for research doctor candidate. I understand that either the difference between both people is notable and we should classify medicine doctors as students with field medicine or it is not and we should consider them as candidates. ( ) Yes, that's right. ( ) If I formulate it differently, you argue that doctoral ""student"" would be more convenient to use for medicine doctor candidate than doctoral candidate which should be used for research doctor candidate. I understand that either the difference between both people is notable and we should classify medicine doctors as students with field medicine or it is not and we should consider them as candidates. ( ) Yes, that's right. ( ) Yes, that's right. ( ) Comment A big problem imho that also concerns has been to establish an inverse property constraint. The property would be totally valid as a way to store the main students or Phd candidates of a teacher. Currently most of the / relationships that I have filled during the past years have been also reversed (either by bot or by well-meaning users attempting to ""correct"" an apparent error) making the / information meaningless. I would agree to [MASK] this property along with if the constraint is entirely lifted. ( ) @ : I tend to agree that and should be inverse properties. Importance can be marked using rank, rather than removing unimportant (but truthful) entries. ( ) Agree too. Only mentioning ""notable"" students is IMHO too arbitrary... especially if ""notability"" isn't properly defined. ( ) . Agree too ( ) Consistency can be assured but some work is needed. We can get the same information without this property. Use this kind of property to distinguish some items of the set does not seem a good idea since the choice of each item can be discussed and different in every country, field, etc. This selection should be let to each wikipedia page imho. -- ( ) @ : I tend to agree that and should be inverse properties. Importance can be marked using rank, rather than removing unimportant (but truthful) entries. ( ) Agree too. Only mentioning ""notable"" students is IMHO too arbitrary... especially if ""notability"" isn't properly defined. ( ) . Agree too ( ) Agree too. Only mentioning ""notable"" students is IMHO too arbitrary... especially if ""notability"" isn't properly defined. ( ) . Agree too ( ) Consistency can be assured but some work is needed. We can get the same information without this property. Use this kind of property to distinguish some items of the set does not seem a good idea since the choice of each item can be discussed and different in every country, field, etc. This selection should be let to each wikipedia page imho. -- ( ) Delete as redundant. Delete A Wikipedia that only wants notable students via reverse lookup can simply only display students for which they have an article. ❪ ❫ @ : Reverse lookup is hideously difficult in Lua... It's better to have a property to curate a list of notable students separately. Many infoboxes (e.g. ) include a ""notable students"" field, which if implemented using Wikidata should be P185 with preferred rank. ( ) @ : Reverse lookup is hideously difficult in Lua... It's better to have a property to curate a list of notable students separately. Many infoboxes (e.g. ) include a ""notable students"" field, which if implemented using Wikidata should be P185 with preferred rank. ( ) [MASK] People that consider it is redundant with , may be doesn't know that is impossible to get information via backlinks from LUA module and, of course, from infoboxes and any kind of wiki templates. SPARQL is a partial solutions for the real uses of WD, nowadays. If I'm wrong and somebody has a solutions to make some kind of haswbstatement from wiki templates or LUA Modules, please just tell me. Thanks. ( ) Listeria can provide you with such lists. --- Listeria can provide you with such lists. --- Comment Not within a Infobox or any other template. Listeria must be applied article by article because it contains (written inside the SPARQL code) the specific Qid related with a specific item. So, it can't be used in a template that act with the Qid of the present article. ( ) @ : Shouldn't you change your second {{ }} to {{ }} or other suitable template, to avoid ""multiple voting"" problems? -- ( ) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC). Done , excuse me. ( ) Comment Not within a Infobox or any other template. Listeria must be applied article by article because it contains (written inside the SPARQL code) the specific Qid related with a specific item. So, it can't be used in a template that act with the Qid of the present article. ( ) @ : Shouldn't you change your second {{ }} to {{ }} or other suitable template, to avoid ""multiple voting"" problems? -- ( ) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC). Done , excuse me. ( ) Comment Not within a Infobox or any other template. Listeria must be applied article by article because it contains (written inside the SPARQL code) the specific Qid related with a specific item. So, it can't be used in a template that act with the Qid of the present article. ( ) @ : Shouldn't you change your second {{ }} to {{ }} or other suitable template, to avoid ""multiple voting"" problems? -- ( ) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC). Done , excuse me. ( ) @ : Shouldn't you change your second {{ }} to {{ }} or other suitable template, to avoid ""multiple voting"" problems? -- ( ) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC). Done , excuse me. ( ) Delete Redundant inverse. -- ( ) Neutral to [MASK] As mentioned in the deletion discussion below, I'm not so sure the breakage of ""inverse"" is a good idea based on any of the comments shared above. It was introduced once and I have a feeling it would be reintroduced. If the problem is that is overused, relevance should be enforced harder. On the other hand, I think is a better property for ""famous apprentice"". ( ) is not overused. It's just defined as an inverse of its inverse. --- is not overused. It's just defined as an inverse of its inverse. --- [MASK] At least on zhwiki, the Listeria datas can't work well, it only pollutes with English-only text, and has no easy way to translate. -- ( ) Delete or change to something more specific. Infoboxes don't show all doctoral students, do they? ( ) [MASK] At least in Vietnamese, you really can't make confusions between nghiên cứu sinh (doctoral student) and cố vấn tiến sĩ (doctoral advisor). By following these vote-deleters' comments, it looks like some users are misleaded by their wrong translations of P184 and P185, a translation review is needed, note that I've corrected the Vietnamese translations. -- I don't think the people who are saying they are redundant think they are the same thing. They are saying that the two-way database relationship is redundant. ( ) I don't think the people who are saying they are redundant think they are the same thing. They are saying that the two-way database relationship is redundant. ( ) [MASK] : useful IMHO. -- ( ) [MASK] Has language conflicts. -- This could be an additional argument for deletion. --- This could be an additional argument for deletion. --- Comment please note that for many Wikipedias it would more useful to list noteable students and postdoctoral researchers, therefore for articles about a professor it would be important to have a list of all personnel that s/he advised (students, postdocs, research associates etc). Some students switch fields after their PhD and their postdoc advisor is much more important for their career than their PhD advisor (at least in my field where long postdocs are common). Therefore it may make sense to change the categories to a advisor/advisee relationship that is more broad than doctoral student/advisor only. -- ( ) @ : this is merely for ""doctoral students"". The inverse will still be available at ""doctoral advisor"" . Correct referencing is probably more easily done on the later. --- @ : this is merely for ""doctoral students"". The inverse will still be available at ""doctoral advisor"" . Correct referencing is probably more easily done on the later. --- [MASK] - I can not see any cause for a deletion. Ofcourse such relationships are two-way-relationships. This must be always and in every data set. Either what we're doing here is serious work or not. If so - then it has to stay. If not, we can stop the whole Wikidata project. -- ( ) @ : Why would we need to repeat the inverses of thousands of ""doctoral advisor"" statements? This doesn't seem to be serious. --- @ : - we do this in a lot of other cases too. You always need also the inverse data. How should you know about it, if you can't see it? We talk about seeing and reading, not about a querry request! -- ( ) @ : frequently we don't do this when there are 1-to-many relations. Some people are even reluctant to do it when it's a 1-1 relation (or 1 to few). I'm not really sure where one would want to read the list at . How would you go about it? Where would you read it? I think one would generally query the underlying data. --- @ : Why would we need to repeat the inverses of thousands of ""doctoral advisor"" statements? This doesn't seem to be serious. --- @ : - we do this in a lot of other cases too. You always need also the inverse data. How should you know about it, if you can't see it? We talk about seeing and reading, not about a querry request! -- ( ) @ : frequently we don't do this when there are 1-to-many relations. Some people are even reluctant to do it when it's a 1-1 relation (or 1 to few). I'm not really sure where one would want to read the list at . How would you go about it? Where would you read it? I think one would generally query the underlying data. --- @ : - we do this in a lot of other cases too. You always need also the inverse data. How should you know about it, if you can't see it? We talk about seeing and reading, not about a querry request! -- ( ) @ : frequently we don't do this when there are 1-to-many relations. Some people are even reluctant to do it when it's a 1-1 relation (or 1 to few). I'm not really sure where one would want to read the list at . How would you go about it? Where would you read it? I think one would generally query the underlying data. --- @ : frequently we don't do this when there are 1-to-many relations. Some people are even reluctant to do it when it's a 1-1 relation (or 1 to few). I'm not really sure where one would want to read the list at . How would you go about it? Where would you read it? I think one would generally query the underlying data. --- [MASK] - Useful relation. Slightly different semantics between ""is/was-student-of"" and ""has/had-doctoral-student"". In an ideal world this would be a bidirectual-many-to-many-relation. In script reality this relation seems useful. Praxis example for usefulness (use-case): ""Mathematics Genealogy Project"", NDSU + Am.Math.Soc. This is what Wikipedia should have for every academic profession. Best, -- ( ) @ : The inverse is ""doctoral advisor"" . That usecase is still covered. --- @ : The inverse is ""doctoral advisor"" . That usecase is still covered. --- [MASK] Used by 35+ templates, clearly has user-case. -- ( ) [MASK] , an important property for science.-- ( ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] There are both doctoral advisors (typically professor or adjunct professor/docent) and doctoral students. Kindly note that in many fields doctoral students are not Ph.D. students, as the title awarded is not Ph.D. but e.g. Ed.D., Psy.D., Mus.D., LL.D., Eng.D., etc. -- ( ) [MASK] See my above comment at , or find a solution that covers usage on other projects like Wikipedia, namely templates and modules. -- ( ) Delete , a redundant inverse property, often causing bloat to an entry unnecessarily. A better approach would be to press developers to improve access to backlinks. — Martin ( · ) [MASK] Reverse/backlink/Listeria does not work within a Infobox or any other template. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: student_(P802): Kept . Same as for the discussion of , it seems clear that while the data is redundant, the inverse is still important for uses of the data, and it's not clear that the property could be merged with another. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Same as for the discussion of , it seems clear that while the data is redundant, the inverse is still important for uses of the data, and it's not clear that the property could be merged with another. Thanks. ( ) Delete per nomination. ( ) . Delete Idem. was originally supposed to [MASK] only the main students but has been used in practice as an inverse property for (notably after the inception of an inverse contraint). I agree that using the property properly wasn't that obvious (sources rarely differentiate the main and secondary students of a person). Anyway, it is currently cumbersome to maintain and do not bring anything new. ( ) Delete - ( ) Neutral leaning toward Delete as it's indeed redundant wuth the inverse and it's a one-to-many relationship. Pinging the top 5 users of this property: @ , , , , :. Cheers, ( ) @ : Is there any rule or recommendation against one-to-many or did I misunderstand why you mentioned that? I suppose is also one-to-many (so actually I'd say the concepts are many-to-many). Removing would supposedly remove also , but it should first be investigated what that claim means in machine understanding of the property. I think many properties do enforce inverse property today, and even if it's cumbersome to maintain it might be re-added later if we can't make clear why it shouldn't. ( ) @ : Is there any rule or recommendation against one-to-many or did I misunderstand why you mentioned that? I suppose is also one-to-many (so actually I'd say the concepts are many-to-many). Removing would supposedly remove also , but it should first be investigated what that claim means in machine understanding of the property. I think many properties do enforce inverse property today, and even if it's cumbersome to maintain it might be re-added later if we can't make clear why it shouldn't. ( ) Neutral Will somebody move the present values of P802 to P3342 ? . We access to P802 in of cawiki. I have no problem to change, but without lose the contents. Thanks, ( ) We would ask a bot. Cheers, ( ) . Let me know when this should be moved. I can create a script for this. ( ) Thanks dear Edoderoo. Well, when (and if) a reasonable consensus will be reached? Best, ( ) . Right now, nobody is against deletion (if data is moved, which is an obvious requirement to me). Lets give it some time, it's holidays season, and there is no need to rush. ( ) All right. ( ) . I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) @ : Did I misunderstand that the proposition was mainly a means to remove the less prominent/relevant student-relations. Are you suggesting to move each current claim as a first step, to prevent new students added and the ""relevance"" evaluated over time, or that the evaluation of relevance performed before the move? Isn't the problem in that case that will still be overused? @ : Did you also have feedback on these questions? ( ) @ , : When you say ""without loss"", are you disagreeing that the student property is overused or do you just want to make sure that the important students are not lost? Would it be feasible to use in infobox if that was complete enough? ( ) We would ask a bot. Cheers, ( ) . Let me know when this should be moved. I can create a script for this. ( ) Thanks dear Edoderoo. Well, when (and if) a reasonable consensus will be reached? Best, ( ) . Right now, nobody is against deletion (if data is moved, which is an obvious requirement to me). Lets give it some time, it's holidays season, and there is no need to rush. ( ) All right. ( ) . I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) Let me know when this should be moved. I can create a script for this. ( ) Thanks dear Edoderoo. Well, when (and if) a reasonable consensus will be reached? Best, ( ) . Right now, nobody is against deletion (if data is moved, which is an obvious requirement to me). Lets give it some time, it's holidays season, and there is no need to rush. ( ) All right. ( ) . I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) Thanks dear Edoderoo. Well, when (and if) a reasonable consensus will be reached? Best, ( ) . Right now, nobody is against deletion (if data is moved, which is an obvious requirement to me). Lets give it some time, it's holidays season, and there is no need to rush. ( ) All right. ( ) . I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) Right now, nobody is against deletion (if data is moved, which is an obvious requirement to me). Lets give it some time, it's holidays season, and there is no need to rush. ( ) All right. ( ) . I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) All right. ( ) . I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) I assume that the data moved will incorporate a qualifier = or similar, because P3342 is a generic property and need the person role which is implicit in the P802. Thanks ! , ( ) @ : Did I misunderstand that the proposition was mainly a means to remove the less prominent/relevant student-relations. Are you suggesting to move each current claim as a first step, to prevent new students added and the ""relevance"" evaluated over time, or that the evaluation of relevance performed before the move? Isn't the problem in that case that will still be overused? @ : Did you also have feedback on these questions? ( ) @ : Did you also have feedback on these questions? ( ) @ , : When you say ""without loss"", are you disagreeing that the student property is overused or do you just want to make sure that the important students are not lost? Would it be feasible to use in infobox if that was complete enough? ( ) @ : I understant this kind of properties actually mean ""remarkable students"", not ""all the students in his/her whole life"". So, if it has been overused, clean it is not a problem to me and even better for infoboxes, which must be a summary, not a list. However, may not be necessary to move to another property, but just clean it. My ""do not lose"" was refered to the effect of change the property, not to clean their not rellevant content. Thanks, ( ) @ : I understant this kind of properties actually mean ""remarkable students"", not ""all the students in his/her whole life"". So, if it has been overused, clean it is not a problem to me and even better for infoboxes, which must be a summary, not a list. However, may not be necessary to move to another property, but just clean it. My ""do not lose"" was refered to the effect of change the property, not to clean their not rellevant content. Thanks, ( ) @ : I understant this kind of properties actually mean ""remarkable students"", not ""all the students in his/her whole life"". So, if it has been overused, clean it is not a problem to me and even better for infoboxes, which must be a summary, not a list. However, may not be necessary to move to another property, but just clean it. My ""do not lose"" was refered to the effect of change the property, not to clean their not rellevant content. Thanks, ( ) Delete , but please make sure that no data is lost (including qualifiers and sources) during the transition. -- ( ) I made a request at , if there is no issue brought up I will do this task in the coming weeks, to finish this request afterwards. ( ) [MASK] if it's meant to be moved to a property other than . --- @ : I think it has been assumed that the inverse property is already matching, but you have a point in that this should be confirmed first. Do you agree that has been overused (for non-relevant students) and should those ""mistakes"" be transferred to by bot or removed first? I interpret your vote here as ""moving to another claim will change nothing"", but I'm unsure if you also mean ""we should instead monitor data (e.g. relevance) and clarify the usage instructions"" or ""there is no problem with current usage"". ( ) @ : I think it has been assumed that the inverse property is already matching, but you have a point in that this should be confirmed first. Do you agree that has been overused (for non-relevant students) and should those ""mistakes"" be transferred to by bot or removed first? I interpret your vote here as ""moving to another claim will change nothing"", but I'm unsure if you also mean ""we should instead monitor data (e.g. relevance) and clarify the usage instructions"" or ""there is no problem with current usage"". ( ) Delete if moved to . --- [MASK] I base this on reading the discussions here. Currently it hasn't been made clear what removal of the property would solve. I've asked for clarifications which may change my view. Current position: Monitoring data relevancy is better than making the statements more complex as a means to get less data. If ""inverse constraints"" are not to be used (always cumbersome to maintain), that should probably be a bigger discussion rather than per property. ( ) Discuss @ : Did you already have a successful case with to tell about? How did the community react to the change and what kind of bot-work was done? ( ) Please see above. ( ) . I see, so no experience yet. I suggest to not rush this change, but learn from PhD first. ( ) Please see above. ( ) . I see, so no experience yet. I suggest to not rush this change, but learn from PhD first. ( ) I see, so no experience yet. I suggest to not rush this change, but learn from PhD first. ( ) [MASK] : clearer relationship than anything else especially in relations from earlier centuries ( ) Delete Clearly-than-god no consensus to [MASK] such old-school schema. Replacement is now available. -- ( ) Delete too many, information should be stored by inverse. ( ) [MASK] nghiên cứu sinh (doctoral student) is different by sinh viên (student) in Vietnamese. -- [MASK] Has language conflicts. -- Delete per nomination. -- [MASK] Useful for historical people whose students are not PhD. -- ( ) [MASK] , an important property for science.-- ( ) [MASK] , I watched , and is valid statement-- [MASK] See my above comment at , or find a solution that covers usage on other projects like Wikipedia, namely templates and modules. -- ( ) [MASK] I use this property to record the apprenticeships of artists. - ( ) [MASK] Important to have pupils and teachers on artist items. Many fuzzy attributions are based on these relationsips. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: opponent_during_disputation_(P3323): Kept No consensus for deletion -- ( ) Kept No consensus for deletion -- ( ) Also, @ , , , , , : ( ) 18:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC). @ , , : ( ) . We debated a property called "" pro ponent during disputation"" why do we now have one called ""opponent during disputation""? Because the translation of the official term “adversariorum partes suscipient” suggests opponent.  ;) Best, ( ) The proposal mentioned no such term. Because the translation of the official term “adversariorum partes suscipient” suggests opponent.  ;) Best, ( ) The proposal mentioned no such term. The proposal mentioned no such term. [MASK] Clear counterpart to ( ) [MASK] , an important property for science. -- ( ) }} ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: has_edition_or_translation_(P747): Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this, as it's well used and the inverse is still important for uses of the data. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this, as it's well used and the inverse is still important for uses of the data. Thanks. ( ) Delete , agree. ( ) . For many books, I think things would be considerably easier if entities for such works were closer to the way lexemes work, i.e. with sub-entities for editions. The above property is a step in that direction. (Obviously, for works with many editions, the property isn't that useful). --- @ : Der Nutzen der Eigenschaft wird unter erläutert. Auf der dortigen Diskussionsseite könnte man diskutieren, falls sie überflüssig ist oder klarer beschrieben werden soll. -- ( ) @ : Es ist Konvention auf Wikidata die Diskussion, ob Eigenschaften gelöscht werden auf dieser Seite zu führen. ❪ ❫ @ : Es ist Konvention auf Wikidata die Diskussion, ob Eigenschaften gelöscht werden auf dieser Seite zu führen. ❪ ❫ @ : since when is having inverse a reason for deletion? There is ""child"" too. I don't know why inverse exists, there might be reasons, but then it should be stated why any of the reasons do not apply here. ( ) @ : Since we have had the relateditems gadget it's a reason we used to delete properties. You might want to read through the archive if you are sincerely interested. There are valid uses of unknown value (sometimes with ) and no value for . ❪ ❫ @ : ""but then it should be stated why any of the reasons do not apply here"" ( ) We don't have any policy (or general norm) that suggests the need for a long post to start a deletion discussion that goes through detailed analysis. You haven't provided any reasoning for why the tradeoffs of introducing a new norm are worthwhile here. ❪ ❫ @ : Since we have had the relateditems gadget it's a reason we used to delete properties. You might want to read through the archive if you are sincerely interested. There are valid uses of unknown value (sometimes with ) and no value for . ❪ ❫ @ : ""but then it should be stated why any of the reasons do not apply here"" ( ) @ : ""but then it should be stated why any of the reasons do not apply here"" ( ) We don't have any policy (or general norm) that suggests the need for a long post to start a deletion discussion that goes through detailed analysis. You haven't provided any reasoning for why the tradeoffs of introducing a new norm are worthwhile here. ❪ ❫ We don't have any policy (or general norm) that suggests the need for a long post to start a deletion discussion that goes through detailed analysis. You haven't provided any reasoning for why the tradeoffs of introducing a new norm are worthwhile here. ❪ ❫ We don't have any policy (or general norm) that suggests the need for a long post to start a deletion discussion that goes through detailed analysis. You haven't provided any reasoning for why the tradeoffs of introducing a new norm are worthwhile here. ❪ ❫ Delete . -- @ : For the time being, I would be hesitant to support the deletion of this property. The property should eventually no longer be necessary, but there isn't yet sufficient support within other parts of MediaWiki for handling object-to-subject queries (even though Wikidata itself and third-party reusers would not be adversely affected by its deletion). As such, since inverse properties may still be used by other Wikimedia projects, I would suggest waiting until and have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. Are there any properties which have already been [MASK] due to being inverse properties? ( ) [MASK] I agree with Jc86035, until the Wikibase datastructure changegs, this should not be [MASK]. I also don't like this redundancy, but I think we need to wait. ( ) Temporary [MASK] per Jc86035, needs technical changes before deletion. -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Temporary [MASK] per Jc86035. -- [MASK] I am not a big fan of inverse properties, but this one is reasonably populated and mainly used by 9+ templates across multiple wikis. Is there any alternative for these templates? -- ( ) [MASK] . Very useful. How to easily find editions of some book from other edition? e.g. how to find of from ? see also . ( ) Neutral . Think this makes sense here though I guess I can see how it is a bad crutch ... so neutral. ( ) [MASK] As long as complementary properties do not automatically work on both sides, it is necessary to mirror them in the inverse property. -- ( ) [MASK] Deleting it would be premature. Why rush? ( ) [MASK] per Jklamo and ŠJů ( ) Comment having to add both sides of any inverse relationship is a PITA, and having the ability to add a linkage from either side is a far better means, unidirectional only means will suck, especially when you are usually creating the item on the other side of a relationship.  — [MASK] until we implement a project wide policy of not having any bidirectional properties, this deletion request seems really arbitrary since it's just as useful as any other. ( ) [MASK] at the moment, there is no efficient way to query the reverse property efficiently for sister projects... -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: mountain_range_(P4552): Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Previous RFD: [MASK] . It's just a way too important property for all sorts of items. ( ) [MASK] until better ways of retrieving and filtering statements are developed on wikis ( ) [MASK] Not used in at the English Wikipedia but referenced at its documentation. Please discuss at the first. -- ( ) [MASK] This is a very important property for various items(glaciers comes to mind), so before merging it with another property lets open a discussion on the talk page and ping relevant projects. ( ) [MASK] as discussed above -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P7335_(P7335): Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Why delete a valid property? The data is potentially useful for joining to other databases or through archives. [MASK] but deprecate. ( ) Marked as . -- ( ) [MASK] It's useful to see which games that were available on Twitch vs Mixer.-- ( ) What are you opposed to, ? Against deletion {{ }} or against property {{ }} . — ( ) What are you opposed to, ? Against deletion {{ }} or against property {{ }} . — ( ) Comment @ , , : Please read the description of . Your opinions leave me a little skeptical. — ( ) @ : And why your comment isn't? I just added such a mark, if you think I did wrong, why not revert me? And I have no opinions on vd or not this. -- ( ) @ : The statement on that page re: deletion is bad and I doubt represents policy or concensus or even was the result of discussion. Don't delete possibly useful data. ( ) @ : And why your comment isn't? I just added such a mark, if you think I did wrong, why not revert me? And I have no opinions on vd or not this. -- ( ) @ : The statement on that page re: deletion is bad and I doubt represents policy or concensus or even was the result of discussion. Don't delete possibly useful data. ( ) Delete per nomination. See also a with YouTube Gaming shutdown. Regards ( ) @ : Would your opinion change if I told you a large amount of mixer is ? ( ) Unfortunately, not really. Well, there are some incomprehensible links that you provided, I have opened them and nothing has changed, since there is no link to the archive itself, only some incomprehensible files that need to be downloaded to my PC ... What are they for and how can they help Wikidata? As for the site itself, Mixer (just like ) simply offered the user nothing more than a streaming service. So the question is, why should we have empty links to defunct streaming service? I would understand if this happened to site, since archived links to it would contain a lot of useful information for Wikidata ( ), but in the case of Mixer on the contrary, just empty links which once led to a streaming service, but now they no longer work and are no longer needed, so yeah, I am not changing my opinion at this point and still think this property should be removed. Regards ( ) The files you didn't download are and the primary way websites are archived in bulk. Why should we have links to a dead site? We shouldn't. We should remove the links. But the identifiers remain meaningful (they provide meaning to those archives and allow us to join to other databases that may have stored Mixer game ids). Still nobody has explained what harm these identifiers are doing. I mean what value did you think having this identifier provided when the website was up? It's the same value now except you have to go to the WARC files. ( ) @ : Would your opinion change if I told you a large amount of mixer is ? ( ) Unfortunately, not really. Well, there are some incomprehensible links that you provided, I have opened them and nothing has changed, since there is no link to the archive itself, only some incomprehensible files that need to be downloaded to my PC ... What are they for and how can they help Wikidata? As for the site itself, Mixer (just like ) simply offered the user nothing more than a streaming service. So the question is, why should we have empty links to defunct streaming service? I would understand if this happened to site, since archived links to it would contain a lot of useful information for Wikidata ( ), but in the case of Mixer on the contrary, just empty links which once led to a streaming service, but now they no longer work and are no longer needed, so yeah, I am not changing my opinion at this point and still think this property should be removed. Regards ( ) The files you didn't download are and the primary way websites are archived in bulk. Why should we have links to a dead site? We shouldn't. We should remove the links. But the identifiers remain meaningful (they provide meaning to those archives and allow us to join to other databases that may have stored Mixer game ids). Still nobody has explained what harm these identifiers are doing. I mean what value did you think having this identifier provided when the website was up? It's the same value now except you have to go to the WARC files. ( ) Unfortunately, not really. Well, there are some incomprehensible links that you provided, I have opened them and nothing has changed, since there is no link to the archive itself, only some incomprehensible files that need to be downloaded to my PC ... What are they for and how can they help Wikidata? As for the site itself, Mixer (just like ) simply offered the user nothing more than a streaming service. So the question is, why should we have empty links to defunct streaming service? I would understand if this happened to site, since archived links to it would contain a lot of useful information for Wikidata ( ), but in the case of Mixer on the contrary, just empty links which once led to a streaming service, but now they no longer work and are no longer needed, so yeah, I am not changing my opinion at this point and still think this property should be removed. Regards ( ) The files you didn't download are and the primary way websites are archived in bulk. Why should we have links to a dead site? We shouldn't. We should remove the links. But the identifiers remain meaningful (they provide meaning to those archives and allow us to join to other databases that may have stored Mixer game ids). Still nobody has explained what harm these identifiers are doing. I mean what value did you think having this identifier provided when the website was up? It's the same value now except you have to go to the WARC files. ( ) The files you didn't download are and the primary way websites are archived in bulk. Why should we have links to a dead site? We shouldn't. We should remove the links. But the identifiers remain meaningful (they provide meaning to those archives and allow us to join to other databases that may have stored Mixer game ids). Still nobody has explained what harm these identifiers are doing. I mean what value did you think having this identifier provided when the website was up? It's the same value now except you have to go to the WARC files. ( ) Neutral {{ }} Why skeptical? Why is this property valid if it no longer fulfills the function for which it was created, ? Which database will use Wikidata IDs for a closed site, ? Can we still see games available on Mixer to compare them to another site, ? When a site is closed therefore the property attached to the site is obsolete: Label, P1630, Base URL… and Q60457486. Consensus and discussion are the basis of the preliminary debate to the creation of the property, and serve as a policy. What is rightly debated is whether the ""data is possibly useful"". As these are external ids, you need to have archives. The link to your archive.org page consists of meta-information and are not saved pages that can be used to replace property IDs. And although archives can be found, this was a site offering streaming… whose server is also on the SLD. So an archive will go to an empty page of interesting content, but filled with advertising. Clearly unnecessary. So deletion is the only solution, there is no mysterious utility. Cordially. — ( ) @ : Respectfully you are mistaken. The link to the archive.org data I provided is not just meta-information. It is saved pages. If anyone goes through those archives they will be glad we didn't delete this property. Further, I'm unclear what value deleting this property achieves or what harm keeping it does. The value of an external identifier is not merely the URL it takes you to (as evidenced by the identifiers that have no URL). ( ) Hello Ok. Let's say I'm looking for infos (Item taken completely at random, but valid in most cases) that was available on Mixer, where can I find it? Please. — ( ) @ : To find a particular video game I would have to download the entire corpus from the archive which I'm not doing for you (it's much more than 1TB). But I downloaded one at random and looked for game ids. The downloads of the channel information from mixer includes the ID of the game currently being played (in this case it was 70323= ). You can replicate this by downloading this 8GB file and searching for ""70323"" to find all the linked data. If you downloaded any warc file though it would be evident it's not just metadata as you claimed. ( ) I can not do better — ( ) @ : Respectfully you are mistaken. The link to the archive.org data I provided is not just meta-information. It is saved pages. If anyone goes through those archives they will be glad we didn't delete this property. Further, I'm unclear what value deleting this property achieves or what harm keeping it does. The value of an external identifier is not merely the URL it takes you to (as evidenced by the identifiers that have no URL). ( ) Hello Ok. Let's say I'm looking for infos (Item taken completely at random, but valid in most cases) that was available on Mixer, where can I find it? Please. — ( ) @ : To find a particular video game I would have to download the entire corpus from the archive which I'm not doing for you (it's much more than 1TB). But I downloaded one at random and looked for game ids. The downloads of the channel information from mixer includes the ID of the game currently being played (in this case it was 70323= ). You can replicate this by downloading this 8GB file and searching for ""70323"" to find all the linked data. If you downloaded any warc file though it would be evident it's not just metadata as you claimed. ( ) I can not do better — ( ) Hello Ok. Let's say I'm looking for infos (Item taken completely at random, but valid in most cases) that was available on Mixer, where can I find it? Please. — ( ) @ : To find a particular video game I would have to download the entire corpus from the archive which I'm not doing for you (it's much more than 1TB). But I downloaded one at random and looked for game ids. The downloads of the channel information from mixer includes the ID of the game currently being played (in this case it was 70323= ). You can replicate this by downloading this 8GB file and searching for ""70323"" to find all the linked data. If you downloaded any warc file though it would be evident it's not just metadata as you claimed. ( ) I can not do better — ( ) @ : To find a particular video game I would have to download the entire corpus from the archive which I'm not doing for you (it's much more than 1TB). But I downloaded one at random and looked for game ids. The downloads of the channel information from mixer includes the ID of the game currently being played (in this case it was 70323= ). You can replicate this by downloading this 8GB file and searching for ""70323"" to find all the linked data. If you downloaded any warc file though it would be evident it's not just metadata as you claimed. ( ) I can not do better — ( ) I can not do better — ( ) Tend to [MASK] since their values are archived by archive.org, which may give a way to replace its URL scheme. -- ( ) Comment There seems to be decent archiving in the Wayback machine, so I went ahead and added a accordingly. ( ) [MASK] unless it shouldn't have been added in the first place --- [MASK] : it can still be used to extract data from the internet archive. -- ( ) [MASK] If the deceased don't lose their names even when those names fall out of use centuries later, why should we deny an association between former users and their previously associated Mixer ids? If anything, I will argue that this information is necessary to not only link further information, but also to be able to identify previous information such as clips from the , a point which was already raised by and ( ) ( ). ( ) [MASK] Mixer was an important piece of video game streaming history, I don't think we should delete the data just because the website is down. ( ) [MASK] Dead website should be never a valid reason for deleting a property. Better solutions exists as proposed above. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: political_ideology_(P1142): Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) I don't think it doublicates it. is not a world-view in the sense and are. The example are along what German law considers as the religion/world view category and is not that kind of thing. doesn't subclass and shouldn't. ❪ ❫ Ahem. Does this new property only apply to German law? ( ) . Do you think there are other cases where both of those things get bundled together? ❪ ❫ Ahem. Does this new property only apply to German law? ( ) . Do you think there are other cases where both of those things get bundled together? ❪ ❫ Do you think there are other cases where both of those things get bundled together? ❪ ❫ [MASK] Not a duplicate; the new property better handles things that were abuses of for non-political philosophies. ( ) [MASK] , not a duplicate. ( ) [MASK] . may comprise complex ideologies. For instance, Alice is a Christian nationalist. Bob is a Christian Socialist. Charlie is a Social Democrat. Bob and Charlie ought to share a property Alice does not share, and reflects this more appropriately. [MASK] This is a meaningful property, is unclear and conflates (frequently) different concepts. ( ) [MASK] Per . -- ( ) [MASK] per . -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: religion_or_worldview_(P140): Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) the proposer of specifically said they didn't want this [MASK] saying ""P140 is more appropriate e.g. when describing places of worship, because a marginal number of them are agnostic or atheist. P1142 is based on the clearly-defined same-name class Q12909644 and I would not consider it redundant."" Some other commenters on the property creation discussion explicitly wanted to [MASK] these. I think this new property was probably a mistake because we don't have clear picture of what we're doing now. ( ) [MASK] Not a duplicate, the new property better handles things that are philosophies and not religions. ( ) Comment Assuming that the reason for differentiating between this property and is so that this one can be used for places of worship, I would suggest that "" for the religion or denomination "" more clearly expresses the function of this property (and would more clearly differentiate the two properties). I've added ""denomination"" here because sometimes the values for this property are not religions but subdivisions of ones – , , etc. ( ) [MASK] , not a duplicate, but an important property for religious buildings and structures, and for other aspects too. ( ) [MASK] widely in use in several templates and modules at some Wikipedias. -- ( ) [MASK] Serves a clear purpose in infoboxes. The difference between religion and political affiliation is meaningful for most of the biographies that use them. ( ) [MASK] This is a meaningful property, is unclear and conflates (frequently) different concepts. ( ) [MASK] is not exactly the same. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: political_alignment_(P1387): Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Clear consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) definitely [MASK] here. this property is very narrowly scoped. ( ) [MASK] . This property has a very narrow scope as you can see in the and is useful for it. ( ) [MASK] , not a duplicate. ( ) [MASK] This is a meaningful property, is unclear and conflates (frequently) different concepts. ( ) [MASK] . The scope is clear, and actually better defined that that of -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: liturgical_rank_(P9002): Kept . Consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) The creation is still in process (as you can see, obviously not all steps of the creation process have been completed, yet) and there were no outstanding issues on a months-old proposal. I would argue all four creation criteria were met in this case, and the proposal was mentioned in multiple other places over the course of the past half year to seek further input. -- ( ) please ask a property creator to look into it once issues are sorted out. --- It would be helpful to know which issues are outstanding. On the proposal itself none were raised, bar a question whether this property could be used for other religions where applicable, and this question was affirmed. I will delete the property if there is indeed an issue left that I have missed. -- ( ) The issue of how this property behaves outside of Christian tradition seems to be open. ❪ ❫ As already pointed out twice it is applicable for every religion which has a similar concept of religious feasts. I'd like to add that this is a nonproblem simply by the fact that no other religion is known to have such a sophisticated liturgy. – Yes, seconded - I don't know others that would need it, but I also don't see a problem with them using it. -- Apriori I think it's possible that while other religions not have the same concept of religious feasts as Christianity, they have similar holy days that are somehow labeled with something like a rang. Narrowing this to religious feasts when another religion doesn't think of their holy days as being about feasts can complicate reuse. That's why it makes sense to look at the needs of other religions before creating the property. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- It would be helpful to know which issues are outstanding. On the proposal itself none were raised, bar a question whether this property could be used for other religions where applicable, and this question was affirmed. I will delete the property if there is indeed an issue left that I have missed. -- ( ) The issue of how this property behaves outside of Christian tradition seems to be open. ❪ ❫ As already pointed out twice it is applicable for every religion which has a similar concept of religious feasts. I'd like to add that this is a nonproblem simply by the fact that no other religion is known to have such a sophisticated liturgy. – Yes, seconded - I don't know others that would need it, but I also don't see a problem with them using it. -- Apriori I think it's possible that while other religions not have the same concept of religious feasts as Christianity, they have similar holy days that are somehow labeled with something like a rang. Narrowing this to religious feasts when another religion doesn't think of their holy days as being about feasts can complicate reuse. That's why it makes sense to look at the needs of other religions before creating the property. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- The issue of how this property behaves outside of Christian tradition seems to be open. ❪ ❫ As already pointed out twice it is applicable for every religion which has a similar concept of religious feasts. I'd like to add that this is a nonproblem simply by the fact that no other religion is known to have such a sophisticated liturgy. – Yes, seconded - I don't know others that would need it, but I also don't see a problem with them using it. -- Apriori I think it's possible that while other religions not have the same concept of religious feasts as Christianity, they have similar holy days that are somehow labeled with something like a rang. Narrowing this to religious feasts when another religion doesn't think of their holy days as being about feasts can complicate reuse. That's why it makes sense to look at the needs of other religions before creating the property. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- As already pointed out twice it is applicable for every religion which has a similar concept of religious feasts. I'd like to add that this is a nonproblem simply by the fact that no other religion is known to have such a sophisticated liturgy. – Yes, seconded - I don't know others that would need it, but I also don't see a problem with them using it. -- Apriori I think it's possible that while other religions not have the same concept of religious feasts as Christianity, they have similar holy days that are somehow labeled with something like a rang. Narrowing this to religious feasts when another religion doesn't think of their holy days as being about feasts can complicate reuse. That's why it makes sense to look at the needs of other religions before creating the property. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- Yes, seconded - I don't know others that would need it, but I also don't see a problem with them using it. -- Apriori I think it's possible that while other religions not have the same concept of religious feasts as Christianity, they have similar holy days that are somehow labeled with something like a rang. Narrowing this to religious feasts when another religion doesn't think of their holy days as being about feasts can complicate reuse. That's why it makes sense to look at the needs of other religions before creating the property. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- Apriori I think it's possible that while other religions not have the same concept of religious feasts as Christianity, they have similar holy days that are somehow labeled with something like a rang. Narrowing this to religious feasts when another religion doesn't think of their holy days as being about feasts can complicate reuse. That's why it makes sense to look at the needs of other religions before creating the property. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- We are not discussing about here, which references ""feast days"". We are talking about an additional aspect for this already existing, widely used property. If such a hypothetical calendar of another religion comes up, they can use ""liturgical rank"" as well. If the term ""liturgical rank"" is not fit for them, it can surely be changed to something more general ( is however already not a Christianity-specific term). -- [MASK] There were 2 supporting comments in the proposal discussion, although neither one used the support template to express that, which is unusual. was one of the two, however, so should have requested the proposal be created by an independent property creator. Please check how other property creations are done before creating another one, thanks. ( ) @ : I don't think that comments from people who don't know the property creation process well enough to use the support template should be seen as demonstrating consensus for creation when there are people who are familiar with our process that still point to open issues. Our policy does say ""i.e. an opposing voice with no thought behind it should not block creation, but a single reasonable opposing voice against many supporters may do so"". ❪ ❫ @ : But there weren't any opposing voices either, reasonable or unreasonable. All questions raised had been addressed. Not sure what your point is here. ( ) @ : I don't think that comments from people who don't know the property creation process well enough to use the support template should be seen as demonstrating consensus for creation when there are people who are familiar with our process that still point to open issues. Our policy does say ""i.e. an opposing voice with no thought behind it should not block creation, but a single reasonable opposing voice against many supporters may do so"". ❪ ❫ @ : But there weren't any opposing voices either, reasonable or unreasonable. All questions raised had been addressed. Not sure what your point is here. ( ) @ : But there weren't any opposing voices either, reasonable or unreasonable. All questions raised had been addressed. Not sure what your point is here. ( ) For ease of access, is the original proposal. -- [MASK] as one of the supporting persons in the proposal. Also I fail to see any open issues – ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P3043_(P3043): Consensus that this identifier can be [MASK] without loss of information — Martin ( · ) Consensus that this identifier can be [MASK] without loss of information — Martin ( · ) Delete on this and the others - but you should probably not remove id's until there's a consensus reached here. ( ) A little [MASK] , please confirm that if there's online archives (e.g. from archive.org) for Scoresway.com or not. -- ( ) @ : Soccerway.com covers all the soccer (football) articles with the exact same content +updates, so online archives are not needed here. ( ) @ , : A ping without a new ~~~~ is not a ping. — ( ) Delete By my recent searching of archive.org, there's indeed no archives of those URLs. -- ( ) @ : Soccerway.com covers all the soccer (football) articles with the exact same content +updates, so online archives are not needed here. ( ) @ , : A ping without a new ~~~~ is not a ping. — ( ) Delete By my recent searching of archive.org, there's indeed no archives of those URLs. -- ( ) @ , : A ping without a new ~~~~ is not a ping. — ( ) Delete By my recent searching of archive.org, there's indeed no archives of those URLs. -- ( ) [MASK] 72000 uses. --- @ : What's the point when Soccerway ID covers it 100% (I've checked the archived pages). The ID's are even the same. added Soccerway ID's to all that had Scoresway ID's. So no information is lost here and archives not needed. But he also did the opposite - adding Scoresway ID's based on their Soccerway ID's, I don't know why. ( ) I added IDs for and since any player with one of those should have the other, until such time as the Scoresway property is [MASK] (if it is [MASK]). -- ( ) @ : What's the point when Soccerway ID covers it 100% (I've checked the archived pages). The ID's are even the same. added Soccerway ID's to all that had Scoresway ID's. So no information is lost here and archives not needed. But he also did the opposite - adding Scoresway ID's based on their Soccerway ID's, I don't know why. ( ) I added IDs for and since any player with one of those should have the other, until such time as the Scoresway property is [MASK] (if it is [MASK]). -- ( ) I added IDs for and since any player with one of those should have the other, until such time as the Scoresway property is [MASK] (if it is [MASK]). -- ( ) Delete , after ensuring that all entities with the Scoresway property have the equivalent Soccerway property and any templates using Scoresway are updated to use Soccerway. Both websites were/are owned by Perform Group and displayed the same data. The main difference was that Scoresway used a common formatter URL for players, managers, and referees (www.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=person&id=$1) while Soccerway uses different URLs (int.soccerway.com/players/$1/, int.soccerway.com/coaches/$1/, int.soccerway.com/referees/$1/). The old Scoresway player URLs such as now redirect to the main Soccerway.com page (not the player page). On a related note, it might make sense to add new properties for Soccerway coach/manager ID and Soccerway referee ID, similar to how Soccerbase has , , and . -- ( ) Delete ( ) [MASK] The benefit is in being able to resolve the identifier, not just the linked content. @ : It's already confirmed unable to resolve this identifier. -- ( ) Not so; if a user has the ID value ""783"", they can currently access Wikidata to resolve that value to . If we delete the property, that will no longer be the case. @ : It's already confirmed unable to resolve this identifier. -- ( ) Not so; if a user has the ID value ""783"", they can currently access Wikidata to resolve that value to . If we delete the property, that will no longer be the case. Not so; if a user has the ID value ""783"", they can currently access Wikidata to resolve that value to . If we delete the property, that will no longer be the case. One of the properties should be [MASK], however the text portion of Soccerway IDs are meaningless and not necessary (as shown by the current URL for ). Therefore, I believe any items with but not should have the ID transferred over, and then should be [MASK]. This would make Soccerway IDs far easier to work with (for example in queries), as sometimes the text portion of Soccerway IDs are trimmed or malformed when imported to . ( ) Delete and should be merged with and as explained by S.A. Julio the text portion should be removed from the id. Instead the format URL of the current should be used. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: coordinates_of_depicted_place_(P9149): Withdrawn . This isn't going anywhere. Thanks. ( ) Withdrawn . This isn't going anywhere. Thanks. ( ) The proposal has been open for nearly 3 months. Nominating properties for deletion on the same day the property was created is bad practice and disruptive. So I'm closing this one. No please. Those previous ones were disruptive too. Appeals at . ( ) @ : I posted there yesterday, there has been no response. You created the property, you can't unilaterally close the discussion here, hence why I'm re-opening it. If you want me to stop, try answering the alternative solution I raised here? Thanks. ( ) @ : I posted there yesterday, there has been no response. You created the property, you can't unilaterally close the discussion here, hence why I'm re-opening it. If you want me to stop, try answering the alternative solution I raised here? Thanks. ( ) I personally find this property useful, especially on Wikimedia Commons. There you can specify both the camera position and the object position. Using the property ... you now have the option of specifying both positions in the ""image data object"". [MASK] -- ( ) @ : The camera position makes sense, as that's arbitrary. But the object location isn't - you'll want to say that the image depicts the object anyway, so why not just create an item for it and use , rather than unnecessarily duplicating data? Thanks. ( ) @ : The camera position makes sense, as that's arbitrary. But the object location isn't - you'll want to say that the image depicts the object anyway, so why not just create an item for it and use , rather than unnecessarily duplicating data? Thanks. ( ) @ : That is your opinion. I also like the property . In addition, it is not the case with every image that the object coordinates are the same as the coordinates in the data object. Simply for the reason that objects are divided into various sub-objects, which, however, do not deserve their own data object. -- ( ) Except you don't want to always create an item for it. e.g. If someone takes a picture of a tree in the middle of a field, they can say it depicts a tree without having to create an item for that specific tree. Take , for example, the tree is clearly visible on satellite images and its coordinates could be added. - ( ) @ : That is your opinion. I also like the property . In addition, it is not the case with every image that the object coordinates are the same as the coordinates in the data object. Simply for the reason that objects are divided into various sub-objects, which, however, do not deserve their own data object. -- ( ) Except you don't want to always create an item for it. e.g. If someone takes a picture of a tree in the middle of a field, they can say it depicts a tree without having to create an item for that specific tree. Take , for example, the tree is clearly visible on satellite images and its coordinates could be added. - ( ) @ : That is your opinion. I also like the property . In addition, it is not the case with every image that the object coordinates are the same as the coordinates in the data object. Simply for the reason that objects are divided into various sub-objects, which, however, do not deserve their own data object. -- ( ) Except you don't want to always create an item for it. e.g. If someone takes a picture of a tree in the middle of a field, they can say it depicts a tree without having to create an item for that specific tree. Take , for example, the tree is clearly visible on satellite images and its coordinates could be added. - ( ) [MASK] Let's take a painting of the eifel tower located in a London art gallery: - Coords somewhere near the Eifel tower - Coords somewhere in London - Coords where to photo of the painting was made - Coords somewhere near the Eifel tower - Coords somewhere in London - Coords where to photo of the painting was made The data object does not have the same coords at the object it depicts. -- ( ) [MASK] Not everything depicted should have an item so the argument for deletion falls. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Track_and_Field_Statistics_male_athlete_ID_(P3925): Cannot be merged — Martin ( · ) Cannot be merged — Martin ( · ) Notified Oppose I would vote for merge, but first we should find where is used . This property is not just for Wikidata. If both properties were merged, the, the it should be unisex. -- ( ) Support with unisex renaming. If some Wikipedia use in some modules they use in this modules too. ( ) Support with rename to Track and Field Statistics athlete ID at merged property. I assumed these were distinct and split by gender, but all indications are the ID alone is unique for athletes at this site. ( ) Consensus to merge the data and delete the duplicate property — Martin ( · ) Reopened discussion. It seems that the gender is required. relates to but relates to someone called John Kilpatrick — Martin ( · ) @ , , , : — Martin ( · ) This completely changes everything. I vote for [MASK] both properties. ( ) Agreed to end this discussion. The original basis for merging is not true. ( ) This is weird, given that my original examples ( , , and also ) still work, so it can't be a recent change to their system. But either way, I agree with aborting the merger under these circumstances. -- ( ) Reopened discussion. It seems that the gender is required. relates to but relates to someone called John Kilpatrick — Martin ( · ) @ , , , : — Martin ( · ) This completely changes everything. I vote for [MASK] both properties. ( ) Agreed to end this discussion. The original basis for merging is not true. ( ) This is weird, given that my original examples ( , , and also ) still work, so it can't be a recent change to their system. But either way, I agree with aborting the merger under these circumstances. -- ( ) This completely changes everything. I vote for [MASK] both properties. ( ) Agreed to end this discussion. The original basis for merging is not true. ( ) This is weird, given that my original examples ( , , and also ) still work, so it can't be a recent change to their system. But either way, I agree with aborting the merger under these circumstances. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: TV.com_ID_(P2638): Kept . Consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) [MASK] This is not a valid reason for deletion, since the identifiewr still exists, and broken links can be linked to archived version (if exists). -- ( ) [MASK] I think this property is still helpful when it was popular and gains a lot of uses. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: ancestral_home_(P66): Kept . Consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) Kept . Consensus to [MASK] this. Thanks. ( ) @ : There seems to be a need for the property, at least in the form it was originally envisioned (but properties may evolve in their scope). If you don’t like how it’s used, start a discussion about correct usage and after a proper discussion require references per property constraint and/or start to delete dubious statements. -- ( ) [MASK] Doesn't seem to be another way to document this information ( ) [MASK] The information is important for Chinese people. Most Chinese people have this property described in serious sources without mentioning . Incorrect usages of the property can be removed. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P5326_(P5326): [MASK] Consensus for deletion. ( ) [MASK] Consensus for deletion. ( ) Delete - This property was never a good idea. -- ( ) Delete discussion supporting this seems clear. ( ) Delete -- ( ) @ , , , : it seems that this property should be [MASK]. Could you remove the 33 of this property so that we can delete the property? ( ) @ : Done I removed it and replaced it where it was necessary. It is not used anymore. ( ) @ : Done I removed it and replaced it where it was necessary. It is not used anymore. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P10089_(P10089): [MASK] Consensus for deletion. ( ) [MASK] Consensus for deletion. ( ) Delete re-create when ready/needed. Do not create properties to ""not use"". --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10083: Not [MASK] No opposition to this property other than from the proposer. - ( ) Not [MASK] No opposition to this property other than from the proposer. - ( ) [MASK] The only expressed concern was something from Jura about copyright violations, which doesn't seem to be a relevant issue in this case. ( ) [MASK] Jura's claim that the website „mainly host[s] copyvios and the like“ was not elaborated even after being asked on the proposal page and excluding sites merely because they have ""wiki"" in their name or because they share the same topic as another site with ""wiki"" in its name feels arbitrary to me. -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P1849_(P1849): [MASK] — Martin ( · ) [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Delete The usage of this planned according the property proposal seems complicated and is obviously not what people are doing with it (the few times it has been used). Given 's assessment above it does not seem worth keeping around here. ( ) Delete per the above. Delete it of no value, as leads us nowhere. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: inception_(P571): Consensus to [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Consensus to [MASK] — Martin ( · ) @ this may be of-interest since I saw your recent edits on the properties. ( ) I was about to say what I think the difference is, then I saw that says ""an item begins to exist"" in the description and now I have no idea what the difference is supposed to be. Though WRT the ""more specific item"" things for something like a film: would that not just be → or whatever, plus the relevant qualifier of ? ( ) Hello, those properties do not have the same scope : is a property for statements , indicating when the (non-living) item begins to exist. -> for living items, use is a property for qualifiers , indicating when the statement begins to be true not created Hello, those properties do not have the same scope : is a property for statements , indicating when the (non-living) item begins to exist. -> for living items, use is a property for qualifiers , indicating when the statement begins to be true not created is a property for statements , indicating when the (non-living) item begins to exist. -> for living items, use is a property for qualifiers , indicating when the statement begins to be true not created @ That property is dedicated to the date of birth of humans. Merging it would completely destroy that definition because values of the start times non-human would be added. ( ) @ that's I thought, but it's not what actually says in its description: it says ""an item begins to exist"", which is what I thought was for. ( ) @ That property is dedicated to the date of birth of humans. Merging it would completely destroy that definition because values of the start times non-human would be added. ( ) @ that's I thought, but it's not what actually says in its description: it says ""an item begins to exist"", which is what I thought was for. ( ) [MASK] immediately Not at all, @ :. I think this property has already been proposed for deletion on the same theme… or some have already thought of deleting it. When you look at , you see that it is essential to have these 2 props, because there are indeed 2 different dates: approved in 1992 and the first took place from 6 February 1993 . @ , : will tell you a bit more about it. I went after them on the property because there was a constraint violation that I ignored for quite some time. Let us not forget that a qualifier qualifies a value and not the Item. It is therefore necessary to have 2 properties in the statements. Cordially. — ( ) @ is supposed to represent a series of days, not the motion by the to start recognizing those days. Therefore, the appropriate start time is just the day that series of days started. If you want say how that series of days started, you should create an item that represents the motion to start recognizing those set of days and use the current value there. ( ) A start date also implies an end date. We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". This is where the concept is different. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. — ( ) @ We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". That's why you would use on a foundation item. Not inception/start time. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Actually we can. Additionally, making an item for such a motion could have other benefits such as describing who voted on the motion. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. I don't really understand what you're saying here... Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. As humans, yes, we can infer what those properties are describing. However, machines can't. Every property should have an exact definition and usage. Otherwise they're going to be used in a conflated situation like in the example you gave and make the data very inconsistent between other items and hard to interpret for machines. ( ) Well in that case, @ :, you want WD to be no longer a db, but a list of Items! Foolish I think. — ( ) ps : There is the same debate for the images. Yes, we could [MASK] that date and add qualifiers, but in this case, we would have to [MASK] only date and remove all the other date (time) type properties. I think we can debate for a long time. At the end, we will end up with date of string type as on BNF… — ( ) @ How is a data model like this not reasonable? 1992 Saami Conference ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ I think I know what you're talking about and I likely actually agree with using qualifiers on images, but can you share an example? ( ) approved in 1992 and the first took place from 6 February 1993 . @ , : will tell you a bit more about it. I went after them on the property because there was a constraint violation that I ignored for quite some time. Let us not forget that a qualifier qualifies a value and not the Item. It is therefore necessary to have 2 properties in the statements. Cordially. — ( ) @ is supposed to represent a series of days, not the motion by the to start recognizing those days. Therefore, the appropriate start time is just the day that series of days started. If you want say how that series of days started, you should create an item that represents the motion to start recognizing those set of days and use the current value there. ( ) A start date also implies an end date. We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". This is where the concept is different. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. — ( ) @ We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". That's why you would use on a foundation item. Not inception/start time. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Actually we can. Additionally, making an item for such a motion could have other benefits such as describing who voted on the motion. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. I don't really understand what you're saying here... Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. As humans, yes, we can infer what those properties are describing. However, machines can't. Every property should have an exact definition and usage. Otherwise they're going to be used in a conflated situation like in the example you gave and make the data very inconsistent between other items and hard to interpret for machines. ( ) Well in that case, @ :, you want WD to be no longer a db, but a list of Items! Foolish I think. — ( ) ps : There is the same debate for the images. Yes, we could [MASK] that date and add qualifiers, but in this case, we would have to [MASK] only date and remove all the other date (time) type properties. I think we can debate for a long time. At the end, we will end up with date of string type as on BNF… — ( ) @ How is a data model like this not reasonable? 1992 Saami Conference ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ I think I know what you're talking about and I likely actually agree with using qualifiers on images, but can you share an example? ( ) A start date also implies an end date. We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". This is where the concept is different. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. — ( ) @ We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". That's why you would use on a foundation item. Not inception/start time. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Actually we can. Additionally, making an item for such a motion could have other benefits such as describing who voted on the motion. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. I don't really understand what you're saying here... Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. As humans, yes, we can infer what those properties are describing. However, machines can't. Every property should have an exact definition and usage. Otherwise they're going to be used in a conflated situation like in the example you gave and make the data very inconsistent between other items and hard to interpret for machines. ( ) Well in that case, @ :, you want WD to be no longer a db, but a list of Items! Foolish I think. — ( ) ps : There is the same debate for the images. Yes, we could [MASK] that date and add qualifiers, but in this case, we would have to [MASK] only date and remove all the other date (time) type properties. I think we can debate for a long time. At the end, we will end up with date of string type as on BNF… — ( ) @ How is a data model like this not reasonable? 1992 Saami Conference ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ I think I know what you're talking about and I likely actually agree with using qualifiers on images, but can you share an example? ( ) @ We cannot say a date of foundation ""started"" and a date of foundation ""completed"". That's why you would use on a foundation item. Not inception/start time. In addition, we cannot create an element each time we want to put a statement, otherwise we only make Items with a statement which is in fact a value. Actually we can. Additionally, making an item for such a motion could have other benefits such as describing who voted on the motion. Then deleting the proposals at this point is very limiting (and ""chronophage""): we are not going to [MASK] only the property date and add a multitude of qualifiers ! When proposing a property for deletion, please check the Debate, Talk page and usage of that property first. I don't really understand what you're saying here... Looking at the example I gave, we can clearly see the difference and the importance of the 2 properties. Cordially. As humans, yes, we can infer what those properties are describing. However, machines can't. Every property should have an exact definition and usage. Otherwise they're going to be used in a conflated situation like in the example you gave and make the data very inconsistent between other items and hard to interpret for machines. ( ) Well in that case, @ :, you want WD to be no longer a db, but a list of Items! Foolish I think. — ( ) ps : There is the same debate for the images. Yes, we could [MASK] that date and add qualifiers, but in this case, we would have to [MASK] only date and remove all the other date (time) type properties. I think we can debate for a long time. At the end, we will end up with date of string type as on BNF… — ( ) @ How is a data model like this not reasonable? 1992 Saami Conference ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ I think I know what you're talking about and I likely actually agree with using qualifiers on images, but can you share an example? ( ) Well in that case, @ :, you want WD to be no longer a db, but a list of Items! Foolish I think. — ( ) ps : There is the same debate for the images. Yes, we could [MASK] that date and add qualifiers, but in this case, we would have to [MASK] only date and remove all the other date (time) type properties. I think we can debate for a long time. At the end, we will end up with date of string type as on BNF… — ( ) @ How is a data model like this not reasonable? 1992 Saami Conference ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ I think I know what you're talking about and I likely actually agree with using qualifiers on images, but can you share an example? ( ) @ How is a data model like this not reasonable? 1992 Saami Conference ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) Yes @ :, if you want. In this case, it is as I have already written: 1)create as a replacement all the Items corresponding to the values which will have to be put in ""qualifiers"" for all the date properties (except P585) 2)add date to each Item using a property date other than P585. 3)propose for deletion all the properties of the date style at the same time (except P585). You can see the use of all date properties (except P585) to imagine the extent of the work. So I think I'll be dead, a long time ago, when you finish this job. As long as this is not done, we [MASK] this property. — ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ How is a machine supposed to infer the difference between the current usage of vs. on ? This isn't a matter of ""I want all date properties to be [MASK]"". It's a matter of ""they actually kind of have to be [MASK]"". ( ) @ I think I know what you're talking about and I likely actually agree with using qualifiers on images, but can you share an example? ( ) [MASK] I don't agree with it being ""conceptually the same"". ( ) @ then please explain how it is different. ( ) Something that has a start time is expected to be able to have an end time, whereas something that has an inception might exist forever. ( ) @ What's something that can exist forever? ( ) And how does that make inception different than start time if they both mean when something starts to exist? ( ) It's different since start time means that there will be an end time. But, for example, an invention or a theory will never cease to exist. This clarifies the semantic differences between the properties. ( ) @ An invention or theory could cease to exist if the knowledge of it by humans ceases. I know that's quite a metaphysical argument, but what I'm trying to get at is, why go through the hassle of maintaining the domain of their semantic usage like by using constraints when they mean the same thing and could just be one property? ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ then please explain how it is different. ( ) Something that has a start time is expected to be able to have an end time, whereas something that has an inception might exist forever. ( ) @ What's something that can exist forever? ( ) And how does that make inception different than start time if they both mean when something starts to exist? ( ) It's different since start time means that there will be an end time. But, for example, an invention or a theory will never cease to exist. This clarifies the semantic differences between the properties. ( ) @ An invention or theory could cease to exist if the knowledge of it by humans ceases. I know that's quite a metaphysical argument, but what I'm trying to get at is, why go through the hassle of maintaining the domain of their semantic usage like by using constraints when they mean the same thing and could just be one property? ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) Something that has a start time is expected to be able to have an end time, whereas something that has an inception might exist forever. ( ) @ What's something that can exist forever? ( ) And how does that make inception different than start time if they both mean when something starts to exist? ( ) It's different since start time means that there will be an end time. But, for example, an invention or a theory will never cease to exist. This clarifies the semantic differences between the properties. ( ) @ An invention or theory could cease to exist if the knowledge of it by humans ceases. I know that's quite a metaphysical argument, but what I'm trying to get at is, why go through the hassle of maintaining the domain of their semantic usage like by using constraints when they mean the same thing and could just be one property? ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ What's something that can exist forever? ( ) And how does that make inception different than start time if they both mean when something starts to exist? ( ) It's different since start time means that there will be an end time. But, for example, an invention or a theory will never cease to exist. This clarifies the semantic differences between the properties. ( ) @ An invention or theory could cease to exist if the knowledge of it by humans ceases. I know that's quite a metaphysical argument, but what I'm trying to get at is, why go through the hassle of maintaining the domain of their semantic usage like by using constraints when they mean the same thing and could just be one property? ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) It's different since start time means that there will be an end time. But, for example, an invention or a theory will never cease to exist. This clarifies the semantic differences between the properties. ( ) @ An invention or theory could cease to exist if the knowledge of it by humans ceases. I know that's quite a metaphysical argument, but what I'm trying to get at is, why go through the hassle of maintaining the domain of their semantic usage like by using constraints when they mean the same thing and could just be one property? ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ An invention or theory could cease to exist if the knowledge of it by humans ceases. I know that's quite a metaphysical argument, but what I'm trying to get at is, why go through the hassle of maintaining the domain of their semantic usage like by using constraints when they mean the same thing and could just be one property? ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) Because they are not even meant to be the same date. An item could have both properties with different values. Let's say a day for commemoration. The inception would be the date when it was decided, start time when it first happened. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ I think impressing semantics on general properties in domain-specific ways is an incredibly bad idea. How is someone supposed to figure out that the of a commemorative event refers to when it was decided and not the first time it happened? How many commemorative events use that schema? I know that's what says, but . The (well, a ) semantically-correct way to express that might be → , as well as → . Furthermore, most commemorative events appear to use for the date it first occurred (which I argue is also unacceptably vague, but, regardless, it's not ). ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) Well, I find it both useful and helpful. It's easy to figure out as soon as you ask the two different questions, when was it founded and when did it first take place. It's also generic enough to carry over the same meaning in the similar fashion to many domains other than only events. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ So means when the idea came into existence for an item and then means when an event starts. I guess those are separate domains of usage. So would constraining to ideas (which I actually can't find a class for lol) and to time periods be appropriate? You said that this could carry over to other domains, which is likely to disrupt such constraints. What domains would those be? ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) Not really. The idea likely came into existence a lot earlier. It's not like you come to a big international convention and on the spot comes up with the idea ""Perhaps we should have a yearly day of commemoration?"" and then everybody votes to approve it. More likely, the idea has been debated and refined much longer. At the inception date, it is rather formalized or decided in some way. How that formalization plays out, might vary (by convention) in different domains. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ I don't think it's possible to have a property that flexible in usage/definition. That could be very problematic and confusing to use for editors. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) On the contrary, we already do have a property like that, the very one you are proposing to delete. It is already used in this way. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) @ Actually I'm really confused at the current state of this conversation. Why exactly do you think we can't we merge the properties? We need 1 start date property and right now we have 2. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) I'm sorry that you are confused and that I have not been able to explain in a clear way that right now we only have one start date property. The other property is for inceptions, which are not the same. But as you can see in this proposal, there are (right now) ten votes for [MASK], one neutral and no vote for delete, so it seems like most other users can see the difference between the two. ( ) [MASK] I use as a qualifier of , expecially for building who where built during many year. Having the same property as a property and a qualifier would be wierd. -- ( ) expecially for building who where built during many year Okay, is just terrible usage (which is also why it would look weird with 2 of the same statements) and really calls for the implementation of Extended Date/Time Format time intervals, but whatever . You're not going to die if they're merged. Merging them is needed to end the current confusion between and misuse of the properties. ( ) , as you say, is the only way it is possible to give the period something was created, when we don't know the exact date... or when the creation lasted for years (for the construction of a cathedral or a castle), it could be decades ... If you have some other solution to indicate it, then, please, explain it... ( ) @ I inferred that I don't really care about the current usage. However, I do not think that this usage should be an excuse to not merge the properties. ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible... because you think that they should be merged ? Need is what drives the creation of properties as they are... if you do not propose a satisfying solution, merging those properties is just a denial of this need the fact that you do not have that specific need is not pertinent here... ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible It won't make anything impossible. You're just going to have start time as both the claim's property and the qualifier's property. Also, I agree InductiveLoad's suggestion of qualifying the date with / rather than start time/end time. So if done, we should not run into the above weirdness anyways. ( ) @ is it meaningful to use such a ""generic"" property (i.e. P580 or P571) to refer specifically to the construction of items (as in, the physical act of putting things together), as opposed to, say planning it, or opening it? What does the of actually mean? The date someone thought of it? The day someone proposed it? Proposed in it's current form? Named it ""HS2""? The day funding was approved? The day funding was released? First spade in the ground? When it was declared ""done""? When it was first opened in some way? First opened completely? The same can go for lots of items: there are often various things you might be able to call an ""inception"". Companies may be founded one day, but begin trading on another and open in a physical location on another. Events are ""incepted"" long before they actually happen. And so on and so on. Perhaps being more specific is simply a matter of qualifying with something like (or something else if that's not for processes, maybe ), or use something specific to ""events"" that apply to an object such as → ""the process"" as below. Also, WRT if you don't know the date exactly, would that not be / rather than / ? Thus avoiding conflating the concepts of an extended event vs uncertainty in the event's timing (though to be fair, I do not clearly see how you handle uncertainty one or both end points of an extended event). ( ) Surely that can't be right? Who is going to know that start/end qualifiers on the inception of a building refers to the time taken to build it? Surely that would be → qualified with + ? And you might have separate statements, e.g. for etc. ( ) expecially for building who where built during many year Okay, is just terrible usage (which is also why it would look weird with 2 of the same statements) and really calls for the implementation of Extended Date/Time Format time intervals, but whatever . You're not going to die if they're merged. Merging them is needed to end the current confusion between and misuse of the properties. ( ) , as you say, is the only way it is possible to give the period something was created, when we don't know the exact date... or when the creation lasted for years (for the construction of a cathedral or a castle), it could be decades ... If you have some other solution to indicate it, then, please, explain it... ( ) @ I inferred that I don't really care about the current usage. However, I do not think that this usage should be an excuse to not merge the properties. ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible... because you think that they should be merged ? Need is what drives the creation of properties as they are... if you do not propose a satisfying solution, merging those properties is just a denial of this need the fact that you do not have that specific need is not pertinent here... ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible It won't make anything impossible. You're just going to have start time as both the claim's property and the qualifier's property. Also, I agree InductiveLoad's suggestion of qualifying the date with / rather than start time/end time. So if done, we should not run into the above weirdness anyways. ( ) @ is it meaningful to use such a ""generic"" property (i.e. P580 or P571) to refer specifically to the construction of items (as in, the physical act of putting things together), as opposed to, say planning it, or opening it? What does the of actually mean? The date someone thought of it? The day someone proposed it? Proposed in it's current form? Named it ""HS2""? The day funding was approved? The day funding was released? First spade in the ground? When it was declared ""done""? When it was first opened in some way? First opened completely? The same can go for lots of items: there are often various things you might be able to call an ""inception"". Companies may be founded one day, but begin trading on another and open in a physical location on another. Events are ""incepted"" long before they actually happen. And so on and so on. Perhaps being more specific is simply a matter of qualifying with something like (or something else if that's not for processes, maybe ), or use something specific to ""events"" that apply to an object such as → ""the process"" as below. Also, WRT if you don't know the date exactly, would that not be / rather than / ? Thus avoiding conflating the concepts of an extended event vs uncertainty in the event's timing (though to be fair, I do not clearly see how you handle uncertainty one or both end points of an extended event). ( ) , as you say, is the only way it is possible to give the period something was created, when we don't know the exact date... or when the creation lasted for years (for the construction of a cathedral or a castle), it could be decades ... If you have some other solution to indicate it, then, please, explain it... ( ) @ I inferred that I don't really care about the current usage. However, I do not think that this usage should be an excuse to not merge the properties. ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible... because you think that they should be merged ? Need is what drives the creation of properties as they are... if you do not propose a satisfying solution, merging those properties is just a denial of this need the fact that you do not have that specific need is not pertinent here... ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible It won't make anything impossible. You're just going to have start time as both the claim's property and the qualifier's property. Also, I agree InductiveLoad's suggestion of qualifying the date with / rather than start time/end time. So if done, we should not run into the above weirdness anyways. ( ) @ is it meaningful to use such a ""generic"" property (i.e. P580 or P571) to refer specifically to the construction of items (as in, the physical act of putting things together), as opposed to, say planning it, or opening it? What does the of actually mean? The date someone thought of it? The day someone proposed it? Proposed in it's current form? Named it ""HS2""? The day funding was approved? The day funding was released? First spade in the ground? When it was declared ""done""? When it was first opened in some way? First opened completely? The same can go for lots of items: there are often various things you might be able to call an ""inception"". Companies may be founded one day, but begin trading on another and open in a physical location on another. Events are ""incepted"" long before they actually happen. And so on and so on. Perhaps being more specific is simply a matter of qualifying with something like (or something else if that's not for processes, maybe ), or use something specific to ""events"" that apply to an object such as → ""the process"" as below. Also, WRT if you don't know the date exactly, would that not be / rather than / ? Thus avoiding conflating the concepts of an extended event vs uncertainty in the event's timing (though to be fair, I do not clearly see how you handle uncertainty one or both end points of an extended event). ( ) @ I inferred that I don't really care about the current usage. However, I do not think that this usage should be an excuse to not merge the properties. ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible... because you think that they should be merged ? Need is what drives the creation of properties as they are... if you do not propose a satisfying solution, merging those properties is just a denial of this need the fact that you do not have that specific need is not pertinent here... ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible It won't make anything impossible. You're just going to have start time as both the claim's property and the qualifier's property. Also, I agree InductiveLoad's suggestion of qualifying the date with / rather than start time/end time. So if done, we should not run into the above weirdness anyways. ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible... because you think that they should be merged ? Need is what drives the creation of properties as they are... if you do not propose a satisfying solution, merging those properties is just a denial of this need the fact that you do not have that specific need is not pertinent here... ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible It won't make anything impossible. You're just going to have start time as both the claim's property and the qualifier's property. Also, I agree InductiveLoad's suggestion of qualifying the date with / rather than start time/end time. So if done, we should not run into the above weirdness anyways. ( ) A needed usage should not be an excuse for something that would make a lot of statements impossible It won't make anything impossible. You're just going to have start time as both the claim's property and the qualifier's property. Also, I agree InductiveLoad's suggestion of qualifying the date with / rather than start time/end time. So if done, we should not run into the above weirdness anyways. ( ) @ is it meaningful to use such a ""generic"" property (i.e. P580 or P571) to refer specifically to the construction of items (as in, the physical act of putting things together), as opposed to, say planning it, or opening it? What does the of actually mean? The date someone thought of it? The day someone proposed it? Proposed in it's current form? Named it ""HS2""? The day funding was approved? The day funding was released? First spade in the ground? When it was declared ""done""? When it was first opened in some way? First opened completely? The same can go for lots of items: there are often various things you might be able to call an ""inception"". Companies may be founded one day, but begin trading on another and open in a physical location on another. Events are ""incepted"" long before they actually happen. And so on and so on. Perhaps being more specific is simply a matter of qualifying with something like (or something else if that's not for processes, maybe ), or use something specific to ""events"" that apply to an object such as → ""the process"" as below. Also, WRT if you don't know the date exactly, would that not be / rather than / ? Thus avoiding conflating the concepts of an extended event vs uncertainty in the event's timing (though to be fair, I do not clearly see how you handle uncertainty one or both end points of an extended event). ( ) Surely that can't be right? Who is going to know that start/end qualifiers on the inception of a building refers to the time taken to build it? Surely that would be → qualified with + ? And you might have separate statements, e.g. for etc. ( ) [MASK] . Not the same as “start time”. - ( ) @ Ayaya please explain and don't just vote! If I have a reason to delete, you've got to have a reason to [MASK]. ( ) @ Ayaya please explain and don't just vote! If I have a reason to delete, you've got to have a reason to [MASK]. ( ) Speedy [MASK] . I don't know english word Inception, but translate to many languages shows, that is different concept. Typically something was build (P571), and serves as something from - to and then was something else from - to and then ends P576 . ( ) @ so are you saying and are used together sometimes? Could you share an example of their different usages/definitions on a Wikidata item? ( ) Eg. . From and To are primary for qualifiers Please, take in mind there is not only English label. I am not sure, if I find in Czech correct word which covers both case. . ( ) @ so are you saying and are used together sometimes? Could you share an example of their different usages/definitions on a Wikidata item? ( ) Eg. . From and To are primary for qualifiers Please, take in mind there is not only English label. I am not sure, if I find in Czech correct word which covers both case. . ( ) Eg. . From and To are primary for qualifiers Please, take in mind there is not only English label. I am not sure, if I find in Czech correct word which covers both case. . ( ) [MASK] Too useful as a property. My two cents : a has mainly / because it is a ""process"" in the time. But a city or anything build has . But if I were to build again from scratch the dates models, I'd have worked only [date] [qualifyer : start, end, foundation, signature, publication, etc]. ● ● @ eh, technically, anything built by a physical process has a start and end time (just ask the project manager!), rather than a perfect point in time when it pings into existence. Cities are actually very good examples of something where construction takes a very extended period of time—so good that it's an idiom: . London, say, is still under construction nearly 1000 years since its foundation in 47 AD, and, in fact, the period of construction for any city is probably exactly the same as the period that the city existed at all. And again, as above, with the buildings, this seems to be equally well or better represented as → with rather than a single time point. ( ) Try adding = to , I'm pretty sure you'll raise eyebrows ● ● If you lived near a Crossrail station you'd agree! I didn't say it's necessarily useful data to add, but the point is that for a lot of things, a top-level is extremely fuzzy in terms of what meaning it carries: is it the declaration of the city being ""a thing""? What if it was a village with the same name and only became a city later? Is it a city charter being signed? The charter being promulgated? Breaking ground? Completion of the first building? The last building? ( ) As a pretty perfect, if unintentional example, the -> 47CE statement on : the referenced site simply says . It doesn't necessarily mean anything actually happened in 47CE to ""incept"" a city except that someone built a drain under a road. ( ) @ eh, technically, anything built by a physical process has a start and end time (just ask the project manager!), rather than a perfect point in time when it pings into existence. Cities are actually very good examples of something where construction takes a very extended period of time—so good that it's an idiom: . London, say, is still under construction nearly 1000 years since its foundation in 47 AD, and, in fact, the period of construction for any city is probably exactly the same as the period that the city existed at all. And again, as above, with the buildings, this seems to be equally well or better represented as → with rather than a single time point. ( ) Try adding = to , I'm pretty sure you'll raise eyebrows ● ● If you lived near a Crossrail station you'd agree! I didn't say it's necessarily useful data to add, but the point is that for a lot of things, a top-level is extremely fuzzy in terms of what meaning it carries: is it the declaration of the city being ""a thing""? What if it was a village with the same name and only became a city later? Is it a city charter being signed? The charter being promulgated? Breaking ground? Completion of the first building? The last building? ( ) As a pretty perfect, if unintentional example, the -> 47CE statement on : the referenced site simply says . It doesn't necessarily mean anything actually happened in 47CE to ""incept"" a city except that someone built a drain under a road. ( ) Try adding = to , I'm pretty sure you'll raise eyebrows ● ● If you lived near a Crossrail station you'd agree! I didn't say it's necessarily useful data to add, but the point is that for a lot of things, a top-level is extremely fuzzy in terms of what meaning it carries: is it the declaration of the city being ""a thing""? What if it was a village with the same name and only became a city later? Is it a city charter being signed? The charter being promulgated? Breaking ground? Completion of the first building? The last building? ( ) As a pretty perfect, if unintentional example, the -> 47CE statement on : the referenced site simply says . It doesn't necessarily mean anything actually happened in 47CE to ""incept"" a city except that someone built a drain under a road. ( ) If you lived near a Crossrail station you'd agree! I didn't say it's necessarily useful data to add, but the point is that for a lot of things, a top-level is extremely fuzzy in terms of what meaning it carries: is it the declaration of the city being ""a thing""? What if it was a village with the same name and only became a city later? Is it a city charter being signed? The charter being promulgated? Breaking ground? Completion of the first building? The last building? ( ) As a pretty perfect, if unintentional example, the -> 47CE statement on : the referenced site simply says . It doesn't necessarily mean anything actually happened in 47CE to ""incept"" a city except that someone built a drain under a road. ( ) As a pretty perfect, if unintentional example, the -> 47CE statement on : the referenced site simply says . It doesn't necessarily mean anything actually happened in 47CE to ""incept"" a city except that someone built a drain under a road. ( ) [MASK] while I think the difference between the two properties can be made even clearer and actually defined I don't think such a discussion should be driven by the idea of deleting one of them. ( ) @ clearer and actually defined How could we make them actually defined? I don't think such a discussion should be driven by the idea of deleting one of them In reality I'm proposing to merge them. ( ) @ clearer and actually defined How could we make them actually defined? I don't think such a discussion should be driven by the idea of deleting one of them In reality I'm proposing to merge them. ( ) [MASK] continued. This was . As said then ""I think the idea behind not making P571 qualifier only was that it is better suited for events (not recurring ones, but single events, or instances of recurring events) and event-like items than P580"". That is how I use these properties, applying ""inception"" to things (including events, buildings, creative works) that are created and ""start time"" to temporal concepts like , , or . - ( ) That sounds like there could also some overlap with : is there a defined distinction between ""point in time"" and ""inception"" for an event, say? ( ) @ All of the examples you gave were things that have a date when they started - whether they be buildings or historical eras. The definition between the two properties has no difference. I understand that it might look weird to have as a qualifier because of its name in comparison with it's opposite . But, I'm thinking about merging inception into so the new property would have the name ""start time"" and would actually look appropriate as a property that can be used as a qualifier and a main property. ( ) That sounds like there could also some overlap with : is there a defined distinction between ""point in time"" and ""inception"" for an event, say? ( ) @ All of the examples you gave were things that have a date when they started - whether they be buildings or historical eras. The definition between the two properties has no difference. I understand that it might look weird to have as a qualifier because of its name in comparison with it's opposite . But, I'm thinking about merging inception into so the new property would have the name ""start time"" and would actually look appropriate as a property that can be used as a qualifier and a main property. ( ) [MASK] true this is close but it's not exactly the same (as said by previous voters), the property could be better documented to explain the difference but the merge is not a good solution. Cheers, ( ) @ The properties not being different is central to my argument for deleting one of them. Can you please thoroughly explain how they are different? ( ) @ : you are reversing the charge of proof. It's up to you to prove that they are exactly the same and that the merge is possible. For instance, how do you plan to deal with the 17000+ items with both property (as direct property, there is some more as qualifiers) ; there is indeed most likely a lot of cleaning to do (for that part, I'm totally in favour), but can they all be merged? I feel they can't but again, it's up to you that there is no exception and that they are indeed tje same. Cheers, ( ) @ They are exactly the same because their descriptions describe the same thing and the properties are always used to describe when something starts. How they will be merged is a QuickStatements job will move all of the values on to for both mainsnak claims and qualifier claims. Then, 's aliases will be copied to . Finally, will be [MASK]. ( ) @ : still not convinced, I think there are problems that need fixing around P571 but you still don't address clearly basic questions about the proposed merge (see all the comments above). Cheers, ( ) @ I'm not sure how those things that people cited are problems... The properties mean the same thing so if they were merged, technically nothing would change conceptually... What have I not a addressed above? ( ) @ The properties not being different is central to my argument for deleting one of them. Can you please thoroughly explain how they are different? ( ) @ : you are reversing the charge of proof. It's up to you to prove that they are exactly the same and that the merge is possible. For instance, how do you plan to deal with the 17000+ items with both property (as direct property, there is some more as qualifiers) ; there is indeed most likely a lot of cleaning to do (for that part, I'm totally in favour), but can they all be merged? I feel they can't but again, it's up to you that there is no exception and that they are indeed tje same. Cheers, ( ) @ They are exactly the same because their descriptions describe the same thing and the properties are always used to describe when something starts. How they will be merged is a QuickStatements job will move all of the values on to for both mainsnak claims and qualifier claims. Then, 's aliases will be copied to . Finally, will be [MASK]. ( ) @ : still not convinced, I think there are problems that need fixing around P571 but you still don't address clearly basic questions about the proposed merge (see all the comments above). Cheers, ( ) @ I'm not sure how those things that people cited are problems... The properties mean the same thing so if they were merged, technically nothing would change conceptually... What have I not a addressed above? ( ) @ : you are reversing the charge of proof. It's up to you to prove that they are exactly the same and that the merge is possible. For instance, how do you plan to deal with the 17000+ items with both property (as direct property, there is some more as qualifiers) ; there is indeed most likely a lot of cleaning to do (for that part, I'm totally in favour), but can they all be merged? I feel they can't but again, it's up to you that there is no exception and that they are indeed tje same. Cheers, ( ) @ They are exactly the same because their descriptions describe the same thing and the properties are always used to describe when something starts. How they will be merged is a QuickStatements job will move all of the values on to for both mainsnak claims and qualifier claims. Then, 's aliases will be copied to . Finally, will be [MASK]. ( ) @ : still not convinced, I think there are problems that need fixing around P571 but you still don't address clearly basic questions about the proposed merge (see all the comments above). Cheers, ( ) @ I'm not sure how those things that people cited are problems... The properties mean the same thing so if they were merged, technically nothing would change conceptually... What have I not a addressed above? ( ) @ They are exactly the same because their descriptions describe the same thing and the properties are always used to describe when something starts. How they will be merged is a QuickStatements job will move all of the values on to for both mainsnak claims and qualifier claims. Then, 's aliases will be copied to . Finally, will be [MASK]. ( ) @ : still not convinced, I think there are problems that need fixing around P571 but you still don't address clearly basic questions about the proposed merge (see all the comments above). Cheers, ( ) @ I'm not sure how those things that people cited are problems... The properties mean the same thing so if they were merged, technically nothing would change conceptually... What have I not a addressed above? ( ) @ : still not convinced, I think there are problems that need fixing around P571 but you still don't address clearly basic questions about the proposed merge (see all the comments above). Cheers, ( ) @ I'm not sure how those things that people cited are problems... The properties mean the same thing so if they were merged, technically nothing would change conceptually... What have I not a addressed above? ( ) @ I'm not sure how those things that people cited are problems... The properties mean the same thing so if they were merged, technically nothing would change conceptually... What have I not a addressed above? ( ) Neutral I have to say most of the arguments in favour of keeping this property are not convincing. I think the example is the only compelling point, highlighting the difference between the time something was conceptualised and the time it was realised. However, I'm not convinced this matches with actual usage or the property descriptions/modelling. ( ) Also just to note, is currently modelled as a - suggesting it is the same thing in a specific context (which as far as I can tell nobody can explain). ( ) Also just to note, is currently modelled as a - suggesting it is the same thing in a specific context (which as far as I can tell nobody can explain). ( ) [MASK] Think as a car: is for the date of manufacturing, while is the date it starts to run. Also, the property is currently used in templates (namely infoboxes). -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P3188: There is consensus that this property no longer has any value and so will be [MASK] shortly. — Martin ( · ) There is consensus that this property no longer has any value and so will be [MASK] shortly. — Martin ( · ) Delete the new property looks like it has been applied at least as widely as the old one, so no harm in deleting now. ( ) yes we have everyone in the new property. Its a very small dataset - ( ) yes we have everyone in the new property. Its a very small dataset - ( ) [MASK] the new number does not lead to a landing page with a biography. -- ( ) Suggest to ask members: @ , , , , :@ , , , , : -- ( ) @ : I am in a dialogue with the Nobelprize people ( ) and we agree of using the new ID and the old one is not useful... please explain what you want and were you still can use the , , category in en:Wikipedia using see , task pushing this to more language versions see - ( ) @ : I am in a dialogue with the Nobelprize people ( ) and we agree of using the new ID and the old one is not useful... please explain what you want and were you still can use the , , category in en:Wikipedia using see , task pushing this to more language versions see - ( ) Delete I check some winner of nobel price from recent years and decades ago and the landing page look the same. only In ones who won multiple time, the page is different for example look . - ( ) Why is it that when I click on the link at Nobel_prize_ID I get taken to a biography, and when I click on the new links I get an error message? This is the new link we are using for Marie Curie: This is the the old link . All three examples at Nobel Laureate API ID give error messages. What is going on? We should [MASK] the old system in place until the new system is stable. -- ( ) @ :  nobelprize.org had a link problem 2020-may-07 09:16 - 2020-may-07 13:22 see - ( ) Why is it that when I click on the link at Nobel_prize_ID I get taken to a biography, and when I click on the new links I get an error message? This is the new link we are using for Marie Curie: This is the the old link . All three examples at Nobel Laureate API ID give error messages. What is going on? We should [MASK] the old system in place until the new system is stable. -- ( ) @ :  nobelprize.org had a link problem 2020-may-07 09:16 - 2020-may-07 13:22 see - ( ) @ :  nobelprize.org had a link problem 2020-may-07 09:16 - 2020-may-07 13:22 see - ( ) The problem appears to be fixed now. -- ( ) nobelprize.org had a link problem 2020-may-07 09:16 - 2020-may-07 13:22 see - ( ) nobelprize.org had a link problem 2020-may-07 09:16 - 2020-may-07 13:22 see - ( ) Delete : sounds sensible. ( ) . [MASK] : decent coverage (100%?), seems to be stable (since 4 years), used by other WMF sites, and the other id redirects there too. --- Comment I guess every third Nobelprize link has in en:Wikipedia and has been impossible to maintain as it has changed more times when Nobelprize.org has done a new webdesign. Now Nobelprize.org takes responsibility for maintain this and we just need to store the unique number in Wikidata - ( ) We already do store it. There is no need to delete historic information. This is not Wikipedia. --- Comment @ :please explain. The IT people at Nobelprize.org also see the chaos with linking the old web and agree of this new approach no one has the last year tried to maintain it has bad data and cant be trusted having more properties with different quality just adds confusion was created to make linking the Nobelprize.org chaos easier but failed. What is the historic value of that. .? - ( ) Wikidata isn't here for the IT people at Nobelprize.org. Identifiers here can be used outside the source database. If you find a database problematic, maybe you shouldn't propose storing (additional) identifiers for it. --- @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) Comment I guess every third Nobelprize link has in en:Wikipedia and has been impossible to maintain as it has changed more times when Nobelprize.org has done a new webdesign. Now Nobelprize.org takes responsibility for maintain this and we just need to store the unique number in Wikidata - ( ) We already do store it. There is no need to delete historic information. This is not Wikipedia. --- Comment @ :please explain. The IT people at Nobelprize.org also see the chaos with linking the old web and agree of this new approach no one has the last year tried to maintain it has bad data and cant be trusted having more properties with different quality just adds confusion was created to make linking the Nobelprize.org chaos easier but failed. What is the historic value of that. .? - ( ) Wikidata isn't here for the IT people at Nobelprize.org. Identifiers here can be used outside the source database. If you find a database problematic, maybe you shouldn't propose storing (additional) identifiers for it. --- @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) We already do store it. There is no need to delete historic information. This is not Wikipedia. --- Comment @ :please explain. The IT people at Nobelprize.org also see the chaos with linking the old web and agree of this new approach no one has the last year tried to maintain it has bad data and cant be trusted having more properties with different quality just adds confusion was created to make linking the Nobelprize.org chaos easier but failed. What is the historic value of that. .? - ( ) Wikidata isn't here for the IT people at Nobelprize.org. Identifiers here can be used outside the source database. If you find a database problematic, maybe you shouldn't propose storing (additional) identifiers for it. --- @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) Comment @ :please explain. The IT people at Nobelprize.org also see the chaos with linking the old web and agree of this new approach no one has the last year tried to maintain it has bad data and cant be trusted having more properties with different quality just adds confusion was created to make linking the Nobelprize.org chaos easier but failed. What is the historic value of that. .? no one has the last year tried to maintain it has bad data and cant be trusted having more properties with different quality just adds confusion was created to make linking the Nobelprize.org chaos easier but failed. What is the historic value of that. .? - ( ) Wikidata isn't here for the IT people at Nobelprize.org. Identifiers here can be used outside the source database. If you find a database problematic, maybe you shouldn't propose storing (additional) identifiers for it. --- @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) Wikidata isn't here for the IT people at Nobelprize.org. Identifiers here can be used outside the source database. If you find a database problematic, maybe you shouldn't propose storing (additional) identifiers for it. --- @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) Wikidata isn't here for the IT people at Nobelprize.org. Identifiers here can be used outside the source database. If you find a database problematic, maybe you shouldn't propose storing (additional) identifiers for it. --- @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) @ : the discussion is about if we can delete or not . I see no arguments why we shouldn't delete it Just to update you on the background: Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using Wikipedia has a lot of to Nobelprize.org as the old approach with a relative path stored in is not stable and has shown not working (I have seen no example of someone using it because of the bad quality) Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org has had the when they redesigned the web or part of the web they changed urls and had no redirects --> Wikipedia got and we couldn't maintain Nobelprize.org created an where every winner got an unique eg. has I have before raised this problem with the Nobelprize.org people that Wikipedia thinks Nobelprize.org is not stable linking (see 2019-feb) Wikipedia gets a lot of link root Mar 31 2020 see Task the following was sent to the Nobel people if they could help Wikipedia making the linking more stable answer Wed, Apr 29, 11:42 AM the new solution was implemented using is and has been obsolete the last years so I recommend to delete it if no one can explain who is using it - 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) I think you explained your webdirectory approach in detail. There are various ways of maintaining such things in an automated way, without alienating all users and requiring them to use a redirect service. --- @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) @ : ""redirect service""?! =?! Nobelprize.org tells us link us using the unique number we have dedicated every prizewinner as this is the only way we can manage the . Step 1 is always to have and now we have that @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) @ : we are discussing if should be [MASK] or not do you see any usage of this property that has not been usable the last years? Please gives us user cases when is used? - ( ) : 13 times Missing : 24 objects The A little support Delete , as I'm confused that what ""redirect service"" that @ : said is. -- ( ) I guess the redirect mentioned is that with has the following pattern with an unique number --> that gets an redirect to if we look at the usage of we can see that the Nobelprize people also has created redirects when they changed the pages location. The problem is that this was not good maintained at the Noibelprize.org. As they now has an API with unique numbers for every Nobelprize winner I guess this redirects will be easier to maintain for them and much easier for Wikidata as our link will be stable - ( ) I guess the redirect mentioned is that with has the following pattern with an unique number --> that gets an redirect to if we look at the usage of we can see that the Nobelprize people also has created redirects when they changed the pages location. The problem is that this was not good maintained at the Noibelprize.org. As they now has an API with unique numbers for every Nobelprize winner I guess this redirects will be easier to maintain for them and much easier for Wikidata as our link will be stable has the following pattern with an unique number --> that gets an redirect to if we look at the usage of we can see that the Nobelprize people also has created redirects when they changed the pages location. The problem is that this was not good maintained at the Noibelprize.org. As they now has an API with unique numbers for every Nobelprize winner I guess this redirects will be easier to maintain for them and much easier for Wikidata as our link will be stable - ( ) Delete I see no value in keeping this property. If we go ahead with deletion I suggest we warn wmfprojects who uses it, they should some time to change to the new ID before deletion IMO. Maybe we can put a redirect to this discussion on the [MASK] page or indicate in some way why it was [MASK]. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at . Delete The property as described does not work with the Nobel Prize's present website (eg, medicine/laureates/1990/thomas should be medicine/1990/thomas/ . It's not necessarily difficult to change all instances on wikidata, but such maintenance would have to be done if we [MASK] the category, and at that point, it would almost certainly be better to use the more-stable API property. ( ) [MASK] Not used in at the English Wikipedia but referenced at its documentation. Please discuss at the first. -- ( ) No need to, just feel free to submit an {{ }} on enwiki to remove so. ( ) No need to, just feel free to submit an {{ }} on enwiki to remove so. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Filmstarts_title_ID_(P8531): Not [MASK] , no willingness to delete except that of the proposer. ( ) Not [MASK] , no willingness to delete except that of the proposer. ( ) You and were the only ones opposed to the creation of this property. responded on the creation proposal page to all your arguments. This property is also similar to others we already have such as . ( ) [MASK] The ""proposer"", It's me ! You might have the courage of your convictions: when you write about a contributor, you notify him. It's the least of politeness, because what you write is completely false and you know it very well. The deletion procedure is clearly explained in the header of this page. I don't understand your eagerness to suppress these properties. The examples and opinions show that the identifiers of the proposition are not always the same. The proponent (me) has clearly explained the gain in having this property and not citing other properties on the proposal is not a valid criterion. 's opposition has already been rejected twice, and then again in the debate. Therefore, like the last time, I will immediately request the early closure (without waiting 7 days) of this deletion request, because it has no serious basis. Thanks for the contributors' waste of time. — ( ) Not mentioning this was previously listed for deletion by the same person seems bad faith to me. [MASK] if only on those grounds. ( ) Neutral Maybe another datatype would be better? -- ( ) [MASK] Description of is ""German movie website"" (filmstarts. de ) and so it is. I don't know if the identifier is equal to Allocine-ID, but the content is not, e.g. for there is and . This is absolutely NOT redundant. -- ( ) It's frequent that the same identifier is shared by several sites. It's even the purpose of identifiers. --- It's frequent that the same identifier is shared by several sites. It's even the purpose of identifiers. --- The sites are different. -- ( ) The sites are different. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Filmstarts_title_ID_(P8531): Kept No consensus to delete this. Thanks. ( ) Kept No consensus to delete this. Thanks. ( ) @ , : Jura1 reverted my archive action because ""closed by involved admin"", is this meaning that we should re-open the deletion discussions here? -- ( ) Delete Unless if @ , : can explain why this is so-called ""useful"". -- Delete Thanks for re-opening this: the administrator (who created it before the usual seven day wait) is misusing their admin role by closing the deletion request. Besides, as noted just above, the identifier is identical to the one used in another property and the numbers show this eventually leads to massive duplication. --- @ : still only (and one IP) opposes the creation of this property. Can we close this discussion now or should we wait longer (I do not expect more discussion about this, especially after the Eihel's reply). ( ) Comment : Out of 124 usages of the property, 41 identical to Allociné ID, , 80 without Allociné ID (and 52966 usages of Allociné ID without Filmstarts ID). -- ( ) So no conflicting uses (as it's the same identifier). It was just created when nominated here. We also had created by the same admin ( ) as some ids from couldn't be found in there. Now it's listed for deletion at . --- @ : If there are no conflicting uses, that does not mean that there are the same identifiers, on the contrary. When you add ""this is the same identifier"", I wonder if you are reading the comments correctly. Or is it preventing everyone from contributing serenely, or taking up time? It has not just been created, it is you who put this property here just after its creation more than five months ago, it is not by chance. The creation followed a normal process following the responses to your opposition during the proposal. The creation of this property was not prevented in any way, but you pursue your idea as if you have blinders. I gave examples, Mormegil gave examples and data of the differences. It's the first time I've seen someone interpret the numbers on WD. I add another identifier different from Allociné . You are not being fair. For the other properties, this is not the place to be discussed. Your anti-collaborative attitude is not appreciated at all and I'm not the only one to think that. — ( ) So no conflicting uses (as it's the same identifier). It was just created when nominated here. We also had created by the same admin ( ) as some ids from couldn't be found in there. Now it's listed for deletion at . --- @ : If there are no conflicting uses, that does not mean that there are the same identifiers, on the contrary. When you add ""this is the same identifier"", I wonder if you are reading the comments correctly. Or is it preventing everyone from contributing serenely, or taking up time? It has not just been created, it is you who put this property here just after its creation more than five months ago, it is not by chance. The creation followed a normal process following the responses to your opposition during the proposal. The creation of this property was not prevented in any way, but you pursue your idea as if you have blinders. I gave examples, Mormegil gave examples and data of the differences. It's the first time I've seen someone interpret the numbers on WD. I add another identifier different from Allociné . You are not being fair. For the other properties, this is not the place to be discussed. Your anti-collaborative attitude is not appreciated at all and I'm not the only one to think that. — ( ) @ : If there are no conflicting uses, that does not mean that there are the same identifiers, on the contrary. When you add ""this is the same identifier"", I wonder if you are reading the comments correctly. Or is it preventing everyone from contributing serenely, or taking up time? It has not just been created, it is you who put this property here just after its creation more than five months ago, it is not by chance. The creation followed a normal process following the responses to your opposition during the proposal. The creation of this property was not prevented in any way, but you pursue your idea as if you have blinders. I gave examples, Mormegil gave examples and data of the differences. It's the first time I've seen someone interpret the numbers on WD. I add another identifier different from Allociné . You are not being fair. For the other properties, this is not the place to be discussed. Your anti-collaborative attitude is not appreciated at all and I'm not the only one to think that. — ( ) @ : I think what Jura1 think is, this can be closed, but not by you, nor any administrators that are directly made their efforts here, it must therefore be closed by non-involved administrators. -- ( ) There are olders ones still open. In the meantime, there is a similar one below: --- @ : could we consider this discussion as over? ( ) There are olders ones still open. In the meantime, there is a similar one below: --- @ : could we consider this discussion as over? ( ) Speedy [MASK] Since the nominator didn't add anything other than repeating the initial one above. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: MovieMeter_film_ID_(P1970): Kept There is no consensus to delete this property. Thanks. ( ) Kept There is no consensus to delete this property. Thanks. ( ) how would deleting this property improve wikidata now that it already exists? is it being used to spam? ( ) The real question is how this property improves Wikidata. It was created under the false pretense that the website is similar to Rotten Tomatoes. It is not. We are just pumping data around by having this property. We already have the IMDb-properties, why have another one that links to a much smaller website that has the exact same information but targeted at a much smaller audience of which the review scores are insignificant and irrelevant. Please don't tell me that the only counterargument is that the website exists. ( ) we have lots of properties that cover the same ground. ( ) My point is not that IMDb should be the only source of movie related information. The problem that I have with the MovieMeter-properties is that MovieMeter is not as significant. The counterarguments that the website exists and that the property already exists, don't hold up to scrutiny: A website that exists, might not add any value to Wikidata or other Wikimedia projects. In the header above I linked to another website that 'exists' but holds no significance by any standard. Whether a website does add value, should be discussed in the property proposal. When the two properties were in 2015, the only argument was ""similar to Rotten Tomatoes"". I challenge that argument as MovieMeter is not similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Sure, both sites are focused on movies and user generated content and reviews, but that's it. There is no similarity in significance, no similarity in usage. No property should exist forever, just for the sake of it. Hence the existence of this very page. If a property does not add any value, it should be [MASK]. Deleting anything without value, adds to the overall value. ( ) The real question is how this property improves Wikidata. It was created under the false pretense that the website is similar to Rotten Tomatoes. It is not. We are just pumping data around by having this property. We already have the IMDb-properties, why have another one that links to a much smaller website that has the exact same information but targeted at a much smaller audience of which the review scores are insignificant and irrelevant. Please don't tell me that the only counterargument is that the website exists. ( ) we have lots of properties that cover the same ground. ( ) My point is not that IMDb should be the only source of movie related information. The problem that I have with the MovieMeter-properties is that MovieMeter is not as significant. The counterarguments that the website exists and that the property already exists, don't hold up to scrutiny: A website that exists, might not add any value to Wikidata or other Wikimedia projects. In the header above I linked to another website that 'exists' but holds no significance by any standard. Whether a website does add value, should be discussed in the property proposal. When the two properties were in 2015, the only argument was ""similar to Rotten Tomatoes"". I challenge that argument as MovieMeter is not similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Sure, both sites are focused on movies and user generated content and reviews, but that's it. There is no similarity in significance, no similarity in usage. No property should exist forever, just for the sake of it. Hence the existence of this very page. If a property does not add any value, it should be [MASK]. Deleting anything without value, adds to the overall value. ( ) we have lots of properties that cover the same ground. ( ) My point is not that IMDb should be the only source of movie related information. The problem that I have with the MovieMeter-properties is that MovieMeter is not as significant. The counterarguments that the website exists and that the property already exists, don't hold up to scrutiny: A website that exists, might not add any value to Wikidata or other Wikimedia projects. In the header above I linked to another website that 'exists' but holds no significance by any standard. Whether a website does add value, should be discussed in the property proposal. When the two properties were in 2015, the only argument was ""similar to Rotten Tomatoes"". I challenge that argument as MovieMeter is not similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Sure, both sites are focused on movies and user generated content and reviews, but that's it. There is no similarity in significance, no similarity in usage. No property should exist forever, just for the sake of it. Hence the existence of this very page. If a property does not add any value, it should be [MASK]. Deleting anything without value, adds to the overall value. ( ) My point is not that IMDb should be the only source of movie related information. The problem that I have with the MovieMeter-properties is that MovieMeter is not as significant. The counterarguments that the website exists and that the property already exists, don't hold up to scrutiny: A website that exists, might not add any value to Wikidata or other Wikimedia projects. In the header above I linked to another website that 'exists' but holds no significance by any standard. Whether a website does add value, should be discussed in the property proposal. When the two properties were in 2015, the only argument was ""similar to Rotten Tomatoes"". I challenge that argument as MovieMeter is not similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Sure, both sites are focused on movies and user generated content and reviews, but that's it. There is no similarity in significance, no similarity in usage. No property should exist forever, just for the sake of it. Hence the existence of this very page. If a property does not add any value, it should be [MASK]. Deleting anything without value, adds to the overall value. ( ) A website that exists, might not add any value to Wikidata or other Wikimedia projects. In the header above I linked to another website that 'exists' but holds no significance by any standard. Whether a website does add value, should be discussed in the property proposal. When the two properties were in 2015, the only argument was ""similar to Rotten Tomatoes"". I challenge that argument as MovieMeter is not similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Sure, both sites are focused on movies and user generated content and reviews, but that's it. There is no similarity in significance, no similarity in usage. No property should exist forever, just for the sake of it. Hence the existence of this very page. If a property does not add any value, it should be [MASK]. Deleting anything without value, adds to the overall value. — Please read everything I wrote. There are your reasons. ( ) Please read everything I wrote. There are your reasons. ( ) [MASK] for two reasons. First, the website provides information in Dutch; there are still a lot of people in the Netherlands (the target audience of the site) for whom this is an important factor. Second, it provides information that is not available on IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes, like content rating icons ( ) and availability on Dutch streaming platforms. -- ( ) [MASK] We have dozens of identifiers for different sites that have a database of movies (see ). The whole purpose of Wikidata is linking together different databases of information that are about the same item and might all contain different information (like what Bdijkstra mentions). This property is currently used on over 75.000 movies. I see no reason for deleting the property. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P9416_(P9416): Deleting property — Martin ( · ) Deleting property — Martin ( · ) Delete Yes, at least all the examples have the same ID as for and could be handled with a 3rd party formatter URL if wanted. ( ) Delete unused (and redundant it seems). --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: territory_claimed_by_(P1336): Property kept . No consensus to delete and lack of detail provided on alternative methods of recording this data — Martin ( · ) Property kept . No consensus to delete and lack of detail provided on alternative methods of recording this data — Martin ( · ) Comment Who will move current uses to a new ontology ? . I think we cannot delete until there are no uses of it. ( ) @ : Just merge em back to P17, see RFC for details. -- ( ) @ : Just merge em back to P17, see RFC for details. -- ( ) [MASK] not only a country can claim territory. ( ) @ : Please read that RFC carefully before such voting [MASK], thx. -- ( ) Recognised etc. from the RFC could qualify “claimed by” just as well as it could qualify or . And what about something like , where the claimant is an organisation, not a state? ⁓ ( ) @ : Please read that RFC carefully before such voting [MASK], thx. -- ( ) Recognised etc. from the RFC could qualify “claimed by” just as well as it could qualify or . And what about something like , where the claimant is an organisation, not a state? ⁓ ( ) Recognised etc. from the RFC could qualify “claimed by” just as well as it could qualify or . And what about something like , where the claimant is an organisation, not a state? ⁓ ( ) Some uses of this are countries claimed by another country, or by each other. With this change, would Cyprus would only have ""country: Northern Cyprus"" and Northern Cyprus only have ""country: Cyprus"", or would the items also have P17 statements linking to themselves? There are probably others that are similar. ( ) [MASK] given the points mentioned in the rfc --- Delete Given that this is spammly used to make so-called claim e.g. wrongly says that ""Shenzhen is a part of Hong Kong"". -- Delete Replacement available. -- Comment I repeat my concern that the current information should be move to new ontology before delete. told me that ""I follow RFC"", but I'm user of this information in WD powered infoboxes. I'll take care handling new structure in infoboxes code, but not migrating data, because IMHO it should be move in a batch process when the change were full approved. Thanks, ( ) In addition, could you please write down the final ontology with {{ }} or similar. I'm not sure if ""new properties"" described in inital proposal have been created (and what are?) or you decide use some other proposed in the discussion. What are the final combination of property and qualifiers for each circumstances described in ""Proposal section"" ? . etc. Maybe in your mind it's very clear, but a RFC is open for ""comments"". So, if it is still open, please ping me when we have a final ontology. Thanks, ( ) Comment Could you give an example of new modelling for instance in the very famous and ? I'm interested as I'm having a topic here ● ● [MASK] The idea is to replace the property by 4 others ones ; The properties ""recognition"" (qualifier only), ""recognized by"", and ""not recognized by"" and ""de jure""/""de facto"" properties. It should result in very long lists of countries in the infobox (among 200 countries, who recognises, who does'nt ?), et complicate the problem. -- ( ) I'm totally confused by your propose of re-using it, repeating will only waste RAMs of Wikimedia servers, aren't they? If you think we need better way, to not delete P1336 and, in your opinion, to re-classify the disputed territories, write them on that link RFC, otherwise as someone anonymous said above, Replacement available . ( ) I'm totally confused by your propose of re-using it, repeating will only waste RAMs of Wikimedia servers, aren't they? If you think we need better way, to not delete P1336 and, in your opinion, to re-classify the disputed territories, write them on that link RFC, otherwise as someone anonymous said above, Replacement available . ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P9745_/_translation_of: There is consensus that this property is useful, and further that is desirable to separate it from . That leaves open the issue of whether the scope of should be changed. Unfortunately the discussion at did not result in a consensus, but I suggest trying again there or at — Martin ( · ) There is consensus that this property is useful, and further that is desirable to separate it from . That leaves open the issue of whether the scope of should be changed. Unfortunately the discussion at did not result in a consensus, but I suggest trying again there or at — Martin ( · ) Delete This duplicates the function of , and was created without notifying or consulting . We found out about this property when it was added to our project page. The ""new"" property muddies the waters, since there is not always a clear division between editions and translations. A such as is both an edition and a translation at the same time. Chaucer's may be translated from Middle English to modern English. But was ""translated"" from UK English into US English and released under a different title. A work in traditional Chinese was be ""translated"" into simplified Chinese characters. A work in may be written in Cyrillic script or in Latin script, or be ""translated"" into . There is no clear dividing line between editions and translations, but rather a spectrum of actions where the distinction is clear only at the opposite ends. -- ( ) @ : These are just some ideas to solve the problems you mentioned. I'm not mad or heavily defending them. ""A bitext (Q1346592) such as Aspis (The Shield) (Q105703709) is both an edition and a translation at the same time."" Then include both ""edition of"" and ""translation of"" statements. ""But Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) was ""translated"" from UK English into US English and released under a different title."" This kind of gets me. Why isn't there items for the specific releases of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the U.S.? Wikiproject Music documents all releases. There might be a lot of releases for a book like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as it's been printed continuously and in many formats, but it might worth documenting. And in this case, it can also solve the ""translated"" problem. ""A work in traditional Chinese was be ""translated"" into simplified Chinese characters."" This would definitely be considered a translation. Wikidata itself has support for Simplified and Traditional Chinese translations. ""A work in Serbian (Q9299) may be written in Cyrillic script or in Latin script, or be ""translated"" into Serbo-Croatian (Q9301)."" I think this would be considered a translation too? ""There is no clear dividing line between editions and translations, but rather a spectrum of actions where the distinction is clear only at the opposite ends."" It seems pretty clear to me. There's a reason why many other databases have a ""transation of"" property: it's needed, useful, and identifiable. ( ) This isn't the forum for suggesting alternative approached for Wikiproject:Books. The issue here is that (a) a property was created that duplicates the function of an existing property, and (b) it was created without an input, notification, or the knowledge of the Wikiproject whose project page was then altered. Do you support the duplication of property functions? Do you condone the creation of properties without notifying or consulting established projects who are directly impacted by the new property? The underlying issues can be discussed at Wikidata:WikiProject Books, if you believe you have helpful ideas. The few examples I gave merely illustrate the complexity of this issue goes beyond anything that was discussed in the hasty approval of the property. -- ( ) @ : Should I start a discussion on WP:Books about the property now, or after it is maybe [MASK]? ( ) You could do either. Whether this property remains or is [MASK], many of the complexities of this issue will still exist. -- ( ) Discussion about the property created: ( ) @ : These are just some ideas to solve the problems you mentioned. I'm not mad or heavily defending them. ""A bitext (Q1346592) such as Aspis (The Shield) (Q105703709) is both an edition and a translation at the same time."" ""A bitext (Q1346592) such as Aspis (The Shield) (Q105703709) is both an edition and a translation at the same time."" Then include both ""edition of"" and ""translation of"" statements. ""But Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) was ""translated"" from UK English into US English and released under a different title."" ""But Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) was ""translated"" from UK English into US English and released under a different title."" This kind of gets me. Why isn't there items for the specific releases of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the U.S.? Wikiproject Music documents all releases. There might be a lot of releases for a book like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as it's been printed continuously and in many formats, but it might worth documenting. And in this case, it can also solve the ""translated"" problem. ""A work in traditional Chinese was be ""translated"" into simplified Chinese characters."" ""A work in traditional Chinese was be ""translated"" into simplified Chinese characters."" This would definitely be considered a translation. Wikidata itself has support for Simplified and Traditional Chinese translations. ""A work in Serbian (Q9299) may be written in Cyrillic script or in Latin script, or be ""translated"" into Serbo-Croatian (Q9301)."" ""A work in Serbian (Q9299) may be written in Cyrillic script or in Latin script, or be ""translated"" into Serbo-Croatian (Q9301)."" I think this would be considered a translation too? ""There is no clear dividing line between editions and translations, but rather a spectrum of actions where the distinction is clear only at the opposite ends."" ""There is no clear dividing line between editions and translations, but rather a spectrum of actions where the distinction is clear only at the opposite ends."" It seems pretty clear to me. There's a reason why many other databases have a ""transation of"" property: it's needed, useful, and identifiable. ( ) This isn't the forum for suggesting alternative approached for Wikiproject:Books. The issue here is that (a) a property was created that duplicates the function of an existing property, and (b) it was created without an input, notification, or the knowledge of the Wikiproject whose project page was then altered. Do you support the duplication of property functions? Do you condone the creation of properties without notifying or consulting established projects who are directly impacted by the new property? The underlying issues can be discussed at Wikidata:WikiProject Books, if you believe you have helpful ideas. The few examples I gave merely illustrate the complexity of this issue goes beyond anything that was discussed in the hasty approval of the property. -- ( ) @ : Should I start a discussion on WP:Books about the property now, or after it is maybe [MASK]? ( ) You could do either. Whether this property remains or is [MASK], many of the complexities of this issue will still exist. -- ( ) Discussion about the property created: ( ) This isn't the forum for suggesting alternative approached for Wikiproject:Books. The issue here is that (a) a property was created that duplicates the function of an existing property, and (b) it was created without an input, notification, or the knowledge of the Wikiproject whose project page was then altered. Do you support the duplication of property functions? Do you condone the creation of properties without notifying or consulting established projects who are directly impacted by the new property? The underlying issues can be discussed at Wikidata:WikiProject Books, if you believe you have helpful ideas. The few examples I gave merely illustrate the complexity of this issue goes beyond anything that was discussed in the hasty approval of the property. -- ( ) @ : Should I start a discussion on WP:Books about the property now, or after it is maybe [MASK]? ( ) You could do either. Whether this property remains or is [MASK], many of the complexities of this issue will still exist. -- ( ) Discussion about the property created: ( ) @ : Should I start a discussion on WP:Books about the property now, or after it is maybe [MASK]? ( ) You could do either. Whether this property remains or is [MASK], many of the complexities of this issue will still exist. -- ( ) Discussion about the property created: ( ) You could do either. Whether this property remains or is [MASK], many of the complexities of this issue will still exist. -- ( ) Discussion about the property created: ( ) Discussion about the property created: ( ) Merge and delete P629 is good enough for a decade. -- ( ) [MASK] @ : This property as discussed clearly serves a purpose for distinguishing which versions of a work are translations of another. When used correctly this property does not replace the usage of . All editions and translations should remain under that property. All does is establish a relation statement between fellow versions that would be under together. This allows for users to distinguish which editions are translations of other editions with a simple statement and not have to user qualifiers on . It also allows for the distinguishment of translations that are based on translations themselves, with all translations and editions being under the same work (see discussion). Clearly this property has a need and necessary in the cataloging of creative works. -- ( ) P9745 has been reported as having difficult on translations of Asian languages, where P629 doesn't have. ( ) @ : I'm confused by what you mean? is still supposed to be used for all translations and editions. All does is relate what editions are translations of another. ( ) @ I guess that these languages don't have better P9745 translations due to grammar rules, if Yandex, Google or else don't make me shame? Amharic: የ $1 ትርጉም (then use የ or ትርጉም?) Armenian: $1- ի թարգմանություն (really ""ի թարգմանություն $1-"" is okay?) Azerbaijani: $1 tərcüməsi (I believe they won't agree ""tərcüməsi $1"") Basque: $1-ren itzulpena (""-ren itzulpena $1""? hehe) Bengali: $1 এর অনুবাদ (I don't think ""এর অনুবাদ $1"" is okay) Burmese: $1 ဘာသာပြန်ချက် (I don't think ""ဘာသာပြန်ချက် $1"" is okay) Chinese: $1的翻译/$1的翻譯 (""的翻译 $1/的翻譯 $1""? lol) Estonian: $1 tõlge (""tõlge $1"" can work?) Finnish: $1 käännös (""käännös $1"" can work?) Georgian: $1- ის თარგმანი (don't expect ""ის თარგმანი $1-"" can work) Gujarati: $1 નું ભાષાંતર (I don't think ""નું ભાષાંતર $1"" is okay) Hindi: $1 . का अनुवाद (I don't think ""का अनुवाद $1 . "" is okay) Hungarian: $1 fordítása (maybe someone can tell me if ""fordítása $1"" is okay or not) Japanese: $1の翻訳 (""の翻訳 $1"" would really be nonsense) Kannada: $1 ಅನುವಾದ (I don't think ""ಅನುವಾದ $1"" is okay) Kazakh: $1 аудармасы (I believe they won't agree ""аудармасы $1"") Korean: $1 번역 (""번역 $1"" can work?) Kyrgyz: $1 котормосу (I believe they won't agree ""котормосу $1"") Lithuanian: $1 vertimas (""vertimas $1"" can work?) Malayalam: $1 വിവർത്തനം (I don't think ""വിവർത്തനം $1"" is okay) Marathi: $1 चे भाषांतर (I don't think ""चे भाषांतर $1"" is okay) Mongolian: $1 орчуулга (I believe they won't agree ""орчуулга $1"") Nepali: $1 को अनुवाद (I don't think ""को अनुवाद $1"" is okay) Odia: $1 ର ଅନୁବାଦ (I don't think ""ର ଅନୁବାଦ $1"" is okay) Pashto: د $1 ژباړه (As a RTL language, I don't see any reasons ""د"" or ""ژباړه"" may just work lonely) Punjabi: $1 ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ (I don't think ""ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ $1"" is okay) Sindhi: $1 جو ترجمو (As a RTL language, do we think ""جو ترجمو $1"" may work?) Sinhalese: $1 පරිවර්තනය (I don't think ""පරිවර්තනය $1"" is okay) Tamil: $1 இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு (I don't think ""இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு $1"" is okay) Tatar: $1 тәрҗемәсе (I believe they won't agree ""тәрҗемәсе $1"") Telugu: $1 యొక్క అనువాదం (I don't think ""యొక్క అనువాదం $1"" is okay) Turkish: $1'un çevirisi (do you have evidences ""'un çevirisi $1"" may work?) Turkmen: $1 terjimesi (I believe they won't agree ""terjimesi $1"") Urdu: $1 کا ترجمہ (still think ""کا ترجمہ $1"" may work?) Uyghur: $1 نىڭ تەرجىمىسى (still think ""نىڭ تەرجىمىسى $1"" may work?) Uzbek: $1 tarjimasi (I believe they won't agree ""tarjimasi $1"") (although we even don't think all speakers of them can trust MT tools, we need at least a way to let values shown before these translation words, or do you have other ways to fix them?) ( ) @ : Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, how to these languages work with other properties that are named with a noun and the ""of""? Why is ""translation of"" such a barrier grammatically compared to other properties? ( ) Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word ""of"". ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) P9745 has been reported as having difficult on translations of Asian languages, where P629 doesn't have. ( ) @ : I'm confused by what you mean? is still supposed to be used for all translations and editions. All does is relate what editions are translations of another. ( ) @ I guess that these languages don't have better P9745 translations due to grammar rules, if Yandex, Google or else don't make me shame? Amharic: የ $1 ትርጉም (then use የ or ትርጉም?) Armenian: $1- ի թարգմանություն (really ""ի թարգմանություն $1-"" is okay?) Azerbaijani: $1 tərcüməsi (I believe they won't agree ""tərcüməsi $1"") Basque: $1-ren itzulpena (""-ren itzulpena $1""? hehe) Bengali: $1 এর অনু��াদ (I don't think ""এর অনুবাদ $1"" is okay) Burmese: $1 ဘာသာပြန်ချက် (I don't think ""ဘာသာပြန်ချက် $1"" is okay) Chinese: $1的翻译/$1的翻譯 (""的翻译 $1/的翻譯 $1""? lol) Estonian: $1 tõlge (""tõlge $1"" can work?) Finnish: $1 käännös (""käännös $1"" can work?) Georgian: $1- ის თარგმანი (don't expect ""ის თარგმანი $1-"" can work) Gujarati: $1 નું ભાષાંતર (I don't think ""નું ભાષાંતર $1"" is okay) Hindi: $1 . का अनुवाद (I don't think ""का अनुवाद $1 . "" is okay) Hungarian: $1 fordítása (maybe someone can tell me if ""fordítása $1"" is okay or not) Japanese: $1の翻訳 (""の翻訳 $1"" would really be nonsense) Kannada: $1 ಅನುವಾದ (I don't think ""ಅನುವಾದ $1"" is okay) Kazakh: $1 аудармасы (I believe they won't agree ""аудармасы $1"") Korean: $1 번역 (""번역 $1"" can work?) Kyrgyz: $1 котормосу (I believe they won't agree ""котормосу $1"") Lithuanian: $1 vertimas (""vertimas $1"" can work?) Malayalam: $1 വിവർത്തനം (I don't think ""വിവർത്തനം $1"" is okay) Marathi: $1 चे भाषांतर (I don't think ""चे भाषांतर $1"" is okay) Mongolian: $1 орчуулга (I believe they won't agree ""орчуулга $1"") Nepali: $1 को अनुवाद (I don't think ""को अनुवाद $1"" is okay) Odia: $1 ର ଅନୁବାଦ (I don't think ""ର ଅନୁବାଦ $1"" is okay) Pashto: د $1 ژباړه (As a RTL language, I don't see any reasons ""د"" or ""ژباړه"" may just work lonely) Punjabi: $1 ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ (I don't think ""ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ $1"" is okay) Sindhi: $1 جو ترجمو (As a RTL language, do we think ""جو ترجمو $1"" may work?) Sinhalese: $1 පරිවර්තනය (I don't think ""පරිවර්තනය $1"" is okay) Tamil: $1 இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு (I don't think ""இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு $1"" is okay) Tatar: $1 тәрҗемәсе (I believe they won't agree ""тәрҗемәсе $1"") Telugu: $1 యొక్క అనువాదం (I don't think ""యొక్క అనువాదం $1"" is okay) Turkish: $1'un çevirisi (do you have evidences ""'un çevirisi $1"" may work?) Turkmen: $1 terjimesi (I believe they won't agree ""terjimesi $1"") Urdu: $1 کا ترجمہ (still think ""کا ترجمہ $1"" may work?) Uyghur: $1 نىڭ تەرجىمىسى (still think ""نىڭ تەرجىمىسى $1"" may work?) Uzbek: $1 tarjimasi (I believe they won't agree ""tarjimasi $1"") (although we even don't think all speakers of them can trust MT tools, we need at least a way to let values shown before these translation words, or do you have other ways to fix them?) ( ) @ : Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, how to these languages work with other properties that are named with a noun and the ""of""? Why is ""translation of"" such a barrier grammatically compared to other properties? ( ) Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word ""of"". ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) @ : I'm confused by what you mean? is still supposed to be used for all translations and editions. All does is relate what editions are translations of another. ( ) @ I guess that these languages don't have better P9745 translations due to grammar rules, if Yandex, Google or else don't make me shame? Amharic: የ $1 ትርጉም (then use የ or ትርጉም?) Armenian: $1- ի թարգմանություն (really ""ի թարգմանություն $1-"" is okay?) Azerbaijani: $1 tərcüməsi (I believe they won't agree ""tərcüməsi $1"") Basque: $1-ren itzulpena (""-ren itzulpena $1""? hehe) Bengali: $1 এর অনুবাদ (I don't think ""এর অনুবাদ $1"" is okay) Burmese: $1 ဘာသာပြန်ချက် (I don't think ""ဘာသာပြန်ချက် $1"" is okay) Chinese: $1的翻译/$1的翻譯 (""的翻译 $1/的翻譯 $1""? lol) Estonian: $1 tõlge (""tõlge $1"" can work?) Finnish: $1 käännös (""käännös $1"" can work?) Georgian: $1- ის თარგმანი (don't expect ""ის თარგმანი $1-"" can work) Gujarati: $1 નું ભાષાંતર (I don't think ""નું ભાષાંતર $1"" is okay) Hindi: $1 . का अनुवाद (I don't think ""का अनुवाद $1 . "" is okay) Hungarian: $1 fordítása (maybe someone can tell me if ""fordítása $1"" is okay or not) Japanese: $1の翻訳 (""の翻訳 $1"" would really be nonsense) Kannada: $1 ಅನುವಾದ (I don't think ""ಅನುವಾದ $1"" is okay) Kazakh: $1 аудармасы (I believe they won't agree ""аудармасы $1"") Korean: $1 번역 (""번역 $1"" can work?) Kyrgyz: $1 котормосу (I believe they won't agree ""котормосу $1"") Lithuanian: $1 vertimas (""vertimas $1"" can work?) Malayalam: $1 വിവർത്തനം (I don't think ""വിവർത്തനം $1"" is okay) Marathi: $1 चे भाषांतर (I don't think ""चे भाषांतर $1"" is okay) Mongolian: $1 орчуулга (I believe they won't agree ""орчуулга $1"") Nepali: $1 को अनुवाद (I don't think ""को अनुवाद $1"" is okay) Odia: $1 ର ଅନୁବାଦ (I don't think ""ର ଅନୁବାଦ $1"" is okay) Pashto: د $1 ژباړه (As a RTL language, I don't see any reasons ""د"" or ""ژباړه"" may just work lonely) Punjabi: $1 ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ (I don't think ""ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ $1"" is okay) Sindhi: $1 جو ترجمو (As a RTL language, do we think ""جو ترجمو $1"" may work?) Sinhalese: $1 පරිවර්තනය (I don't think ""පරිවර්තනය $1"" is okay) Tamil: $1 இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு (I don't think ""இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு $1"" is okay) Tatar: $1 тәрҗемәсе (I believe they won't agree ""тәрҗемәсе $1"") Telugu: $1 యొక్క అనువాదం (I don't think ""యొక్క అనువాదం $1"" is okay) Turkish: $1'un çevirisi (do you have evidences ""'un çevirisi $1"" may work?) Turkmen: $1 terjimesi (I believe they won't agree ""terjimesi $1"") Urdu: $1 کا ترجمہ (still think ""کا ترجمہ $1"" may work?) Uyghur: $1 نىڭ تەرجىمىسى (still think ""نىڭ تەرجىمىسى $1"" may work?) Uzbek: $1 tarjimasi (I believe they won't agree ""tarjimasi $1"") (although we even don't think all speakers of them can trust MT tools, we need at least a way to let values shown before these translation words, or do you have other ways to fix them?) ( ) @ : Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, how to these languages work with other properties that are named with a noun and the ""of""? Why is ""translation of"" such a barrier grammatically compared to other properties? ( ) Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word ""of"". ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) @ I guess that these languages don't have better P9745 translations due to grammar rules, if Yandex, Google or else don't make me shame? Amharic: የ $1 ትርጉም (then use የ or ትርጉም?) Armenian: $1- ի թարգմանություն (really ""ի թարգմանություն $1-"" is okay?) Azerbaijani: $1 tərcüməsi (I believe they won't agree ""tərcüməsi $1"") Basque: $1-ren itzulpena (""-ren itzulpena $1""? hehe) Bengali: $1 এর অনুবাদ (I don't think ""এর অনুবাদ $1"" is okay) Burmese: $1 ဘာသာပြန်ချက် (I don't think ""ဘာသာပြန်ချက် $1"" is okay) Chinese: $1的翻译/$1的翻譯 (""的翻译 $1/的翻譯 $1""? lol) Estonian: $1 tõlge (""tõlge $1"" can work?) Finnish: $1 käännös (""käännös $1"" can work?) Georgian: $1- ის თარგმანი (don't expect ""ის თარგმანი $1-"" can work) Gujarati: $1 નું ભાષાંતર (I don't think ""નું ભાષાંતર $1"" is okay) Hindi: $1 . का अनुवाद (I don't think ""का अनुवाद $1 . "" is okay) Hungarian: $1 fordítása (maybe someone can tell me if ""fordítása $1"" is okay or not) Japanese: $1の翻訳 (""の翻訳 $1"" would really be nonsense) Kannada: $1 ಅನುವಾದ (I don't think ""ಅನುವಾದ $1"" is okay) Kazakh: $1 аудармасы (I believe they won't agree ""аудармасы $1"") Korean: $1 번역 (""번역 $1"" can work?) Kyrgyz: $1 котормосу (I believe they won't agree ""котормосу $1"") Lithuanian: $1 vertimas (""vertimas $1"" can work?) Malayalam: $1 വിവർത്തനം (I don't think ""വിവർത്തനം $1"" is okay) Marathi: $1 चे भाषांतर (I don't think ""चे भाषांतर $1"" is okay) Mongolian: $1 орчуулга (I believe they won't agree ""орчуулга $1"") Nepali: $1 को अनुवाद (I don't think ""को अनुवाद $1"" is okay) Odia: $1 ର ଅନୁବାଦ (I don't think ""ର ଅନୁବାଦ $1"" is okay) Pashto: د $1 ژباړه (As a RTL language, I don't see any reasons ""د"" or ""ژباړه"" may just work lonely) Punjabi: $1 ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ (I don't think ""ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ $1"" is okay) Sindhi: $1 جو ترجمو (As a RTL language, do we think ""جو ترجمو $1"" may work?) Sinhalese: $1 පරිවර්තනය (I don't think ""පරිවර්තනය $1"" is okay) Tamil: $1 இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு (I don't think ""இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு $1"" is okay) Tatar: $1 тәрҗемәсе (I believe they won't agree ""тәрҗемәсе $1"") Telugu: $1 యొక్క అనువాదం (I don't think ""యొక్క అనువాదం $1"" is okay) Turkish: $1'un çevirisi (do you have evidences ""'un çevirisi $1"" may work?) Turkmen: $1 terjimesi (I believe they won't agree ""terjimesi $1"") Urdu: $1 کا ترجمہ (still think ""کا ترجمہ $1"" may work?) Uyghur: $1 نىڭ تەرجىمىسى (still think ""نىڭ تەرجىمىسى $1"" may work?) Uzbek: $1 tarjimasi (I believe they won't agree ""tarjimasi $1"") Amharic: የ $1 ትርጉም (then use የ or ትርጉም?) Armenian: $1- ի թարգմանություն (really ""ի թարգմանություն $1-"" is okay?) Azerbaijani: $1 tərcüməsi (I believe they won't agree ""tərcüməsi $1"") Basque: $1-ren itzulpena (""-ren itzulpena $1""? hehe) Bengali: $1 এর অনুবাদ (I don't think ""এর অনুবাদ $1"" is okay) Burmese: $1 ဘာသာပြန်ချက် (I don't think ""ဘာသာပြန်ချက် $1"" is okay) Chinese: $1的翻译/$1的翻譯 (""的翻译 $1/的翻譯 $1""? lol) Estonian: $1 tõlge (""tõlge $1"" can work?) Finnish: $1 käännös (""käännös $1"" can work?) Georgian: $1- ის თარგმანი (don't expect ""ის თარგმანი $1-"" can work) Gujarati: $1 નું ભાષાંતર (I don't think ""નું ભાષાંતર $1"" is okay) Hindi: $1 . का अनुवाद (I don't think ""का अनुवाद $1 . "" is okay) Hungarian: $1 fordítása (maybe someone can tell me if ""fordítása $1"" is okay or not) Japanese: $1の翻訳 (""の翻訳 $1"" would really be nonsense) Kannada: $1 ಅನುವಾದ (I don't think ""ಅನುವಾದ $1"" is okay) Kazakh: $1 аудармасы (I believe they won't agree ""аудармасы $1"") Korean: $1 번역 (""번역 $1"" can work?) Kyrgyz: $1 котормосу (I believe they won't agree ""котормосу $1"") Lithuanian: $1 vertimas (""vertimas $1"" can work?) Malayalam: $1 വിവർത്തനം (I don't think ""വിവർത്തനം $1"" is okay) Marathi: $1 चे भाषांतर (I don't think ""चे भाषांतर $1"" is okay) Mongolian: $1 орчуулга (I believe they won't agree ""орчуулга $1"") Nepali: $1 को अनुवाद (I don't think ""को अनुवाद $1"" is okay) Odia: $1 ର ଅନୁବାଦ (I don't think ""ର ଅନୁବାଦ $1"" is okay) Pashto: د $1 ژباړه (As a RTL language, I don't see any reasons ""د"" or ""ژباړه"" may just work lonely) Punjabi: $1 ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ (I don't think ""ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ $1"" is okay) Sindhi: $1 جو ترجمو (As a RTL language, do we think ""جو ترجمو $1"" may work?) Sinhalese: $1 පරිවර්තනය (I don't think ""පරිවර්තනය $1"" is okay) Tamil: $1 இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு (I don't think ""இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு $1"" is okay) Tatar: $1 тәрҗемәсе (I believe they won't agree ""тәрҗемәсе $1"") Telugu: $1 యొక్క అనువాదం (I don't think ""యొక్క అనువాదం $1"" is okay) Turkish: $1'un çevirisi (do you have evidences ""'un çevirisi $1"" may work?) Turkmen: $1 terjimesi (I believe they won't agree ""terjimesi $1"") Urdu: $1 کا ترجمہ (still think ""کا ترجمہ $1"" may work?) Uyghur: $1 نىڭ تەرجىمىسى (still think ""نىڭ تەرجىمىسى $1"" may work?) Uzbek: $1 tarjimasi (I believe they won't agree ""tarjimasi $1"") (although we even don't think all speakers of them can trust MT tools, we need at least a way to let values shown before these translation words, or do you have other ways to fix them?) ( ) @ : Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, how to these languages work with other properties that are named with a noun and the ""of""? Why is ""translation of"" such a barrier grammatically compared to other properties? ( ) Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word ""of"". ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) @ : Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, how to these languages work with other properties that are named with a noun and the ""of""? Why is ""translation of"" such a barrier grammatically compared to other properties? ( ) Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word ""of"". ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word ""of"". ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) @ : Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) Or probably, we need to discuss the English name ""translation of"" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. ( ) Delete Prematurely created and pretty confusing (note that translated edition is usually a translation of another edition, not the work, sometimes even translation of another translated edition, etc.). -- ( ) @ : Wait, if you understand how the property works, why are you for deleting it? ( ) @ : Wait, if you understand how the property works, why are you for deleting it? ( ) [MASK] This property is now actively used for music, strongly against deleting it. Moving away from old ambiguous properties that require inverse statements is only a good thing imo. ( ) [MASK] I am also clearly against a deletion here. I find this property very useful. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: shrinkage_(P7079): No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) Support There literally is no usage . It seems like a weird property to begin with, so I don't mind deleting it. — Support This isn't even used in the given example. -- ( ) [MASK] It certainly had support, no usage is not reason to delete it ( ) @ , , : As header: Support or Oppose what? Please, use [MASK] or Delete . — ( ) Got it, I meant Delete . — @ : By that logic, we should never delete any property because they all had support at one point. But sometimes we are collectively mistaken on whether a particular property will be useful so we should be open to deleting unused properties. — @ , , : As header: Support or Oppose what? Please, use [MASK] or Delete . — ( ) Got it, I meant Delete . — Got it, I meant Delete . — @ : By that logic, we should never delete any property because they all had support at one point. But sometimes we are collectively mistaken on whether a particular property will be useful so we should be open to deleting unused properties. — Delete @ : Not really to be used due to hard technical challanges, if the technical problem is solved in the near future, this can be request-restored. -- ( ) Delete ( ) [MASK] Unless there is an actual problem with the property, no use is a poor reason. If we are just missing active users with an interest in updating materials, let's have this property hanging around, it costs much less energy than trying to undelete it later. ( ) [MASK] , disuse is not a reason to delete. ( ) [MASK] this property is one of the series of properties related to materials science and it should be discussed in relation to other properties from that series. As the only argument for deletion is no usage, I see no other option as to vote to [MASK] this. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6453_(P6453): Property will be migrated to and [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Property will be migrated to and [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Delete I agree after reviewing these properties. One thing to [MASK] in mind when updating is they're using slightly different formats for their URLs/identifiers as one includes the 'md' at the start of every ID and the other doesn't. -- ( ) Delete delete or merge. and basically the same. ( ) Delete because it's redundant. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Joconde_IDs: Consensus is to [MASK] these properties — Martin ( · ) Consensus is to [MASK] these properties — Martin ( · ) Delete That's fine with me. But you should maybe propose a new property for this first, or pick one of them to be the main one? ( ) I rescind my vote here given the discussion below - if there are cases where the same item would have identifiers from more than one of these properties, then keeping them separate seems the better choice. I really don't have a strong opinion on this either way though. ( ) I rescind my vote here given the discussion below - if there are cases where the same item would have identifiers from more than one of these properties, then keeping them separate seems the better choice. I really don't have a strong opinion on this either way though. ( ) [MASK] Those properties link to different and specific vocabularies. For reuse, we need this differentiation. For example on with the value of we can make a link trough the structured data on to make enable a specific search to the . -- ( ) [MASK] If we merge the Joconde properties it may lead to confusion between similar terms used in different vocabularies and lose their original meaning. For example Domaine : Afrique du Nord and Lieux : Afrique du Nord . -- ( ) As Joconde is a French website: [MASK] : same as for Shonagon. ( ) . Neutral both cases (unique property or separate properties) have advantages. For the records, there was a unique property (created in 2017, ) but it has been [MASK] ( ) and split into these separate properties. I'm not keen to go back to the previous situation without a good reason. That said, to answer @ : question, if we go back so a single property, the best would be to undelete . Cdlt, ( ) [MASK] Per , and . There are edge cases that would be too far and wide to solve easily, seeing as some items can fall into two (or more ? ) categories, depending on the axis you want to reach them from, and it is actually sometimes interesting to search all items by one axis, which merging all properties would make a bit more complicated. As an aside, unlike what was said on , they aren't ""UUIDs"" as they're not 128-bit integers (even assuming the letters to be 8-bit) : unique identifiers aren't necessarily UUIDs… ( ) I suggest you synthesis and maybe a unanimous exit will see the light of day. Above all, tell me if I write bullshit! I think votes {{ }} because he sees that it is technically possible. The identifiers of each property will always be linked to a part of , but in a different way ( url_prefix ) and will always point to the right page (for each property). I think he has in mind the example of : IDs present for each part (tt, nm, etc.), but linked by a single property. But he expressed the reservation that a proposal be made. (Maybe he's even waiting for a ""Pull request"" for index.php ?) So the opinions of @ , , : can be guaranteed, whether it is Author, Location or Domain, and whether it is UUid or not. For from , the return of this property should not be useful, but when I see that has not been carried over to , it would be useful to recover the old forgotten IDs. According to the problems formulated above, and will no longer be used in the future Property and indicated in the proposal. Only the complexity of RegEx will allow proper use. For RegEx, I recommend a separation of a term designating one of the old Property by : and the IDs themselves. The old RegEx will be taken over to form the new RegEx. So the future Regex will have the following form: (thesaurus:(T69-[1-9]\d{0,6}|T96-[1-9]\d{0,6})|author:(T513-[1-9]\d{0,4}|[0-9a-f]{8}(-[0-9a-f]{4}){3}-[0-9a-f]{12})|domain:(T51-[1-9]\d{0,2}|[0-9a-f]{8}(-[0-9a-f]{4}){3}-[0-9a-f]{12})|epoch:[1-9]\d{0,5}| etc. I don't know how long a RegEx can take on WD. Current Ids will take a prefix: thesaurus, author, domain, epoch, etc. Example of ID provided by : → . should be used to refer contributors. Before deletion, the old IDs should be taken back. They are 363. This is why I agree with Delete : some current properties have less than 10 entries. Maybe an Open Refine would take the IDs (fetch URL?). I would also like a proposal before deletion. Warmest regards — ( ) I think votes {{ }} because he sees that it is technically possible. The identifiers of each property will always be linked to a part of , but in a different way ( url_prefix ) and will always point to the right page (for each property). I think he has in mind the example of : IDs present for each part (tt, nm, etc.), but linked by a single property. But he expressed the reservation that a proposal be made. (Maybe he's even waiting for a ""Pull request"" for index.php ?) So the opinions of @ , , : can be guaranteed, whether it is Author, Location or Domain, and whether it is UUid or not. For from , the return of this property should not be useful, but when I see that has not been carried over to , it would be useful to recover the old forgotten IDs. According to the problems formulated above, and will no longer be used in the future Property and indicated in the proposal. Only the complexity of RegEx will allow proper use. For RegEx, I recommend a separation of a term designating one of the old Property by : and the IDs themselves. The old RegEx will be taken over to form the new RegEx. So the future Regex will have the following form: (thesaurus:(T69-[1-9]\d{0,6}|T96-[1-9]\d{0,6})|author:(T513-[1-9]\d{0,4}|[0-9a-f]{8}(-[0-9a-f]{4}){3}-[0-9a-f]{12})|domain:(T51-[1-9]\d{0,2}|[0-9a-f]{8}(-[0-9a-f]{4}){3}-[0-9a-f]{12})|epoch:[1-9]\d{0,5}| etc. I don't know how long a RegEx can take on WD. Current Ids will take a prefix: thesaurus, author, domain, epoch, etc. Example of ID provided by : → . should be used to refer contributors. Before deletion, the old IDs should be taken back. They are 363. This is why I agree with Delete : some current properties have less than 10 entries. Maybe an Open Refine would take the IDs (fetch URL?). I would also like a proposal before deletion. Warmest regards — ( ) Neutral — ( ) My first idea (before discussion with Vladimir Alexiev and this proposal) is to create a new property ""Joconde UUID"" and rename all other properties to ""Joconde legacy xxx ID"". -- ( ) @ : I'm sure I understand your position. You say « the return of this property should not be useful » and then « I agree with {{ }} », but deletion of the separate properties is exactly the same as return to . Plus, the analogy with is only partially relevant as each part is separate and disjoint (it's tt or - exclusive or - nm , which make it easier to manage and maintain) while here there is a lot of overlap between the thesauri (it's T69- and T96- for example) which may cause some trouble (including but not limited to the ""single value"" constraint as you pointed out; the ""unique distinct value"" constraint is still true though). Cheers, ( ) @ : Yes that could have been a solution except that unfortunately the prefix is not reliable. It is a remnant of an old system for ancient entries. All new entries use UUID and are intentionally opaque. Example of artist Joconde with UUID: . Best regards -- ( ) @ : I'm sure I understand your position. You say « the return of this property should not be useful » and then « I agree with {{ }} », but deletion of the separate properties is exactly the same as return to . Plus, the analogy with is only partially relevant as each part is separate and disjoint (it's tt or - exclusive or - nm , which make it easier to manage and maintain) while here there is a lot of overlap between the thesauri (it's T69- and T96- for example) which may cause some trouble (including but not limited to the ""single value"" constraint as you pointed out; the ""unique distinct value"" constraint is still true though). Cheers, ( ) @ : Yes that could have been a solution except that unfortunately the prefix is not reliable. It is a remnant of an old system for ancient entries. All new entries use UUID and are intentionally opaque. Example of artist Joconde with UUID: . Best regards -- ( ) I have another point for deletion: there seems to be much more thesauri than Wikidata properties we have. Creating an property for each of them does not seems scalable.-- ( ) @ : These vocabularies are all those of the Joconde database and are particularly important in France, used for hundreds of museum collections. Best regards -- ( ) @ : These vocabularies are all those of the Joconde database and are particularly important in France, used for hundreds of museum collections. Best regards -- ( ) Comment This thus look rather un-coodinated. We also seem to have more properties than some of those properties have actual uses. How many more properties should there be created? --- [MASK] See : @ , : had a phone call a few days ago with colleagues at the french Ministry of Culture. (@ , , , , , :). They said they'll [MASK] separate thesauri, are very interested in linking to WD, and are working to link the thesauri to POP (the FR aggregation of artworks). I completely agree with Christelle that we have to respect the wish/organization of the thesaurus provider, despite some messiness in their organization. What we need to do is below. I hope culture.fr people, @ , : can help with the last 3 bullets (the last 2 are the big-effort part) -- ( ) Relax regexes to just [\w-]+ Edit formatterURL to remove T69- (and the like) Migrate existing values to put T69- (and the like) inside the value Create a central page to describe all FR thesauri, with description, links to home page and prop, MnM catalog. A good place is a sub-page of Import more of the thesauri to Mix-n-Match catalogs so they can be coreferenced (when there is interest) Create more props and catalogs for more thesauri Relax regexes to just [\w-]+ Edit formatterURL to remove T69- (and the like) Migrate existing values to put T69- (and the like) inside the value Create a central page to describe all FR thesauri, with description, links to home page and prop, MnM catalog. A good place is a sub-page of Import more of the thesauri to Mix-n-Match catalogs so they can be coreferenced (when there is interest) Create more props and catalogs for more thesauri Yes I see a point for doing so. I withdrew the deletion request but this should not be closed yet until others agree Vladimir Alexiev's proposal. -- ( ) 's proposal sounds fine to me. ( ) 's proposal sounds fine to me. ( ) I dont't think the id should be changed to include the database identifier if we [MASK] separate properties. --- OTH, the format seems to be either "" "" or "" "" . . --- Properties have been corrected or completed (format, constraints, source website,...), Regex formats are adapted for specific identifier or uuid, Existing values for all Joconde properties claims have been corrected if necessary, A was created (thanks to ), Joconde thesauri have been imported to Mix'n'Match : . edited to fix some bullets edited query to add Nomenclature removed type constraint at I wonder how to approach a translation of these pages to EN, in order to make this effort approachable by a bigger crowd. I'm not familiar with Wikidata translation mechanisms... @ : can you help? -- ( ) Hi @ : I've started the translation but haven't finished yet. Maybe a lot of things to correct...-- ( ) [MASK] Okay, per Vladimir Alexiev, I don't think that deprecating it is good for us. -- ( ) You cannot currently add it because ""Thésaurus-matières pour l'indexation des archives locales"" is not made into a WD property. Given that we now have many culture.fr people involved in this effort on WD, i think we should leave it up to them to decide which culture.fr thesauri are worth exposing on WD. -- ( ) You cannot currently add it because ""Thésaurus-matières pour l'indexation des archives locales"" is not made into a WD property. Given that we now have many culture.fr people involved in this effort on WD, i think we should leave it up to them to decide which culture.fr thesauri are worth exposing on WD. -- ( ) [MASK] Given the significant effort on it would be folly to delete these props and disturb their effort -- ( ) @ , : Why are and missing from that project? Are they ""second class"" thesauri and the WD props should be [MASK], or will they be coreferenced and maintained like the rest? -- ( ) Hi @ It's because they are linked to others cultural databases : Palissy and Mérimée that are separate of Joconde. They are all accessible via the but supported by different departements of the french ministry of culture who use their own vocabularies. it's a pity but we have to deal with it... ( ) Hi @ It's because they are linked to others cultural databases : Palissy and Mérimée that are separate of Joconde. They are all accessible via the but supported by different departements of the french ministry of culture who use their own vocabularies. it's a pity but we have to deal with it... ( ) @ , : Can't you take them under your wing as well? They have MnM catalogs, and the same problem (format regexes need to be changed, and the values migrated to include T69-, respectively T96- ). Please include them in your pages, thanks!! -- ( ) Hello @ and @ I've just created a global which includes the Joconde project. I hope that will be more understandable. ( ) @ , : Can't you take them under your wing as well? They have MnM catalogs, and the same problem (format regexes need to be changed, and the values migrated to include T69-, respectively T96- ). Please include them in your pages, thanks!! -- ( ) Hello @ and @ I've just created a global which includes the Joconde project. I hope that will be more understandable. ( ) Hello @ and @ I've just created a global which includes the Joconde project. I hope that will be more understandable. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Scoresway_handball_person_ID_(archived)_(P4451): Kept — Martin ( · ) Kept — Martin ( · ) See also A little [MASK] per above. -- ( ) [MASK] In use at at the English Wikipedia. Module transcluded in thousand of pages. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6656_(P6656): Consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) Consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) Delete Replacement is better. -- ( ) Comment It's a bit odd that it get listed for deletion shortly after P9037 was added. Does that mean that it wasn't really of much use in general? So if this is [MASK], maybe P9037 should be as well. --- @ Why is that odd? P9037 is a replacement for P6656. ( ) Some think that identifiers should be added to Wikidata so that others can reconcile datasets they have with Wikidata. --- @ Why is that odd? P9037 is a replacement for P6656. ( ) Some think that identifiers should be added to Wikidata so that others can reconcile datasets they have with Wikidata. --- Some think that identifiers should be added to Wikidata so that others can reconcile datasets they have with Wikidata. --- Delete . @ : Do you claim that values are already used in a bunch of other databases? @ : please comment -- ( ) I am not aware of a database which uses hard-coded links with the old identifier values. ( ) If it was added to Wikidata, it should have a use beyond merely providing links. --- I am not aware of a database which uses hard-coded links with the old identifier values. ( ) If it was added to Wikidata, it should have a use beyond merely providing links. --- If it was added to Wikidata, it should have a use beyond merely providing links. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6066_(P6066): Property will be [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Property will be [MASK] — Martin ( · ) See also: A little [MASK] per above. -- ( ) @ : Online archives are mostly not available (specific links has to be checked one by one). Only if the link was used as a reference in Wikipedia - then archive.org automatically makes a copy (but unfortunately often the links were not). So in some cases the archives may be available, but what would you do with these properties after kept? Seems pretty useless to me. ( ) @ : Why delete information though? Why remove existing entries? I suggest you revert you removal of its usages and we [MASK] it. ( ) @ : done, all 12 of them. . ( ) @ : Online archives are mostly not available (specific links has to be checked one by one). Only if the link was used as a reference in Wikipedia - then archive.org automatically makes a copy (but unfortunately often the links were not). So in some cases the archives may be available, but what would you do with these properties after kept? Seems pretty useless to me. ( ) @ : Why delete information though? Why remove existing entries? I suggest you revert you removal of its usages and we [MASK] it. ( ) @ : done, all 12 of them. . ( ) @ : Why delete information though? Why remove existing entries? I suggest you revert you removal of its usages and we [MASK] it. ( ) @ : done, all 12 of them. . ( ) @ : done, all 12 of them. . ( ) Comment hardly used. --- Delete No archive, 15 uses only.-- ( ) @ : was the information moved to another website? — Martin ( · ) @ : I have no idea... But I don't think so. ( ) @ : I have no idea... But I don't think so. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P9395_(P9395): concensus to delete . - concensus to delete . - Its proposal was by a user who has been inactive since July and was supported only by two other accounts, one of whom only ever supported that property proposal and created stub user (talk) pages for themselves and the other inactive since November but the majority of whose edits on Wikidata pertained to the owner of the site . It thus did not garner the sufficient level of exposure/criticism by the sufficient number of actually active users that would be expected of other property proposals. I suspect that the site itself is an elaborate vehicle for SEO by its owner, given that the very name of the website suggests some level of integrity in its data that cannot actually be independently verified, and given that the page structure of the website is inordinately too complex for the amount of actual information residing within it ('loftiness' might be a better word here). More recently, beginning in the evening UTC on 16 February, someone began to items 1) anonymously, 2) en masse, using the ""Wikidata User Interface"" edit tag (only ordinarily available from the Wikidata web client), and 3) changing IP addresses every ten seconds . This sort of network connection behavior is in my view cause for concern and, if coming from someone connected to the site (whether or not this person is the owner of the site), should be grounds for not continuing to tolerate additions of that property. Delete I've seen these edits from IPs too and the site literally just copies Wikidata. There's nothing unique about it. Also, all of the voters of the original property proposal have very few edits which makes it very shady. ( ) Delete ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete See the . I've had contact with said site's devs - they claim a dataset file was leaked ( ). But why someone would use all these IPs for this bizzare purpose? Dislaimer of sorts: I'm a paying customer to the non-profit (see the link on my user page) and was considering requesting bot permission to use with one of their datasets ( ), which I had been in contact about but not obtained as it wasn't ready - the activity seen in the last 12 hours isn't the way to do this. Instead a standard request for bot permissions with all things considered. Commenting here due to my previous interest as I doubt the devs would. -- ( ) Edits stopped as of 8:30 GMT ( ) in parallel with from . Property should be [MASK] and only brought back after a successful thorough disscussion of its use. -- ( ) Edits stopped as of 8:30 GMT ( ) in parallel with from . Property should be [MASK] and only brought back after a successful thorough disscussion of its use. -- ( ) Delete ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete as spamming. Also the fact that the site seem to be use only Wikidata content, this is no use for us as a ID. -- ( ) Delete -- ( • she/her) Delete original discussion appears suspicious, and usage further adds to that suspicion -- ( ) Delete per DannyS712 -- ( ) Delete per Mahir256 - ( ) Delete Should a checkuser be made on those accounts to confirm whether this is a case of vote stacking? I also spotted another account who wrote on the proposer's talk page, which follows the same pattern of the only contributions it has ever made being related to the founder of this website. -- ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete -- Info ids [MASK]. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P8929_(P8929): Consensus to delete this property and rename/repurpose to include ""world view"" — Martin ( · ) [MASK] -- ( ) Consensus to delete this property and rename/repurpose to include ""world view"" — Martin ( · ) [MASK] -- ( ) [MASK] : better than ""Religion"" and ""World View"" properties. ( ) . Delete per Andy. ( ) Delete messy, no consensus to create. -- ( ) definitely a mess. unsure what to do though... ( ) Delete i'm swayed to delete now ( ) Delete i'm swayed to delete now ( ) Delete again, as I said on proposal page ""religion"" and ""philosophical stance"" are orthogonal, joining these two concepts is like having ""color of eyes or height"" property . -- ( ) Delete , per Lockal. These are not similar things. What a mess... -- ( ) [MASK] Did any of you actually read the property proposal discussion? There was more than twice as many votes in favor as against creation, and there were clear examples given where the existing properties are insufficient. If you really want to delete this property then you need to explain how you will support expanding the use of or otherwise adjusting the use of existing properties to cover the needed cases. ( ) Comment First of all I wonna throw in , which has not yet been mentioned, but also intersects with this property. I was following the property proposal discussion and didn't participate, because my point of view on this question is mostly based on my philologic education and and not driven by questions of usability. But now a little theoretic input might actually be helpful in the discussion. It appears to me, that one of the main problems is the different connotation of in different languages. The german word ""Weltanschauung"" has been used at least since the 19th century and has first been used by romanticistic artists and basically ment seeing the world as it is, without delusion. It has been adapted by the Nazis and saw a shift of connotation somewhat around 1930. There has been a lot of discussion of the term by german philosophers in post-war-germany, most notably Heidegger and Klemperer. The present denotation appears pretty hard to grasp. Duden defines «Weltanschauung» as «Gesamtheit von Anschauungen, die die Welt und die Stellung des Menschen in der Welt betreffen» (Totality of views concerning the world and the position of man in the world). This would most definitely include religions. And yet, «Religion oder Weltanschauung» (Religion or Worldview) is a well-used syntagma in german. So this definition appear not to grasp the every-day use of this term. wrote that is not fitting in the term «Weltanschauung», the same way does. So what exactly counts as «Weltanschauung» varies a lot. I don't have a lot of knowledge of the history of the english term «world view», but a quick search with google ngram ( ) reveals, that it has not been used until as recently as the 1970s. Since the history of the english term is much shorter, the meaning appears to be way easier to grasp and apparently matches the definition Duden gives for »Weltanschauung». What are the consequences for this discussion? Having a catch-all property that can include all kinds of views, beliefs and convictions of political, religious or philosophic origin should in my opinion not be named «Weltanschauung» in german, since there's no universally agreed upon meaning. Practical considerations: I would like to be able to specifically query for users by their religion and their political views. For example: A list of anarchists and their religion ( ). Our data is obviously very incomplete, but I'd say that from a query perspective it's more useful to have fine grained properties. -- ( ) @ : Consensus is not just about votes but about there being clarity around the open questions. There's no clarity around whether or not political views are inside or outside of the scope in that discussion. There's just the example items that suggests that they are outside. I don't think there are 4 support votes and 2 oppose votes for any interpretation of what the property should mean either. Different people supported different kinds of properties. ❪ ❫ I didn't ever understand the discussion as implying the property was to include things like ""social democracy"". That seemed clear from the start. Perhaps the proposer worded it strangely, but the problem from the beginning was that is being used for things like , , , even , and the mentioned . Views like are also described using but neither property really fits. How do you resolve this without this new property? That seemed absolutely clear from the discussion, at least to me. ( ) @ : If you understand it in a way that it doesn't include it, how do you count that there are twice as much in favor? Under that view it has 3 oppose votes and 4 support ones. If you understand it that way the property had 3 oppose votes and 4 votes in favor. ❪ ❫ @ : If you understand it in a way that it doesn't include it, how do you count that there are twice as much in favor? Under that view it has 3 oppose votes and 4 support ones. If you understand it that way the property had 3 oppose votes and 4 votes in favor. ❪ ❫ [MASK] : see: Maybe and should thrown awy. -- ( ) Delete and rename to include ''world view''. This is entirely subjective and we are, I believe, trying to split a continuum into discrete parts. I vote to delete because its obviously confusing to have two items naming religion. Including world view with religion piggy-backs on the logic of that German law that started all this: the concepts are different, but not necessarily distinct. And for our purposes, they behave in much the same way. As to , , and I never felt anything wrong with those and they subjectively feel a bit further afield from . Politics and Religion are also two massive and distinct spheres of public discourse and should, in the spirit of , be kept separate. -- ( ) Delete - Per Matthias Winkelmann, this property is very confusing. Let's expand the use of to include worldview. ( ) Comment If those who are the major users of find the proposal to expand its use acceptable, I agree that that is a better solution. ( ) Delete – this is a term often used as a catch-all in legislation to reflect 'sincerely held beliefs'. The exegesis of the 'political or religious' term is rooted strongly in an intent to protect political emanations rooted in religious belief, e.g. opposition to, say, mandatory public education as an emanation of the religious beliefs of some Amish groups. The formulation is legally beneficial in that it avoids fruitless discussion about whether a religiously-motivated view about public life should be protected as a religious view or not. It doesn't lend itself, however, to defining people. I see as an argument, but is a clearly religious position, even if it is often associated with a political emanation, (there are religious secularists and there might be, at least in theory, atheists who believe there is some inherent worth in religious groups having some involvement with civil government). – The preceding comment was added by ( • ) at 23:44, June 21, 2021‎ (UTC). Delete unclear term, it is much better to use existing other terms. -- ( ) Delete duplicates existing religion property, no clear guidance on when to use this one vs that one. ""Worldview"" is a vague term which can refer to religious, philosophical or political beliefs. I think ""worldview"" is better expressed using separate properties for religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, and political ideology, than trying to collapse all three into one. We already have properties for first and third, maybe we need to add one for the second. The boundary between them is generally clear enough in practice; exceptional cases can be debated individually rather than trying to use those as a justification to overturn a generally useful distinction. ( ) Weakly Delete . I agree with what Ari said. ( ) Delete From the property proposal: ""Properties religion (P140) and political ideology (P1142) do not intersect nor overlap."" I can't see the point of replacing multiple specific non-overlapping concepts with a single conflating one, other than deliberately muddying the waters (reasonable for political purposes, not for defining people, per Ari). If ""Religionszugehörigkeit oder Weltanschauung"" is a distinct concept with German legal scope, it possibly could stand alongside the other properties, but not replace them. Original proposal seems to be more of a messy conflation though. ( ) Comment I have asked for to be expanded in meaning to allow this to be [MASK]. ( ) Delete I came across this property and was about to nominate it before realizing it's already here. As others have said above, redundant to , which should have broadened instead of forked. Delete as confused, confus ing and redundant to more specific properties. Not to say that more specific properties are axiomatically better—I think many properties are actually better as more general properties with qualifiers, but that's apparently not ""the done thing"". If we're going to have thousands of narrower properties, then at least be consistent. Consistency is absolutely critical for Wikidata to be even vaguely useful. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Scoresway_tennis_person_ID_(archived)_(P6308): [MASK] — Martin ( · ) [MASK] — Martin ( · ) See also A little [MASK] per above. -- ( ) >800 uses. I'd tend to [MASK]. --- Remove, useless. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Sicilian_Regional_Assembly_numeric_ID_(P8152): No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) It may be a duplication, I'm not sure. @ : and Notified for opinions. -- I don't really know what is meant by ""duplicate"". For sure the two properties are alternative to eachother (there is a 1:1 mapping between them). I don't know nothing more than what has already been said in . -- ( ) @ : Both properties link to the same item. See the difference between and : one links to the lyrics and the other one to the data about it. -- ★ I don't really know what is meant by ""duplicate"". For sure the two properties are alternative to eachother (there is a 1:1 mapping between them). I don't know nothing more than what has already been said in . -- ( ) @ : Both properties link to the same item. See the difference between and : one links to the lyrics and the other one to the data about it. -- ★ @ : Both properties link to the same item. See the difference between and : one links to the lyrics and the other one to the data about it. -- ★ It's the same item but specified with two different ways, string and number. The numeric ID redirects to the string one, however I was unable to find the numeric ID on the specified website. I suggest to delete the (only after a migration to the string property). -- ( ) I think that a numeric ID is more stable than a string ID, although it is not human-readable. I suggest to delete the other one and leave P8152 as main property. One can use P554 or something similar to indicate the string ID -- ★ If you prefer to delete the other and [MASK] this one, I'm fine with that. --- Why not [MASK] both, and use one as a qualifier on the other? Then people can match their data to our items, no matter which of the two identifiers they have got. ( ) I think that a numeric ID is more stable than a string ID, although it is not human-readable. I suggest to delete the other one and leave P8152 as main property. One can use P554 or something similar to indicate the string ID -- ★ If you prefer to delete the other and [MASK] this one, I'm fine with that. --- Why not [MASK] both, and use one as a qualifier on the other? Then people can match their data to our items, no matter which of the two identifiers they have got. ( ) If you prefer to delete the other and [MASK] this one, I'm fine with that. --- Why not [MASK] both, and use one as a qualifier on the other? Then people can match their data to our items, no matter which of the two identifiers they have got. ( ) Why not [MASK] both, and use one as a qualifier on the other? Then people can match their data to our items, no matter which of the two identifiers they have got. ( ) I see points for keeping both of them: one is easier to retrieve but not very ""identifying"" (for example, it is not clear how two persons with same name would be treated), the other one is a classic identifier but more difficult to retrieve. -- ( ) @ , , , , : any other comments on this? Otherwise I will close as no consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P7049_(P7049): On balance the request to delete is weakly supported . Deletion will be delayed by 30 days in case anyone wants to use the data in any way — Martin ( · ) On balance the request to delete is weakly supported . Deletion will be delayed by 30 days in case anyone wants to use the data in any way — Martin ( · ) I was tending to agree with deletion on the basis of the Internet Archive and Trove neither having any saved pages from the old online database using the IDs of . Additionally the example links of , and are not saved correctly by the Internet Archive, which seems to think all these example IDs match up with a single chemical in the database. Then I stumbled across , which indicates at least some pages were being saved by the Internet Archive correctly up to 2 years prior to existing in Wikidata. This property is used over 16,000 times on Wikidata items and who knows how many of these uses does result in an archived page off the old NICNAS inventory website. Given the lack of archiving observed and seemingly invalid archived pages when Internet Archive did make an attempt, I'm tending to the deletion of instead of the usual case of leaving in a deprecated state (for the purpose of Internet Archive etc linking). Mix'n'Match seems to contain the full catalogue of previous IDs but what is the point if there is no copy of the original page available? -- ( ) I updated the label, but given the number of uses and the importance of the database, I'm not really convinced by the deletion proposal. If the identifier was used elsewhere than on the website, I think that should be kept. If it wasn't used elsewhere, somehow our description of the identifier has a problem. @ : who worked on this mostly. --- Grrrr... I hate when databases do this. I'm accepting of my wasted efforts, but can't quite bring myself to vote for deletion! MnM will still be there in the unlikely event that we want to restore the data. -- ( ) this is really sad. we need to get better at archiving these external identifier URLs ( ) It looks to me that the reason the Wayback Machine only has a fraction of the pages is because they were only online for a few months, not because the links were defect. What does that tell about the creator's intention or the database's quality? Do we really need to [MASK] something alive that had not much time to mature? -- ( ) It seems the database has been around for years. Is it in web.archive.org . au (or is that the same)? --- It seems the database has been around for years. Is it in web.archive.org .au (or is that the same)? --- No objections. -- ( ) I wasn't going to bother creating a new property proposal for the new database because it seems it could be a waste of time again. The only use it'd theoretically be is determining whether a chemical can be manufactured or imported into Australia. For example, are listed as a restricted class of chemicals at present, but an states no restriction. According to and , substances have been banned from manufacture and import in Australia since the 1970s so this new website in April 2021 appears to have been wrong in a fairly significant way. The database doesn't provide useful information such as the date a chemical was listed as being able to be manufactured and/or imported, or the date it was restricted or banned. As another example, isn't listed at all (which would be expected), meaning it is most likely banned from manufacture or import. However, more generally, there is no way of knowing for sure what the meaning of a missing chemical is as the register also contains ""secret chemicals"" that manufacturers or importers may want to hide knowledge of from competitors. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P9460: No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) Not sure if “was created not too long ago” (April 2021) and “is hardly used” (213 uses) are really good reasons for a PfD request, especially if the links still work. CC -- ( ) In combination with the soon to be available replace property it surely is. Maybe ""rarely"" described it better than ""hardly"". --- In combination with the soon to be available replace property it surely is. Maybe ""rarely"" described it better than ""hardly"". --- I can confirm that the links to the PDFs still work and that I can add additional ones to items. Although the PDFs are no longer linked from the site, a simple Google search of the species name plus ""PDF"" brings them up at the top of the search results. ( ) The documents retrieved from the different properties do not necessarily have the exact same content. Having both also allows someone to access a PDF version if they prefer that over a web page. And there are new additions to that are not in . I do not see a reason to delete . ( ) Thanks for the clarification — Martin ( · ) Thanks for the clarification — Martin ( · ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: intangible_cultural_heritage_status_(P3259): [MASK] — Martin ( · ) [MASK] — Martin ( · ) [MASK] Strong oppose see the discussion for all explanations refuting Vladimir Alexiev hypothesis. In a nutshell: there is a proper definition, this is not exactly equivalent to a list (so is not a replacement) and not all have individual IDs, there is some ""mess"" (an exagerated and unneededly aggressive word) but it can be fixed, this is not a reason for deletion. Also pinging @ : who built the Infobox de Bało and @ : the local village pump can very very easily be found on . Cheers, ( ) The definition is ""status of an item that is designated as intangible heritage"" but the values (see query ) don't conform to it, eg: Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia intangible cultural heritage Beijing Municipal Intangible Cultural Heritage Please tell me what is the common theme between all these items. Maybe they are not ""exactly equivalent to lists"" but surely they are not ""statuses""? ( ) ""Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France"" says ""instance of: list"" ""intangible cultural heritage"" is surely not designated by any institution, it's a class of all ICH ""Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" says ""status awarded by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture"" but then the name should be "" Designated Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" (because there may be extra ICH in Indonesia that are not designated) The current prop ""designated status"" has a mix of values that include lists of designated and non-designated items So let me ask again, how is that ""not exactly equivalent to a list"" It makes more sense to have a property ""designated by"" Or better yet ""designation ID"" in various registers (UNESCO, FR, and more to come) ( ) is ""instance of: heritage designation"", which makes more sense to me I'd agree to [MASK] this prop if we rename it to ""heritage designation"" or ""intangible cultural heritage designation"" I've added a col ""isHeritageDesignation"" to the query . Most lists (values of this prop) are NOT instances of or subclass thereof ( ) @ : I agree mostly with you and the property should be cleaned (per it's definition and how it was intended at the beggining) and not [MASK]. Cheers, ( ) The definition is ""status of an item that is designated as intangible heritage"" but the values (see query ) don't conform to it, eg: Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia intangible cultural heritage Beijing Municipal Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia intangible cultural heritage Beijing Municipal Intangible Cultural Heritage Please tell me what is the common theme between all these items. Maybe they are not ""exactly equivalent to lists"" but surely they are not ""statuses""? ( ) ""Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France"" says ""instance of: list"" ""intangible cultural heritage"" is surely not designated by any institution, it's a class of all ICH ""Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" says ""status awarded by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture"" but then the name should be "" Designated Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" (because there may be extra ICH in Indonesia that are not designated) The current prop ""designated status"" has a mix of values that include lists of designated and non-designated items So let me ask again, how is that ""not exactly equivalent to a list"" It makes more sense to have a property ""designated by"" Or better yet ""designation ID"" in various registers (UNESCO, FR, and more to come) ( ) is ""instance of: heritage designation"", which makes more sense to me I'd agree to [MASK] this prop if we rename it to ""heritage designation"" or ""intangible cultural heritage designation"" I've added a col ""isHeritageDesignation"" to the query . Most lists (values of this prop) are NOT instances of or subclass thereof ( ) @ : I agree mostly with you and the property should be cleaned (per it's definition and how it was intended at the beggining) and not [MASK]. Cheers, ( ) ""Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France"" says ""instance of: list"" ""intangible cultural heritage"" is surely not designated by any institution, it's a class of all ICH ""Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" says ""status awarded by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture"" but then the name should be "" Designated Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" (because there may be extra ICH in Indonesia that are not designated) ""Inventory of intangible cultural heritage in France"" says ""instance of: list"" ""intangible cultural heritage"" is surely not designated by any institution, it's a class of all ICH ""Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" says ""status awarded by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture"" but then the name should be "" Designated Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indonesia"" (because there may be extra ICH in Indonesia that are not designated) The current prop ""designated status"" has a mix of values that include lists of designated and non-designated items So let me ask again, how is that ""not exactly equivalent to a list"" It makes more sense to have a property ""designated by"" Or better yet ""designation ID"" in various registers (UNESCO, FR, and more to come) ( ) is ""instance of: heritage designation"", which makes more sense to me I'd agree to [MASK] this prop if we rename it to ""heritage designation"" or ""intangible cultural heritage designation"" I've added a col ""isHeritageDesignation"" to the query . Most lists (values of this prop) are NOT instances of or subclass thereof ( ) @ : I agree mostly with you and the property should be cleaned (per it's definition and how it was intended at the beggining) and not [MASK]. Cheers, ( ) So let me ask again, how is that ""not exactly equivalent to a list"" It makes more sense to have a property ""designated by"" Or better yet ""designation ID"" in various registers (UNESCO, FR, and more to come) ( ) is ""instance of: heritage designation"", which makes more sense to me I'd agree to [MASK] this prop if we rename it to ""heritage designation"" or ""intangible cultural heritage designation"" I've added a col ""isHeritageDesignation"" to the query . Most lists (values of this prop) are NOT instances of or subclass thereof ( ) @ : I agree mostly with you and the property should be cleaned (per it's definition and how it was intended at the beggining) and not [MASK]. Cheers, ( ) @ , : hello, I'm not understanding the problem! What does the have to do with it? -- ( ) @ : the infobox you created uses this property so the deletion will affect it. Cheers, ( ) @ : the infobox you created uses this property so the deletion will affect it. Cheers, ( ) [MASK] When data is a mess we clean it. This proprerty is incompatible with so we can't merge it. If the goal is to broaden the name of the property, why proposing it to deletion? It's a waist of time. -- ( ) [MASK] It should be possibly to sort it out, see for further details. --- ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P7322: Delete — Martin ( · ) Delete — Martin ( · ) Delete How'd we miss that duplication? I guess proposers and reviewers should try a bit harder to spot this sort of thing?! ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6623_(P6623): Migrate and delete — Martin ( · ) Migrate and delete — Martin ( · ) migrate and Delete . [MASK] references if possible -- ( ) [MASK] seems to be reasonably used and the change of hosting service shouldn't affect the ids. --- Comment @ : Are they the same data/target or different. If they are separate sites still and not an exact duplication then I see no issue with both existing. If they are exact duplicates then we should look to migrate/merge.   — The Gamepedia article ID's redirects to their Fandom article ID counterpart. @ :-- ( ) Good-o. Then per Shisma, migrate. Mark redundant, point to alternate, and when all have been migrated then delete.   — The Gamepedia article ID's redirects to their Fandom article ID counterpart. @ :-- ( ) Good-o. Then per Shisma, migrate. Mark redundant, point to alternate, and when all have been migrated then delete.   — Good-o. Then per Shisma, migrate. Mark redundant, point to alternate, and when all have been migrated then delete.   — migrate and Delete . We should [MASK] our list of properties clean; many people already complain that Wikidata is difficult to query. Imagine now that, for example, 1/3 of the links to fandom.com is added as ""Gamepedia ID"", 1/3 is added as ""Fandom ID"", 1/3 is just added twice (maybe with different qualifiers) - it is a nightmare. -- ( ) Comment Please be careful when migrating, some Fandom sites existed with the same name as Gamepedia sites. Some of these Fandom sites were suffixed with ""-archive"" and locked, like minecraft -> minecraft-archive. ( ) all statements using can be directly moved to . I don't know how to do that, keeping all the references and qualifiers. Is there a bot able to perform such an action? -- ( ) with the help of @ : I was able to identify all statements that can be moved with . The remaining ~200 statements have been moved manually with . You can now delete this property -- ( ) with the help of @ : I was able to identify all statements that can be moved with . The remaining ~200 statements have been moved manually with . You can now delete this property -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6150: No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) [MASK]. see the web archive. e.g. ( ) Then all entries pointing to Property:P6150 must refer to archive.org via bot. Or another replacement has to be found. The user expects to find an entry and instead receives a 404 message. -- ( ) why is a bot needed? just change the formatter URL. ( ) @ : can you help to update the formatter URL on this property please? — Martin ( · ) I updated it how I think it should work. Let's wait for the cache to purge and see if it works. ( ) Thanks, then we can close this — Martin ( · ) For some reason it was necessary to mark the new formatter as preferred. I did this and the links appeared, but I can't test them properly yet — Martin ( · ) @ : links are not working ... —��Martin ( · ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) Then all entries pointing to Property:P6150 must refer to archive.org via bot. Or another replacement has to be found. The user expects to find an entry and instead receives a 404 message. -- ( ) why is a bot needed? just change the formatter URL. ( ) @ : can you help to update the formatter URL on this property please? — Martin ( · ) I updated it how I think it should work. Let's wait for the cache to purge and see if it works. ( ) Thanks, then we can close this — Martin ( · ) For some reason it was necessary to mark the new formatter as preferred. I did this and the links appeared, but I can't test them properly yet — Martin ( · ) @ : links are not working ... — Martin ( · ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) why is a bot needed? just change the formatter URL. ( ) @ : can you help to update the formatter URL on this property please? — Martin ( · ) I updated it how I think it should work. Let's wait for the cache to purge and see if it works. ( ) Thanks, then we can close this — Martin ( · ) For some reason it was necessary to mark the new formatter as preferred. I did this and the links appeared, but I can't test them properly yet — Martin ( · ) @ : links are not working ... — Martin ( · ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) @ : can you help to update the formatter URL on this property please? — Martin ( · ) I updated it how I think it should work. Let's wait for the cache to purge and see if it works. ( ) Thanks, then we can close this — Martin ( · ) For some reason it was necessary to mark the new formatter as preferred. I did this and the links appeared, but I can't test them properly yet — Martin ( · ) @ : links are not working ... — Martin ( · ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) I updated it how I think it should work. Let's wait for the cache to purge and see if it works. ( ) Thanks, then we can close this — Martin ( · ) For some reason it was necessary to mark the new formatter as preferred. I did this and the links appeared, but I can't test them properly yet — Martin ( · ) @ : links are not working ... — Martin ( · ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) Thanks, then we can close this — Martin ( · ) For some reason it was necessary to mark the new formatter as preferred. I did this and the links appeared, but I can't test them properly yet — Martin ( · ) @ : links are not working ... — Martin ( · ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) @ : it's working for some. See for example. Some of the snapshots are ""too new"" and so redirect to an error. ( ) @ : are you happy to withdraw this nomination? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) Because of me. -- ( ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) I don't understand your comment. Are you replying to me or BrokenSeque? — Martin ( · ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6065_(P6065): Delete — Martin ( · ) Delete — Martin ( · ) See also A little [MASK] per above. -- ( ) Had never more than 50 uses .. I'd tend to delete this --- Then, please discuss at the projects where is used first. -- ( ) Then, please discuss at the projects where is used first. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Shoftim_BeIsrael_judge_ID_(P3751): No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete — Martin ( · ) @ : being defunct is not alone a reason to delete. also you went through and removed all the links to this property which makes assessing whether we should [MASK] it impossible. please undo that. ( ) @ : I will not do something as useless as that. Sorry. You may examine the of this property, so it's not impossible. When a property's sole purpose is linking to a website, I think the website being defunct is sufficient reason to delete the property. It was a sufficient reason to delete its template at hewiki. Having said that, tipping you for a useless property is enough. Accept or reject the request, I am not going to spend even one more second of my time regarding this property. Thanks. ( ) @ : wow... that was needlessly hostile. Deleting all usages of a property and then listing it for deletion is obviously the wrong order to do something in. It's like blanking an item and then listing it for deletion. What hewiki does has no bearing here. There is potential value in external identifier for defunct websites. ( ) @ : No, there isn't. At least not when we are talking about a private website, who holds a private nonofficial database. The website died and its identifiers died with him. Please elucidate what could be the potential value, regarding this specific property. Sorry for my previous impatient reply. ( ) @ : often websites are well archived by some third party e.g. In those cases these identifiers can still be used by looking at the archives. Additionally if a website's identifiers are used elsewhere on the Internet then having these identifiers remains valuable for joining between databases. ( ) @ : I will not do something as useless as that. Sorry. You may examine the of this property, so it's not impossible. When a property's sole purpose is linking to a website, I think the website being defunct is sufficient reason to delete the property. It was a sufficient reason to delete its template at hewiki. Having said that, tipping you for a useless property is enough. Accept or reject the request, I am not going to spend even one more second of my time regarding this property. Thanks. ( ) @ : wow... that was needlessly hostile. Deleting all usages of a property and then listing it for deletion is obviously the wrong order to do something in. It's like blanking an item and then listing it for deletion. What hewiki does has no bearing here. There is potential value in external identifier for defunct websites. ( ) @ : No, there isn't. At least not when we are talking about a private website, who holds a private nonofficial database. The website died and its identifiers died with him. Please elucidate what could be the potential value, regarding this specific property. Sorry for my previous impatient reply. ( ) @ : often websites are well archived by some third party e.g. In those cases these identifiers can still be used by looking at the archives. Additionally if a website's identifiers are used elsewhere on the Internet then having these identifiers remains valuable for joining between databases. ( ) @ : wow... that was needlessly hostile. Deleting all usages of a property and then listing it for deletion is obviously the wrong order to do something in. It's like blanking an item and then listing it for deletion. What hewiki does has no bearing here. There is potential value in external identifier for defunct websites. ( ) @ : No, there isn't. At least not when we are talking about a private website, who holds a private nonofficial database. The website died and its identifiers died with him. Please elucidate what could be the potential value, regarding this specific property. Sorry for my previous impatient reply. ( ) @ : often websites are well archived by some third party e.g. In those cases these identifiers can still be used by looking at the archives. Additionally if a website's identifiers are used elsewhere on the Internet then having these identifiers remains valuable for joining between databases. ( ) @ : No, there isn't. At least not when we are talking about a private website, who holds a private nonofficial database. The website died and its identifiers died with him. Please elucidate what could be the potential value, regarding this specific property. Sorry for my previous impatient reply. ( ) @ : often websites are well archived by some third party e.g. In those cases these identifiers can still be used by looking at the archives. Additionally if a website's identifiers are used elsewhere on the Internet then having these identifiers remains valuable for joining between databases. ( ) @ : often websites are well archived by some third party e.g. In those cases these identifiers can still be used by looking at the archives. Additionally if a website's identifiers are used elsewhere on the Internet then having these identifiers remains valuable for joining between databases. ( ) Comment Some pages are archived at Internet Archive, e.g. . -- ( ) Fine. I will not pursue this request any further. Wasted enough of my time, that's wikidata's maintenance administrators concern anyways. Thanks. ( ) Fine. I will not pursue this request any further. Wasted enough of my time, that's wikidata's maintenance administrators concern anyways. Thanks. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: ALA-LC_romanization_for_Ukrainian_(P9453): No consensus to delete at this time. Please consider a well framed RfC to look at the whole issue in more detail — Martin ( · ) No consensus to delete at this time. Please consider a well framed RfC to look at the whole issue in more detail — Martin ( · ) I just noticed on the property talk page that Mzajac thinks we should have specific properties for every romanisation table ALA-LC has. I don't think that's a good idea because it would require a lot of properties (making it much harder for people find the right one to use) for little benefit. On there are 75 different files (which sometimes have different variations for different languages, e.g. ) and the covers around 150 different languages. The tables can also change over time (e.g. the would use ""dijain"" for ""디자인"", while the would use ""tijain""). For the most part, there is one ALA-LC romanisation system for each language and script. In the cases where it's ambiguous (e.g. Khakass in the non-Slavic languages file), I would suggest using to specify the exact version. - ( ) Nikki makes a good point here, I have no strong opinion on whether this is really needed or not. ( ) [MASK] Per Michael above, the scale of culture differents between RU and UA made the potential merging of properties nogo. -- ( ) I don't see why could not be used, qualified by the particular table: has an item. I tried it out on . ( ) Because if I remember correctly, is pronunced as /ɦ/ in Ukrainian, not /g/? ( ) Because if I remember correctly, is pronunced as /ɦ/ in Ukrainian, not /g/? ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P5724: Delete — Martin ( · ) Delete — Martin ( · ) Notified , Notified — ( ) Unless there are any arguments to [MASK] this property, I will close it as delete within the next week — Martin ( · ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P2580_(P2580): Only one non-COI, non-sock editor has argued to retain this property. — Martin ( · ) Delete. Only one non-COI, non-sock editor has argued to retain this property. — Martin ( · ) , created by BBLD ID: Lieven-Oskar-Karl-Joseph-1852-1912 19. April 2019 Result: ""Die angeforderte Seite ist nicht vorhanden."" BBLD ID: Lieven-Oskar-Karl-Joseph-1852-1912 19. April 2019 Result: ""Die angeforderte Seite ist nicht vorhanden."" 19. April 2019 Result: ""Die angeforderte Seite ist nicht vorhanden."" Delete until IDs aren't persistent. ( ) . If this was just another property for an online version of an old encyclopedia (like various others we have), there wouldn't be a reason to delete it. Unfortunately, there are several problems surrounding this particular site. One is the lack of stability of the site/IDs, another is the user/person behind it. The slugs/IDs used by the sites are not consistent and prone to change at any given moment, with no persistent ID or redirects from old values available. The other problem is the person who has been working on adding these IDs. Who AFAIK has been globally banned from all Wikimedida projects and still continues editing via IPs and sock puppets. It also seems this user is the person (or one of the persons) maintaining the website in question - so it would seem he's the one who keeps changing the entries' slugs/""IDs"" himself and causing the problems on Wikidata when editors here try to come up with solutions to these changes. And has even been posting rants about Wikidata and Wikidata/Wikipedia users on that website. Overall, while the property might have some - albeit small - value, I have my doubts that all the constant changes, arguments, rants, blocks of IPs and sock puppets, etc. behind the scenes on Wikidata and Wikipedia are worth the hassle of keeping it around. -- ( ) @ : who proposed the property in good faith. New edits by IP . Example: (1929-2002) : Gruehn-Reginald-1901-1991 IP added: : GND with source BBLD: -- ( ) (1929-2002) : Gruehn-Reginald-1901-1991 IP added: : GND with source BBLD: : Gruehn-Reginald-1901-1991 IP added: : GND with source BBLD: -- ( ) Delete Vandalism targets. -- ( ) [MASK] stay real adress on -- ( ) [MASK] IDs are being improved now. -- ( ) Only 3 edits. Most likely sock puppet. -- ( ) Only 3 edits. Most likely sock puppet. -- ( ) [MASK] since used by several Wikipedias to generate external links, values should be fixed, vandalism undone. ( ) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC) / One day user -- ( ) @ : ""used by several Wikipedias"" isn't a proper [MASK] reason, please consider other good reasons, thx. -- ( ) @ : ""used by several Wikipedias"" isn't a proper [MASK] reason, please consider other good reasons, thx. -- ( ) Comment ""Mzngan"" and ""Michael FV"" seems to be sock puppets of the global banned user. BTW one more example of BBLD IDs: Heinricus Meurch ( ) = Meurch-Heinricus-um-1699 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = Meyendorff-Christoph-Gustav-Alexander-Frh. -v. -1796-1865 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = GND1052457312 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = Meurch-Heinricus-1676-1710 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = Meurch-Heinricus-um-1699 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = Meyendorff-Christoph-Gustav-Alexander-Frh. -v. -1796-1865 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = GND1052457312 Heinricus Meurch ( ) = Meurch-Heinricus-1676-1710 Imho both items can be merged. See also with more items created because of constantly changing BBLD IDs (using different spellings, ISNI, VIAF now GND). -- ( ) @ : tells me unlikely . -- ( ) Imho both items can be merged. See also with more items created because of constantly changing BBLD IDs (using different spellings, ISNI, VIAF now GND). -- ( ) @ : tells me unlikely . -- ( ) @ : tells me unlikely . -- ( ) [MASK] . The central maintenance of the BBLD IDs in Wikidata is easier than maintenance in individual Wikipedias, deleting the property would increase the workload for Wikipedia editors in the field of Baltic Germans. The BBLD IDs are used for creating references in , where it is often the only reference apart from VIAF ( ) and the GND ( ) - for the items in question the VIAF record is frequently based on the GND record and the GND record on the BBLD record Wikipedias // the (authority file, hosted by the ) // publicly financed projects like the , a major biographical publication // privately owned projects like , which is also used in Wikidata ( ) // . , where it is often the only reference apart from VIAF ( ) and the GND ( ) - for the items in question the VIAF record is frequently based on the GND record and the GND record on the BBLD record Wikipedias // the (authority file, hosted by the ) // publicly financed projects like the , a major biographical publication // privately owned projects like , which is also used in Wikidata ( ) // . The BBLD is a continuation of the which is frequently cited in the for items about Baltic Germans. Both works are cited in scientific publications. If IDs have been deprecated they should be either marked as such - the ( ) could indicate that marking values as deprecated is possible in Wikidata - or if no verifiable source is found they should be [MASK]. David Feest, spokesperson of the for the and a reader of Wikipedia. ( ) Delete It's unstable, also the only ""users"" are LTA, do we really need LTA's contributions? -- Comment FYI: IP has restored the outdated BBLD IDs [MASK] by . -- ( ) Delete Only used by LTAs. -- Question LTA means what? ""Less than average"", ""Love to all""? The problem former vs new scheme(s) and unstable IDs has not been resolved. -- ( ) Long term abuse (persistent vandal, usually interwiki) — ( ) @ : I guess what 111.* and 117.* said is ? -- ( ) Kolja21 = German reader and LTA = English term. — ( ) @ : Got it, . -- ( ) — ( ) Long term abuse (persistent vandal, usually interwiki) — ( ) @ : I guess what 111.* and 117.* said is ? -- ( ) Kolja21 = German reader and LTA = English term. — ( ) @ : Got it, . -- ( ) — ( ) Kolja21 = German reader and LTA = English term. — ( ) @ : Got it, . -- ( ) — ( ) @ : Got it, . -- ( ) — ( ) — ( ) Comment Biased reasoning: we don't delete a property for LTA, we eject the vandals. — ( ) Info The BBLD user was back and made a mass deletion of , see . -- ( ) Comment I would like to make clear that whoever the said ""BBLD user"" is, he is neither working for the Baltic Historical Commission, nor is he in any way involved in the BBLD project of the commission. David Feest, board member of the Baltic Historical Commission ( ) @ : Danke für die Rückmeldung. Parallel zu den Edits des sogenannten ""BBLD user"" werden GNDs mit dem Bibliothekssigel DE-2813 angelegt. Es kann sich daher nicht einfach um einen externen ""Fan"" handeln. Letzten Monat hat er bis zu drei Sockenpuppen pro Tag angelegt, siehe . Der Wartungsaufwand, den er in Wikipedia und Wikidata verursacht, ist enorm. @ : FYI. -- ( ) @ : Danke für die Rückmeldung. Parallel zu den Edits des sogenannten ""BBLD user"" werden GNDs mit dem Bibliothekssigel DE-2813 angelegt. Es kann sich daher nicht einfach um einen externen ""Fan"" handeln. Letzten Monat hat er bis zu drei Sockenpuppen pro Tag angelegt, siehe . Der Wartungsaufwand, den er in Wikipedia und Wikidata verursacht, ist enorm. @ : FYI. -- ( ) i have posted to for help to remove these statements in references — Martin ( · ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Commons_category_(P373): I thank the more than 60 users who have participated in this nomination for deletion over almost three years, with special mentions to for opening it, and to and for their activity. The discussion has helped the community to reflect and compile enough arguments for and against the deletion of Property (""Commons category""). Still, it has not been enough to identify the community's preferred outcome. There is a need for a final decision-making process (e.g. a vote under ) for finding the community's preferred way of linking Wikidata Items to Wikimedia Commons categories. In such a process, each editor, informed by a balanced summary of pros and cons from this and many other discussions (e.g. previous nominations for deleting the Property: , , , ; RfCs: , , , , ), should be able to choose one of a small number of predefined options without further justification. The process should have start and end dates agreed upon before its opening, with a duration of more than 30 days, and its results should be conclusive and binding. Until those results are available, I resolve to extend the status quo and [MASK] the Property, and that no more nominations for deleting the Property be opened. -- I thank the more than 60 users who have participated in this nomination for deletion over almost three years, with special mentions to for opening it, and to and for their activity. The discussion has helped the community to reflect and compile enough arguments for and against the deletion of Property (""Commons category""). Still, it has not been enough to identify the community's preferred outcome. There is a need for a final decision-making process (e.g. a vote under ) for finding the community's preferred way of linking Wikidata Items to Wikimedia Commons categories. In such a process, each editor, informed by a balanced summary of pros and cons from this and many other discussions (e.g. previous nominations for deleting the Property: , , , ; RfCs: , , , , ), should be able to choose one of a small number of predefined options without further justification. The process should have start and end dates agreed upon before its opening, with a duration of more than 30 days, and its results should be conclusive and binding. Until those results are available, I resolve to extend the status quo and [MASK] the Property, and that no more nominations for deleting the Property be opened. -- @ : Please read archives listed in its talk page carefully: , , , (if links can't work properly, use Ctrl+F type P373), this was PFDed for 4 times and their results were all [MASK]. -- ( ) @ : The links 2 and 3 don't seem to work. ( ) @ , , : The links are : , , , . — ( ) @ : The links 2 and 3 don't seem to work. ( ) @ , , : The links are : , , , . — ( ) @ , , : The links are : , , , . — ( ) Unless if @ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , :@ , , , , : those guys said something against their previous [MASK], I would love to non-admin close this discussion. -- ( ) [MASK] - needed when the Commons site link is connected to a Gallery page. - ( ) @ : In those cases, just create an item with = , and use / to link to the topic item, e.g. vs. . Thanks. ( ) @ : you make a compelling case below. But I'd prefer that we standardize on linking to Commons categories not Galleries. - ( ) @ : So would I! But others seem to disagree. Although, that wouldn't change things in the example I gave, since also uses the Commons sitelink via . Thanks. ( ) @ : In those cases, just create an item with = , and use / to link to the topic item, e.g. vs. . Thanks. ( ) @ : you make a compelling case below. But I'd prefer that we standardize on linking to Commons categories not Galleries. - ( ) @ : So would I! But others seem to disagree. Although, that wouldn't change things in the example I gave, since also uses the Commons sitelink via . Thanks. ( ) @ : you make a compelling case below. But I'd prefer that we standardize on linking to Commons categories not Galleries. - ( ) @ : So would I! But others seem to disagree. Although, that wouldn't change things in the example I gave, since also uses the Commons sitelink via . Thanks. ( ) @ : So would I! But others seem to disagree. Although, that wouldn't change things in the example I gave, since also uses the Commons sitelink via . Thanks. ( ) [MASK] The ""other site""-link is a one-to-one mapping from Commons to a Wikidata object (and its interwiki links). is a many-to-many mapping to Commons. / @ : We may consider to break such glitch, see reasons at . -- I consider that to be a bad thing. There are numberous cases when multiple Wikipedia articles uses images from the same Commons category. Wikidata structure should reflect this usage. / @ : We may consider to break such glitch, see reasons at . -- I consider that to be a bad thing. There are numberous cases when multiple Wikipedia articles uses images from the same Commons category. Wikidata structure should reflect this usage. / I consider that to be a bad thing. There are numberous cases when multiple Wikipedia articles uses images from the same Commons category. Wikidata structure should reflect this usage. / Delete - or in the immediate future, deprecate until the remaining cases that don't match the sitelinks are resolved (while bot-removing matching cases to unearth the mismatches). This property served its purpose as a , but nowadays the Commons sitelinks are used, both to link to Wikidata from Commons (using ), and also to link from Wikipedias (using / 's getCommonsLink function). Keeping P373 around just adds to the maintenance burden, as it needs to be kept in sync with the sitelinks (the sitelinks automatically update when a category is moved/[MASK], P373 has to be manually/bot-updated), and that's particularly difficult here since things like are continuously broken/outdated. There is a lot of work still to do to get rid of this property - in particular, uses on various wikis need to be changed to use the sitelink instead - but I'm not sure that will start unless the property is clearly marked as deprecated/on its way out, in favour of the better solution of the sitelinks. Thanks. ( ) [MASK] Per previous threads. Apparently nothing changed. I may add keeping and deleting P373 while allowing gallery-sitelinks doesn't make much sense. Galleries should be deprecated as Commons sitelinks. strakhov ( ) @ : See below for an alternative solution for your matters. ( ) @ : Honestly, letting alone querying performance issues, granularity issues, and the potential creation of endless ""category items"" only for storing a commons category, I don't see how ( ) is a solution for solving the severe inconsistency of deleting P373 because ""only one way to link"", ""kill redundancy"", ""use the links that's what are they for"" & ""blablabla"" while keeping at the same time . One way or the another: Wikidata permanently deprecates the use of galleries as sitelinks, using this property instead. Wikidata dictates galleries should be linked as sitelinks in the main topic item, making then useless and ""redundant"". The current proposal (killing P373, keeping P935 and allowing gallery sitelinking) does not make sense IMHO. strakhov ( ) @ : See below for an alternative solution for your matters. ( ) @ : Honestly, letting alone querying performance issues, granularity issues, and the potential creation of endless ""category items"" only for storing a commons category, I don't see how ( ) is a solution for solving the severe inconsistency of deleting P373 because ""only one way to link"", ""kill redundancy"", ""use the links that's what are they for"" & ""blablabla"" while keeping at the same time . One way or the another: Wikidata permanently deprecates the use of galleries as sitelinks, using this property instead. Wikidata dictates galleries should be linked as sitelinks in the main topic item, making then useless and ""redundant"". The current proposal (killing P373, keeping P935 and allowing gallery sitelinking) does not make sense IMHO. strakhov ( ) @ : Honestly, letting alone querying performance issues, granularity issues, and the potential creation of endless ""category items"" only for storing a commons category, I don't see how ( ) is a solution for solving the severe inconsistency of deleting P373 because ""only one way to link"", ""kill redundancy"", ""use the links that's what are they for"" & ""blablabla"" while keeping at the same time . One way or the another: Wikidata permanently deprecates the use of galleries as sitelinks, using this property instead. Wikidata dictates galleries should be linked as sitelinks in the main topic item, making then useless and ""redundant"". The current proposal (killing P373, keeping P935 and allowing gallery sitelinking) does not make sense IMHO. strakhov ( ) Wikidata permanently deprecates the use of galleries as sitelinks, using this property instead. Wikidata dictates galleries should be linked as sitelinks in the main topic item, making then useless and ""redundant"". [MASK] : P373 is still the least-bad kludge for dealing with Wikidata's original sin of insisting on 1:1 item correspondence between projects, despite being founded long after Commons. As Liuxinyu970226 mentioned, this is at least the 4th nomination to delete P373. Commons still has both mainspace (gallery) and category pages for topics, and the category pages are primary and have the most content; mainspace is utterly optional, and probably even less popular than it used to be. Though Wikidata has loosened the notability criteria and added links between main items and category items, there is still the question of how one deals with a Commons category being the primary page for a subject and sometimes a not-very-notable subject at that. How do we deal with Commons if P373 isn't on the main item? Problems no matter which way you try: The current sitelink standard is to put the Commons category on a Wikidata category item if there is one, and otherwise put the Commons category on the Wikidata main item. But if there's a Commons gallery (mainspace page), and Wikidata has no category item for that topic, then the Commons gallery gets the sitelink, and the Commons category gets no sitelink, because Wikidata is bound to 1:1 sitelink relationships, even though galleries aren't where most of the content is on Commons. One might propose that we simply create a Wikidata category item for every Commons category. But are Wikidata category items allowed for topics that have no main topic? I see that ""one valid sitelink to a page on ... Wikimedia Commons"" was added to , but I can't tell if that was by consensus; there seem to be more opposing that supporting the idea on . Commons categories don't have to be ""notable"" to exist. (Examples: ; ; ; ; .) Wikidata now seems to allow very-low-notability articles — for example, on Wikinews and Wikisource — to qualify for Wikidata items. But on Commons, the category creation criteria is even lower. Only files have anything like a notability criterion: ""realistically useful for an educational purpose"" or legitimately ""in use on another project""; a Commons category, despite usually being the main topic page on Commons, is created and retained simply on there being sufficient content to fill it. Commons doesn't allow blatant spam, but it doesn't prohibit sponsored content either. Does a company or product qualify for a Wikidata item just because someone uploaded enough files to Commons to get a category made? (By the way, even that thin criterion has been abused by some Wikidata evangelists/conquistadors, who have been invading Commons and creating new Commons categories with only one file, claiming that Commons rules don't prohibit it, then ""coincidentally"" linking the categories to existing Wikidata items to get credit from whoever's keeping track of Wikidata adoption metrics.) Even if every non-hidden Commons category now automatically qualifies for a Wikidata category item, there is still the process of creating each Wikidata item. It's been 5 years since I pointed out the burden of creating a category item on Wikipedia at . (Granted, steps 5 and 6 aren't needed if there is no main topic.) Would we want a bot to create the Wikidata category items instead? So, until we have all of that settled, and a working implementation for all of it, P373 should stay: It's the only method that allows both a gallery and a category link (which is more important) to Commons to exist simultaneously for a Wikidata main topic item that doesn't have a Wikidata category item. -- ( ) @ : Notability is still something that's being argued about - basically the notability guideline doesn't match practice here any more. However, the cases that you talk about are a separate issue ('should all commons categories have Wikidata items?') - here we're talking about categories that are linked to from Wikidata/Wikipedia already, and those should already be notable enough to have items. Most items that have galleries linked to them already now have category items with the category sitelink where available, there aren't actually that many of them ( is only used ~100k times). Note that we're coming up to the 2.5 million mark for - and that's excluding taxons, which are around ~0.5 million, so the sitelinks are already in place for about half of Commons' categories now. Plus the Wikidata infobox on Commons makes it more valuable to go through the process you described before to create the sitelink - a P373 value just links one-way, which is kinda useless for Commons editors. Thanks. ( ) The current sitelink standard is to put the Commons category on a Wikidata category item if there is one, and otherwise put the Commons category on the Wikidata main item. But if there's a Commons gallery (mainspace page), and Wikidata has no category item for that topic, then the Commons gallery gets the sitelink, and the Commons category gets no sitelink, because Wikidata is bound to 1:1 sitelink relationships, even though galleries aren't where most of the content is on Commons. One might propose that we simply create a Wikidata category item for every Commons category. But are Wikidata category items allowed for topics that have no main topic? I see that ""one valid sitelink to a page on ... Wikimedia Commons"" was added to , but I can't tell if that was by consensus; there seem to be more opposing that supporting the idea on . Commons categories don't have to be ""notable"" to exist. (Examples: ; ; ; ; .) Wikidata now seems to allow very-low-notability articles — for example, on Wikinews and Wikisource — to qualify for Wikidata items. But on Commons, the category creation criteria is even lower. Only files have anything like a notability criterion: ""realistically useful for an educational purpose"" or legitimately ""in use on another project""; a Commons category, despite usually being the main topic page on Commons, is created and retained simply on there being sufficient content to fill it. Commons doesn't allow blatant spam, but it doesn't prohibit sponsored content either. Does a company or product qualify for a Wikidata item just because someone uploaded enough files to Commons to get a category made? (By the way, even that thin criterion has been abused by some Wikidata evangelists/conquistadors, who have been invading Commons and creating new Commons categories with only one file, claiming that Commons rules don't prohibit it, then ""coincidentally"" linking the categories to existing Wikidata items to get credit from whoever's keeping track of Wikidata adoption metrics.) Even if every non-hidden Commons category now automatically qualifies for a Wikidata category item, there is still the process of creating each Wikidata item. It's been 5 years since I pointed out the burden of creating a category item on Wikipedia at . (Granted, steps 5 and 6 aren't needed if there is no main topic.) Would we want a bot to create the Wikidata category items instead? @ : Notability is still something that's being argued about - basically the notability guideline doesn't match practice here any more. However, the cases that you talk about are a separate issue ('should all commons categories have Wikidata items?') - here we're talking about categories that are linked to from Wikidata/Wikipedia already, and those should already be notable enough to have items. Most items that have galleries linked to them already now have category items with the category sitelink where available, there aren't actually that many of them ( is only used ~100k times). Note that we're coming up to the 2.5 million mark for - and that's excluding taxons, which are around ~0.5 million, so the sitelinks are already in place for about half of Commons' categories now. Plus the Wikidata infobox on Commons makes it more valuable to go through the process you described before to create the sitelink - a P373 value just links one-way, which is kinda useless for Commons editors. Thanks. ( ) @ : Notability is still something that's being argued about - basically the notability guideline doesn't match practice here any more. However, the cases that you talk about are a separate issue ('should all commons categories have Wikidata items?') - here we're talking about categories that are linked to from Wikidata/Wikipedia already, and those should already be notable enough to have items. Most items that have galleries linked to them already now have category items with the category sitelink where available, there aren't actually that many of them ( is only used ~100k times). Note that we're coming up to the 2.5 million mark for - and that's excluding taxons, which are around ~0.5 million, so the sitelinks are already in place for about half of Commons' categories now. Plus the Wikidata infobox on Commons makes it more valuable to go through the process you described before to create the sitelink - a P373 value just links one-way, which is kinda useless for Commons editors. Thanks. ( ) Delete If Mike thinks it's ready to go, lets get this started, even if it will take another five years to implement the deletion. Step 1: remove the property from category items. Step 2: remove the property from items linked to a category. Step 3: remove the property from items with the sitelink. Step 4: ... --- Oppose for now. This property is widely used. Before deprecating there should be some tools which automatically uses commonscat from related item using P301/P971. ( ) @ : Oppose deleting or oppose keeping? -- ( ) I mean [MASK] , but I agree with deprecation in future. ( ) @ : Oppose deleting or oppose keeping? -- ( ) I mean [MASK] , but I agree with deprecation in future. ( ) Can we have a demonstration, by removing the P373 statements from some items with a lot of sitelinks, to verify that all the interwiki linking still works? If it does, I support removing the redundant property. ( ) @ , : See the things I linked to in my post above, in particular there is a function in Module:WikidataIB ('getCommonsLink') that you can use to fetch the sitelinks via the linking properties. Also look at any Commons categories using the Wikidata Infobox to check the interwiki links. There are a lot of cases on other wikis that need to be changed to use this new code rather than accessing P373, though, which is why we need it to be deprecated first rather than just [MASK] immediately. Thanks. ( ) @ : I am afraid, that there will be many problems. 1) Because of inexistence of global modules there will be necessary to update all Wikidata bodules in all wikis. Then update of all templates which uses P373. 2) There are many users who uses P373, but are not familiar with commons sitelink. 3) there are many cases where 1:1 linking is not possible. 4-n) etc. There will be BIG impact to all wikis, so There must be at first good solutoin with good documentation in many languages. And After this all should be possible to deprecate P373. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). Deprecation to me implies that new statements using the property should not be added, the bots that maintain it should be stopped, and that it can be safely removed if desired. If the software isn't yet in place in all Wikis, then I don't think that step should be taken. ( ) @ , : See the things I linked to in my post above, in particular there is a function in Module:WikidataIB ('getCommonsLink') that you can use to fetch the sitelinks via the linking properties. Also look at any Commons categories using the Wikidata Infobox to check the interwiki links. There are a lot of cases on other wikis that need to be changed to use this new code rather than accessing P373, though, which is why we need it to be deprecated first rather than just [MASK] immediately. Thanks. ( ) @ : I am afraid, that there will be many problems. 1) Because of inexistence of global modules there will be necessary to update all Wikidata bodules in all wikis. Then update of all templates which uses P373. 2) There are many users who uses P373, but are not familiar with commons sitelink. 3) there are many cases where 1:1 linking is not possible. 4-n) etc. There will be BIG impact to all wikis, so There must be at first good solutoin with good documentation in many languages. And After this all should be possible to deprecate P373. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). Deprecation to me implies that new statements using the property should not be added, the bots that maintain it should be stopped, and that it can be safely removed if desired. If the software isn't yet in place in all Wikis, then I don't think that step should be taken. ( ) @ : I am afraid, that there will be many problems. 1) Because of inexistence of global modules there will be necessary to update all Wikidata bodules in all wikis. Then update of all templates which uses P373. 2) There are many users who uses P373, but are not familiar with commons sitelink. 3) there are many cases where 1:1 linking is not possible. 4-n) etc. There will be BIG impact to all wikis, so There must be at first good solutoin with good documentation in many languages. And After this all should be possible to deprecate P373. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). Deprecation to me implies that new statements using the property should not be added, the bots that maintain it should be stopped, and that it can be safely removed if desired. If the software isn't yet in place in all Wikis, then I don't think that step should be taken. ( ) Deprecation to me implies that new statements using the property should not be added, the bots that maintain it should be stopped, and that it can be safely removed if desired. If the software isn't yet in place in all Wikis, then I don't think that step should be taken. ( ) Delete per Mike Peel. This property is nothing but awful and highly problematic programming spaghetti, for the reasons exposed. the mere fact that it exists is a continuous source of trouble, as tool developers may use them as a source for the commons cat, wide-spreading and perpetuating the problem till unmanageable levels. The link article-category and reverse is generally made through SetSiteLink. My perception is that most of this evilness emanated from a primeval misconception that Wikipedia Articles corresponded with Commons Galleries (generally false, by default, since Galleries are mere exhibitors for Commons categories, and there could be like 100 of them for a given subject, none of which with special preponderance over the others) and that Wikipedia Categories had any importance to Commons, and should preferably relate to Commons Categories (generally false too, though sometimes it can be useful to connect them, such as in ""churches in municipality X"", the kind of thing that probably will never have an article in Wikipedia). In any case, this property doesn't seem to be needed at all. -- ( ) Comment In case of removal, please check Listeria, as I seem to have noticed it uses this property to show the Commons Category in the lists (should be using SetSiteLink, otherwise it gets broken everytime someone moves a category in Commons).-- ( ) Comment In case of removal, please check Listeria, as I seem to have noticed it uses this property to show the Commons Category in the lists (should be using SetSiteLink, otherwise it gets broken everytime someone moves a category in Commons). -- ( ) Neutral I came to this discussion thinking to vote to [MASK] it, but Mike Peel has a convincing argument. I can see in the future time when P373 can be retired and that would simplify our maintenance burden, and in general prevent the same info being stored in two places. I would also like to see some trimming of the number of unmaintained Commons galleries clogging the sitelinks, but that topic should be discussed on Commons. -- ( ) [MASK] and delete other sites link. in a larger sense, deletion is not a quality improvement process, rather provide the ontology, team and method to improve wikidata to commons links. ‽ ( ) @ : Can you elaborate, please? Without the sitelink, none of the interwiki links on Commons, nor the infobox, would work. It's akin to removing the interwiki links to the Wikipedias and replacing them with a property - you can then only see the link on Wikidata, not from the other wiki. Thanks. ( ) i'm saying the site link is more opaque and inexact. it is a problematic analogy to wikipedia articles, which commons does not have. we need to develop the ontology and mapping of commons content. you could map the many infoboxes to creator and institution (and depicts). but a consensus and action plan is required , deletion should be salted as a perennial rejected proposal. -- ‽ ( ) @ : Can you elaborate, please? Without the sitelink, none of the interwiki links on Commons, nor the infobox, would work. It's akin to removing the interwiki links to the Wikipedias and replacing them with a property - you can then only see the link on Wikidata, not from the other wiki. Thanks. ( ) i'm saying the site link is more opaque and inexact. it is a problematic analogy to wikipedia articles, which commons does not have. we need to develop the ontology and mapping of commons content. you could map the many infoboxes to creator and institution (and depicts). but a consensus and action plan is required , deletion should be salted as a perennial rejected proposal. -- ‽ ( ) i'm saying the site link is more opaque and inexact. it is a problematic analogy to wikipedia articles, which commons does not have. we need to develop the ontology and mapping of commons content. you could map the many infoboxes to creator and institution (and depicts). but a consensus and action plan is required , deletion should be salted as a perennial rejected proposal.-- ‽ ( ) Who cares - none of these hacks actually work well (e.g. ). We should either stop linking to Commons galleries (as they are an unmaintained wasteland) or push the Wikidata developers to implement a real way to add sitelinks to both File and Gallery pages at the same time. I can't understand why the Wikidata community want to waste countless hours dealing with these crappy hacks. ( ) One item should have one Wikidata item page , ie. the item page should link articles as well as categories of its item – as sitelinks, not as properties. That's the core of the problem. -- ( ) [MASK] read archives, not going to repeat myself. ( ) @ : I've looked through the archives. At you said ""you would first need to change the notability policy before you can replace this template."" - has been changed to a certain extent, but further changes are still needed to match the policy with reality - which is a separate topic. You also mentioned , which has been resolved. In you said ""massive usage, not a good alternative"" - sitelinks are that good alternative, as I've described above. I've also been working through the backlog of mismatches between enwp and wikidata sitelinks, where I've been finding many wrong P373 statements that have been imported from enwp and have been corrected in the sitelinks only, one example is , which was imported to Wikidata , , and . Of course this is only one example, and of course I've cherry-picked it from my recent cleanup work since you were involved, but there do seem to be a lot of examples from a few years ago that are similar, which are being discovered by comparing the links with sitelinks. I hope that we can finally resolve this kind of issue by using the sitelinks, and if you are still opposed to that then I hope you can post the reasons here. Thanks. ( ) I don't think that changes to can be ignored as a separate topic. The problem is that if you have an main Wikidata item which is sitelinked to a Commons gallery, and there's no existing category item, then there's nowhere to put a Commons sitelink. Wikidata:Notability forbids creating a new category item for Commons. Attempts have been made to change Wikidata:Notability but they have been unsuccessful. ( ) I started another discussion at about allowing certain category items for Commons. ( ) I rather spend time on building things than on these destructive discussions. This deletion nomination is just negative energy. We're just wasting community time and energy here on something that hasn't been thought through properly. This discussion will just suck in more energy, come to a grinding halt at some point and some admin will close it as no consensus. What a waste. ( ) @ : I've looked through the archives. At you said ""you would first need to change the notability policy before you can replace this template."" - has been changed to a certain extent, but further changes are still needed to match the policy with reality - which is a separate topic. You also mentioned , which has been resolved. In you said ""massive usage, not a good alternative"" - sitelinks are that good alternative, as I've described above. I've also been working through the backlog of mismatches between enwp and wikidata sitelinks, where I've been finding many wrong P373 statements that have been imported from enwp and have been corrected in the sitelinks only, one example is , which was imported to Wikidata , , and . Of course this is only one example, and of course I've cherry-picked it from my recent cleanup work since you were involved, but there do seem to be a lot of examples from a few years ago that are similar, which are being discovered by comparing the links with sitelinks. I hope that we can finally resolve this kind of issue by using the sitelinks, and if you are still opposed to that then I hope you can post the reasons here. Thanks. ( ) I don't think that changes to can be ignored as a separate topic. The problem is that if you have an main Wikidata item which is sitelinked to a Commons gallery, and there's no existing category item, then there's nowhere to put a Commons sitelink. Wikidata:Notability forbids creating a new category item for Commons. Attempts have been made to change Wikidata:Notability but they have been unsuccessful. ( ) I started another discussion at about allowing certain category items for Commons. ( ) I rather spend time on building things than on these destructive discussions. This deletion nomination is just negative energy. We're just wasting community time and energy here on something that hasn't been thought through properly. This discussion will just suck in more energy, come to a grinding halt at some point and some admin will close it as no consensus. What a waste. ( ) I don't think that changes to can be ignored as a separate topic. The problem is that if you have an main Wikidata item which is sitelinked to a Commons gallery, and there's no existing category item, then there's nowhere to put a Commons sitelink. Wikidata:Notability forbids creating a new category item for Commons. Attempts have been made to change Wikidata:Notability but they have been unsuccessful. ( ) I started another discussion at about allowing certain category items for Commons. ( ) I rather spend time on building things than on these destructive discussions. This deletion nomination is just negative energy. We're just wasting community time and energy here on something that hasn't been thought through properly. This discussion will just suck in more energy, come to a grinding halt at some point and some admin will close it as no consensus. What a waste. ( ) I rather spend time on building things than on these destructive discussions. This deletion nomination is just negative energy. We're just wasting community time and energy here on something that hasn't been thought through properly. This discussion will just suck in more energy, come to a grinding halt at some point and some admin will close it as no consensus. What a waste. ( ) [MASK] . Nothing has changed nieither in Wikidata nor in Wikipedia nor in my opinions. We have namespaces: articles and categories. Now both items of categories (we apply for them ""other sites"") and articles (we apply for them ) have connections with categories of Commons. Very often other sites are used in items of articles. But as soon as we make statement in article item bot immediately moves commons category sitelink to category item. (See, for example, recent history of ). If wouldn't exist connection between article item and commons category would be lost. So is the only effective and visual way to [MASK] connection of articles items and commons categories. Removing the property is just losing of such way. Property's benefit . And besides I can repeat myself: ""In Russian Wikipedia we use in a great deal of temlates including crucial important ones. Removing the property right now just would break links to Commons in a huge number of articles and categories, spoiled their interface."". -- ( ) @ : In that example, and appear next to each other - click on the topic's main category and you see the commons category. It is one step further away, which isn't good, but it's not that far away. In terms of P373 usage on ruwiki, could you look into using {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True}} using instead? That will then use the sitelinks instead of P373, and is part of the transition during deprecation that I suggested above. Thanks. ( ) if I call getCommonsLink without params and then pass ""onlycat"" will it return me gallery at first and category at second (both exist on commons)? Where does it get their names? -- ( ) @ : If you don't set qid it will use the Wikidata item that the page is sitelinked to. It follows or to the connected Wikidata item if available. If you set ""onlycat=False"" or leave that parameter out then it will return the gallery if available, then the category if not - if you set ""onlycat=True"" then it will only return the category link. It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure. (With thanks to @ : for the code). Thanks. ( ) It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure — Certainly i'm asking how will it work without P373? (BTW links to Commons the same way as P373 and ""seems redundant with ""Other sites"" field. And we have no equivalents for other wikiprojects"") -- ( ) @ : In my experience on enwp, pretty well - although there are still cases to clean up there, see (I was hoping to get a bit further with that cleanup there before nominating P373 for deletion, but here we are.). is set up incorrectly and needs to be fixed, it should work like , which links to the category item here not directly to Commons. Thanks. ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) @ : In that example, and appear next to each other - click on the topic's main category and you see the commons category. It is one step further away, which isn't good, but it's not that far away. In terms of P373 usage on ruwiki, could you look into using {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True}} using instead? That will then use the sitelinks instead of P373, and is part of the transition during deprecation that I suggested above. Thanks. ( ) if I call getCommonsLink without params and then pass ""onlycat"" will it return me gallery at first and category at second (both exist on commons)? Where does it get their names? -- ( ) @ : If you don't set qid it will use the Wikidata item that the page is sitelinked to. It follows or to the connected Wikidata item if available. If you set ""onlycat=False"" or leave that parameter out then it will return the gallery if available, then the category if not - if you set ""onlycat=True"" then it will only return the category link. It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure. (With thanks to @ : for the code). Thanks. ( ) It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure — Certainly i'm asking how will it work without P373? (BTW links to Commons the same way as P373 and ""seems redundant with ""Other sites"" field. And we have no equivalents for other wikiprojects"") -- ( ) @ : In my experience on enwp, pretty well - although there are still cases to clean up there, see (I was hoping to get a bit further with that cleanup there before nominating P373 for deletion, but here we are.). is set up incorrectly and needs to be fixed, it should work like , which links to the category item here not directly to Commons. Thanks. ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) if I call getCommonsLink without params and then pass ""onlycat"" will it return me gallery at first and category at second (both exist on commons)? Where does it get their names? -- ( ) @ : If you don't set qid it will use the Wikidata item that the page is sitelinked to. It follows or to the connected Wikidata item if available. If you set ""onlycat=False"" or leave that parameter out then it will return the gallery if available, then the category if not - if you set ""onlycat=True"" then it will only return the category link. It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure. (With thanks to @ : for the code). Thanks. ( ) It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure — Certainly i'm asking how will it work without P373? (BTW links to Commons the same way as P373 and ""seems redundant with ""Other sites"" field. And we have no equivalents for other wikiprojects"") -- ( ) @ : In my experience on enwp, pretty well - although there are still cases to clean up there, see (I was hoping to get a bit further with that cleanup there before nominating P373 for deletion, but here we are.). is set up incorrectly and needs to be fixed, it should work like , which links to the category item here not directly to Commons. Thanks. ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) @ : If you don't set qid it will use the Wikidata item that the page is sitelinked to. It follows or to the connected Wikidata item if available. If you set ""onlycat=False"" or leave that parameter out then it will return the gallery if available, then the category if not - if you set ""onlycat=True"" then it will only return the category link. It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure. (With thanks to @ : for the code). Thanks. ( ) It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure — Certainly i'm asking how will it work without P373? (BTW links to Commons the same way as P373 and ""seems redundant with ""Other sites"" field. And we have no equivalents for other wikiprojects"") -- ( ) @ : In my experience on enwp, pretty well - although there are still cases to clean up there, see (I was hoping to get a bit further with that cleanup there before nominating P373 for deletion, but here we are.). is set up incorrectly and needs to be fixed, it should work like , which links to the category item here not directly to Commons. Thanks. ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) It currently falls back to P373 as a transition measure — Certainly i'm asking how will it work without P373? (BTW links to Commons the same way as P373 and ""seems redundant with ""Other sites"" field. And we have no equivalents for other wikiprojects"") -- ( ) @ : In my experience on enwp, pretty well - although there are still cases to clean up there, see (I was hoping to get a bit further with that cleanup there before nominating P373 for deletion, but here we are.). is set up incorrectly and needs to be fixed, it should work like , which links to the category item here not directly to Commons. Thanks. ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) @ : In my experience on enwp, pretty well - although there are still cases to clean up there, see (I was hoping to get a bit further with that cleanup there before nominating P373 for deletion, but here we are.). is set up incorrectly and needs to be fixed, it should work like , which links to the category item here not directly to Commons. Thanks. ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) As I can see P373 will be replaced with [commons] link in ""Other sites"". But this one is for . P935 should be [MASK] instead of P373, because P373 is link to the different item, P935 is to the same. [commons] link in ""other sites"" should be in Category item like in . P373 shoud link to item and through it to commons. This is nonsence to link in ""Other sites"" to something that is not directly belongs to the item. There shouldn't be linking to Walt Disney in Mickey Mouse in ""Other sites"" or vice versa. -- ( ) Delete Per Mike Peel, I think some Dutchism discussions can be stopped, if the problem is one-per-one linking glitch, all the best thing we should and need to do is to break such a glitch, not use property to white-paint. -- Delete per Mike Peel or at least let's try to deprecate this property once and for all. It's about time that we fix this thing. - [MASK] unless is Commons linking issue finally resolved (abandon commons galleries sitelinking - I am afraid it needs another lengthy RFC), then Delete . -- ( ) Whether or not this is eventually gotten rid of, please modify to stop using P373 if so desired. Also check for other templates or modules that still rely on it.-- ( ) @ : I've started a discussion/change request at . Thanks. ( ) @ : Creator now uses the sitelinks! Currently as well as P373, but if we decide to delete this property then there's now a clear migration path. Thanks. ( ) @ : I've started a discussion/change request at . Thanks. ( ) @ : Creator now uses the sitelinks! Currently as well as P373, but if we decide to delete this property then there's now a clear migration path. Thanks. ( ) @ : Creator now uses the sitelinks! Currently as well as P373, but if we decide to delete this property then there's now a clear migration path. Thanks. ( ) Comment Voters should be aware that is currently used for sidebar (""In other projects"") linking to Commons from Wikipedia articles. So deleting this property without a new technical solution will simply make the links disappear. -- ( ) @ : That's a good point, that should be fixed during a deprecation stage before deletion. I've filed . Thanks. ( ) A deprecation stage of a property means that it should not be added to items and should be removed there where possible. If that deprecation stage is present, the technical solutions to the sidebar (etc) ashould already have taken place. Again: first deprecation (= breaking) and then fixing is the wrong order. ( ) @ : That's a good point, that should be fixed during a deprecation stage before deletion. I've filed . Thanks. ( ) A deprecation stage of a property means that it should not be added to items and should be removed there where possible. If that deprecation stage is present, the technical solutions to the sidebar (etc) ashould already have taken place. Again: first deprecation (= breaking) and then fixing is the wrong order. ( ) A deprecation stage of a property means that it should not be added to items and should be removed there where possible. If that deprecation stage is present, the technical solutions to the sidebar (etc) ashould already have taken place. Again: first deprecation (= breaking) and then fixing is the wrong order. ( ) Deprecate per . At Wikimania last month, Mike and I talked about this exact issue ( being a piece of necessary evil to deal with misalignment of category and topic items), and I'm persuaded that we should at least try to migrate towards a more elegant solution. ( ) [MASK] Agree that the current situation is not the best, however I believe that 'other sites' is a ridiculous, kludgey solution that's even worse than this property. ( ) @ : Why not apply solution to Commons? -- ( ) @ : Why not apply solution to Commons? -- ( ) Deprecate . I also agree with . -- Question If this property is [MASK], who will update the Wikidata-linked Creator template which current uses P373 to populate the ""homecat"" parameter? - ( ) @ : I've started a discussion/change request at . Thanks. ( ) @ : I've started a discussion/change request at . Thanks. ( ) [MASK] Let's look at the practicalities. Suppose I have a large or large-ish set of items, and I want to identify which of them have Commons categories. With P373, I just need the following in my SPARQL query: Without P373 I have to do something like the following: Yes, it's possible (eg: ). But (i) it's a hell of a lot to have to remember for quite a simple thing, especially for SPARQL newbies; and (ii) the code above is a real resource-hog and far more likely to time out, if one tries to apply it for groups of items of any size. To start with there is the / join. This compares to P373 which is very specific. For each the fragment above starts with in its solution set, P373 will typically identify only a single commonscat for each one, leading to a solution set going forward with about the same number of rows (or slightly smaller, as some items won't have commonscats). In contrast, connects the item to every article about it, in every Wikipedia. That may immediately expand the solution set by a factor of 20, before then a huge join with the set of all pages on Commons to reduce it down again; then a per-set-member string operation (a further notorious source of slowness) to filter out galleries etc and select just for categories; and then having to do the whole thing all over again, in case it's actually a parallel category-type item that is what is actually sitelinked to the Commons category. If the group of items is of any size (or if one's trying to do a COUNT query, such as how many churches have Commons categories), all this is slow-slow-slow-slow, so very likely to make the query time out without completing its execution. I accept that maintaining all the P373 entries as a set of convenience statements is a pain. But it is something that bots can and do efficiently manage. The value of maintaining P373 is that it makes corresponding queries much easier to write, and makes a huge range of queries possible to successfully execute that would otherwise time out. I think that makes P373 worth keeping. The other point is that currently almost all Wikipedias are using P373 to identify which Commons page should be linked to from the sidebar of an article page to give a category page rather than an article page; so, also, some modules on Commons. With P373 this is a very easy look-up. Yes, implementing the logic above is possible (I believe some Commons infoboxes may do it); but how big a job to implement this in the MediaWiki code? So, for these two reasons, [MASK] (and [MASK] maintained). ( ) Interestingly, actually running the numbers, the performance hit isn't quite as bad as I'd anticipated; but all the same it can be considerable. For quite a large dataset, I find the join using the sitelinks and additional P910 path is about six times slower than the join using P373 : Count of the number of items in class : 2.039 seconds. Count of corresponding commons categories using P373 : 4.187 seconds. Count of corresponding commons categories using sitelinks, P910 etc : 14.450 seconds. Pinging search guru @ : to see whether he thinks the comparison is fair, and whether he has any thoughts/comments. ( ) @ : Well, that last query presupposes that the sitelinks stay as messy as they currently are, doesn’t it? I’m not sure what is proposing, but if for the sake of argument we assume that category pages are always linked to separate category items (which are created if necessary), then becomes possible, which doesn’t perform that much worse than the P373 version (though it’s still somewhat slower). -- ( ) @ , : The sitelink query is messy, and it would be good if there was a better way, but I don't think is it. Having separate category items for all Commons categories would work with the current system, but that would need a different discussion. For now, I'm proposing that we just use the system as-is and follow and as needed. Querying P373 may give you quick results, however it will also give you incorrect results as it's not 100% in sync with the sitelinks. See some of my recent edits here for bad P373 value that I've been removing - there are quite a few of them. As it currently stands, bots add new ones, and pi bot tries to fix obviously bad ones (e.g., non-existent or redirects to the sitelink), but more complex cases (like a link to a completely different Commons category than is in the sitelink) need human review, and that doesn't happen enough. We could program the bots to always [MASK] P373 in sync with the sitelink, but that's a change from the status quo, and will probably cause friction as people mistakenly edit P373 instead of the sitelink. In terms of implementation, I mentioned above that 's getCommonsLink function can be used to provide the sitelink, following and if needed, and I think that's started to be used in other language wikis to replace P373, but there is still a way to go. For the link within MediaWiki, I've posted - I don't think it should be a big issue, but the developers haven't replied there yet. I'd hope that a 'deprecated' stage would help give time for the transition. Thanks. ( ) An expression could presumably also be added to SPARQL to return the Commons category. ( ) For a shortcut to the heavy English module see . I agree with Mike that P373 should be the last option. -- ( ) Interestingly, actually running the numbers, the performance hit isn't quite as bad as I'd anticipated; but all the same it can be considerable. For quite a large dataset, I find the join using the sitelinks and additional P910 path is about six times slower than the join using P373 : Count of the number of items in class : 2.039 seconds. Count of corresponding commons categories using P373 : 4.187 seconds. Count of corresponding commons categories using sitelinks, P910 etc : 14.450 seconds. Pinging search guru @ : to see whether he thinks the comparison is fair, and whether he has any thoughts/comments. ( ) @ : Well, that last query presupposes that the sitelinks stay as messy as they currently are, doesn’t it? I’m not sure what is proposing, but if for the sake of argument we assume that category pages are always linked to separate category items (which are created if necessary), then becomes possible, which doesn’t perform that much worse than the P373 version (though it’s still somewhat slower). -- ( ) @ , : The sitelink query is messy, and it would be good if there was a better way, but I don't think is it. Having separate category items for all Commons categories would work with the current system, but that would need a different discussion. For now, I'm proposing that we just use the system as-is and follow and as needed. Querying P373 may give you quick results, however it will also give you incorrect results as it's not 100% in sync with the sitelinks. See some of my recent edits here for bad P373 value that I've been removing - there are quite a few of them. As it currently stands, bots add new ones, and pi bot tries to fix obviously bad ones (e.g., non-existent or redirects to the sitelink), but more complex cases (like a link to a completely different Commons category than is in the sitelink) need human review, and that doesn't happen enough. We could program the bots to always [MASK] P373 in sync with the sitelink, but that's a change from the status quo, and will probably cause friction as people mistakenly edit P373 instead of the sitelink. In terms of implementation, I mentioned above that 's getCommonsLink function can be used to provide the sitelink, following and if needed, and I think that's started to be used in other language wikis to replace P373, but there is still a way to go. For the link within MediaWiki, I've posted - I don't think it should be a big issue, but the developers haven't replied there yet. I'd hope that a 'deprecated' stage would help give time for the transition. Thanks. ( ) An expression could presumably also be added to SPARQL to return the Commons category. ( ) For a shortcut to the heavy English module see . I agree with Mike that P373 should be the last option. -- ( ) @ : Well, that last query presupposes that the sitelinks stay as messy as they currently are, doesn’t it? I’m not sure what is proposing, but if for the sake of argument we assume that category pages are always linked to separate category items (which are created if necessary), then becomes possible, which doesn’t perform that much worse than the P373 version (though it’s still somewhat slower). -- ( ) @ , : The sitelink query is messy, and it would be good if there was a better way, but I don't think is it. Having separate category items for all Commons categories would work with the current system, but that would need a different discussion. For now, I'm proposing that we just use the system as-is and follow and as needed. Querying P373 may give you quick results, however it will also give you incorrect results as it's not 100% in sync with the sitelinks. See some of my recent edits here for bad P373 value that I've been removing - there are quite a few of them. As it currently stands, bots add new ones, and pi bot tries to fix obviously bad ones (e.g., non-existent or redirects to the sitelink), but more complex cases (like a link to a completely different Commons category than is in the sitelink) need human review, and that doesn't happen enough. We could program the bots to always [MASK] P373 in sync with the sitelink, but that's a change from the status quo, and will probably cause friction as people mistakenly edit P373 instead of the sitelink. In terms of implementation, I mentioned above that 's getCommonsLink function can be used to provide the sitelink, following and if needed, and I think that's started to be used in other language wikis to replace P373, but there is still a way to go. For the link within MediaWiki, I've posted - I don't think it should be a big issue, but the developers haven't replied there yet. I'd hope that a 'deprecated' stage would help give time for the transition. Thanks. ( ) An expression could presumably also be added to SPARQL to return the Commons category. ( ) For a shortcut to the heavy English module see . I agree with Mike that P373 should be the last option. -- ( ) @ , : The sitelink query is messy, and it would be good if there was a better way, but I don't think is it. Having separate category items for all Commons categories would work with the current system, but that would need a different discussion. For now, I'm proposing that we just use the system as-is and follow and as needed. Querying P373 may give you quick results, however it will also give you incorrect results as it's not 100% in sync with the sitelinks. See some of my recent edits here for bad P373 value that I've been removing - there are quite a few of them. As it currently stands, bots add new ones, and pi bot tries to fix obviously bad ones (e.g., non-existent or redirects to the sitelink), but more complex cases (like a link to a completely different Commons category than is in the sitelink) need human review, and that doesn't happen enough. We could program the bots to always [MASK] P373 in sync with the sitelink, but that's a change from the status quo, and will probably cause friction as people mistakenly edit P373 instead of the sitelink. In terms of implementation, I mentioned above that 's getCommonsLink function can be used to provide the sitelink, following and if needed, and I think that's started to be used in other language wikis to replace P373, but there is still a way to go. For the link within MediaWiki, I've posted - I don't think it should be a big issue, but the developers haven't replied there yet. I'd hope that a 'deprecated' stage would help give time for the transition. Thanks. ( ) An expression could presumably also be added to SPARQL to return the Commons category. ( ) For a shortcut to the heavy English module see . I agree with Mike that P373 should be the last option. -- ( ) An expression could presumably also be added to SPARQL to return the Commons category. ( ) For a shortcut to the heavy English module see . I agree with Mike that P373 should be the last option. -- ( ) For a shortcut to the heavy English module see . I agree with Mike that P373 should be the last option. -- ( ) [MASK] I was told that site links could link to whatever page on Commons. So if we can attach a commons category to the item, its important to describe it properly. More over, there are (an I guess they are attached to this property, not to the sitelinks (for common)) multiple technical reason, why it should be kept (so before potetional removal, these technicalities should be work out). E.g. interwiki links from Commons, to Wikipedia, category templates etc. -- ( ) @ : you may simply use , is not necessary because each Commons categories already have em, do you have at least an opposite example? Hell no. are ditto. ( ) See also Meta-Wiki MediaWiki.org proposal on using templates cross-wiki-ly. ( ) @ : you may simply use , is not necessary because each Commons categories already have em, do you have at least an opposite example? Hell no. are ditto. ( ) See also Meta-Wiki MediaWiki.org proposal on using templates cross-wiki-ly. ( ) [MASK] It is now the only (simple) way to access the Commons category which belongs to an article or subject. -- ( ) The access via takes unnecessary computing time because of the call of another entity. Moreover, in many cases is not defined. -- ( ) The access via takes unnecessary computing time because of the call of another entity. Moreover, in many cases is not defined. -- ( ) Delete Please deprecate and later delete this property once and for all, the commonscat links are sufficient for the intended purposes. Linking more than two commons categories is not useful and therefore no reason to [MASK] this property. ( ) Delete Per above, especially per Liuxinyu970226. T54971 might be a better solution to fix What Multichill concerns. -- Delete Problemic property, should consider more smart ways instead. -- [MASK] Per above. + We will have problems with automatic cross-project linking without this property. --sasha ( ) krassotkin is now WMF Global banned, strike or not? ( ) krassotkin is now WMF Global banned, strike or not? ( ) [MASK] Sitelinks have some advantages over P373. However they lack flexibility (unique values, etc.) and no standard seems to have finally settled the articles vs categories issue. Therefore, P373 is still a useful fallback.-- ( ) @ : How do you think about Krassotkin's and Pere prlpz's comments? -- ( ) @ : I think I've already answered the points by @ , : elsewhere in this discussion - primarily that there is a standard approach to using the sitelinks, and P373 is mostly just a duplication, or at best an indication of places where we need to improve our modelling here or the commons category structure. Thanks. ( ) @ : How do you think about Krassotkin's and Pere prlpz's comments? -- ( ) @ : I think I've already answered the points by @ , : elsewhere in this discussion - primarily that there is a standard approach to using the sitelinks, and P373 is mostly just a duplication, or at best an indication of places where we need to improve our modelling here or the commons category structure. Thanks. ( ) @ : I think I've already answered the points by @ , : elsewhere in this discussion - primarily that there is a standard approach to using the sitelinks, and P373 is mostly just a duplication, or at best an indication of places where we need to improve our modelling here or the commons category structure. Thanks. ( ) Delete no reason to single out Commons, use ( ) Delete solution should be enough, please also consider nominating Multichill for since that guy only keeps Wrong claims by themselves. -- Delete Redundancy must die. — No comments for over a month, probably best to close this one as no consensus. ( ) @ : Oppose It looks like the currently vote is 13:13:1, which looks rather like neither way are fair, but at least 3 deletion rationales pointed and , which is, although tricky, two better ways that can finally kill all the P373 functions, so unless if both are declined officially, ""close as no consensus"" is also unfair. -- ( ) @ : Oppose It looks like the currently vote is 13:13:1, which looks rather like neither way are fair, but at least 3 deletion rationales pointed and , which is, although tricky, two better ways that can finally kill all the P373 functions, so unless if both are declined officially, ""close as no consensus"" is also unfair. -- ( ) Delete Unnecessary and useless. -- ( ) Delete Deprecate and later delete (redundant; a lot of people with no experience with Wikidata are very surprized to find out that we have such fundamental mess in linking to Commons categories) ( ) Delete Deprecate and delete. Two ways of linking is source for errors and confusion. ( ) Delete Deprecate and delete. It is redundant and it was very confusing when I found out there were two properties doing essentially the same thing. Many of the [MASK] votes say it is not ideal but that we should [MASK] it until a proper solution is in place. Deprecating and deleting is a path towards that outcome. ( ) Delete Deprecate and delete. Per Kees08 redundant and confusing. ( ) Delete Deprecate and delete. Galleries can use if necessary. Commons could even be given its own Sitelink if needed. ( ) Delete There are ways to query better. -- [MASK] - So far I have only seen claims that this property is redunant but not the proof that it is 100% redunant. Sure there is certainly some redunancy but that does not take away that down the stream this is quaranteed always the case. To my feeling I read above here mostly about that it gives double work as when a category is created or changed it has to be updated in two ways. I read only a little about that this property is one of the most extensively used properties in the various Wikimedia platforms. This is big! The use of this prorty has been widely adopted in use in the various platforms and this is something that can't be simple marked as redunant as that would imply big consequences for the complete Wikimedia ecosphere. The implications are large as this property forms the foundation of interproject linking. First deprecating the foundation and then starting to think about alternatives is the wrong order. If it is really redunant, first a full inventory needs to be made of all the possible issues that come up. Also the sitelinking of Commons galleries needs to be made obsolete, as it is still common practise that these get priority over Commons categories! That common practise needs to be deprecated first. Then a solution needs to be invented/created for all the possible issues that come up. For example both the category as the article on Wikipedia about that subject link to the same category on Commons. What to do with cases with one category on Commons, two articles on Wikipedia. And so on. In the previous discussions about deleting this property various reasons have been given why it is a bad idea to delete this property, and above here these reasons have not or insufficiently been addressed. ( ) @ : Over the last year or so I've worked through, and resolved, thousands of cases where P373 is different from the sitelink. I have yet to find a single one that is not due to mismodelling on a Wikipedia; on Commons; or here. That's not a big surprise, though, as P373 is designed to smooth over those cases of mismodeling, and to provide a temporary shortcut that lets you link two different topics with a single commons category. The only reason it is ""one of the most extensively used properties"" is because it pretends to be a sitelink - which I think is the most used aspect of Wikidata. We already have alternatives - use the Commons sitelinks, and use the Lua code linked to above to find the correct one through linking properties such as . This already handles the sitelinks to Commons galleries without needing a change of approach to sitelinking them from here. What I'm proposing is that we remove all of the cases where P373 is the same as the sitelink (which is most of them, since most cases have only been added based on the sitelinks), and then we can look through the remainder - and while there will be tricky cases, I don't expect that there will be that many of them. If you want to test this, please point out some tricky cases that need resolving! Thanks. ( ) Hi , Over the past years I also worked on resolving thousands of cases of issues with P373. So I am fully aware of the troubles with it. I agree that it is one of the most used properties because it pretends to be a sitelink, but I also disagree with that idea. The main principle of a sitelink is that there is a one to one an item on Wikidata and a category on Commons. For many subjects this is the case, but also for many subjects this is not the case. Over the past month (but also many times before that), I have come acros thousands of subjects that do not have a one to one Wikidata-Commons situation. So no, Commons sitelink is in many cases not an alternative. That is even worse than I thought before! I think it is even worth to investigate if it would be possible to abbolish Commons sitelinks in Wikidata (certainly for categories) (because sitelinks only allow a 1 to 1 support, all other data is not allowed), and move all the functionalitis that the Commons sitelinks provide to Commons/Wikipedia/etc, to the P373 property. Another alternative is that the Commons sitelinks are redesigned, but that is something I am hoping for more than a decade (as even before Wikidata existed this was already a problem to deal with in Wikipedia). "" find the correct one through linking properties such as "" -> This is just one of the cases where this might be a solution, but there are various other situations to that have no solution. On this page I see no solutions offered to those, which is I think highly problematic. In Dutch we have a saying that people should not throw away shoes befre you got new ones. That is what is happening here. "" What I'm proposing is that we remove all of the cases where P373 is the same as the sitelink (which is most of them, since most cases have only been added based on the sitelinks), and then we can look through the remainder - and while there will be tricky cases, I don't expect that there will be that many of them. "" -> Just alone for rijksmonuments in the Netherlands, almost every single municipality in the Netherlands has cases of for example even 18 items on Wikidata with only one category on Commons. So speaking about ""not many of them"", in percentages almost everything is small compared to millions. "" If you want to test this, please point out some tricky cases that need resolving! "" -> This is turning it around. You want to change something, then you need to come with the solutions. Most Wikidata uers have no idea that discussion is going on here, and will highly likely influence there work. Then expecting that the majority that is not present here comes with the tricky cases, that is not the way to work. What you are basically asking is just to go forward, without making sure you have the solutions in place first. Also that you minimalise the number of cases you think you would get, I would say underestimate, is a bad approach. With this kind of gigantic changes, decisions need to be based on facts and not on imagination. The simple thing that the number of cases involved is still not counted is troubling. In my previous message I wrote that as this property has usage in gigantic propertions, an inventory should be made. On this page I do not see such a thing happening (asking for examples is turning it around and is not an inventory). To me this feels like the issues that have brought up by various users are not taken seriously. The issues addressed concern situations that are not just simple (small) cases, but represent a large structural mismatch. I am also concerned about what has been done with my previous post from 30 May 2020. In there I made a first basic analysis of the situation. Also that has been ignored. As both the analysis and issues raised by users are not addressed first, this discussion is walking in a dead-end street and can only have one outcome: proposal rejected. ( ) @ : From my experience, there are three types of items that need to link to the same Commons category - 'topic', 'list' and 'category' items (or maybe four, if you include 'categories of lists'). I think those are well modeled with the category/list linking properties. All of the other cases I've come across have been due to mis-modelling either here, on a Wikipedia, or on Commons - part of why I was asking for illustrative examples where this wasn't the case. Abolishing Commons sitelinks would be impossible now, as there is no other way to provide a bi-directional link between Commons and Wikidata, and copying QIDs around rather than using the sitelinks would create a maintenance nightmare that the auto-updating of commons categories avoids. For Rijksmonuments, I think having a container category for them works well, but if you're using Wikidata lists then you could automatically use the sitelinks the same as using P373 (also relevant to this point is the de-voy discussion below). I think the solutions already exist, otherwise I wouldn't be supporting this PfD so emphatically - and again, asking for cases where the solutions don't work. I hope that the Wikidata modelling is not so inflexible that a temporary fix introduced in 2013 *has* to continue into the future indefinitely. Thanks. ( ) @ : Over the last year or so I've worked through, and resolved, thousands of cases where P373 is different from the sitelink. I have yet to find a single one that is not due to mismodelling on a Wikipedia; on Commons; or here. That's not a big surprise, though, as P373 is designed to smooth over those cases of mismodeling, and to provide a temporary shortcut that lets you link two different topics with a single commons category. The only reason it is ""one of the most extensively used properties"" is because it pretends to be a sitelink - which I think is the most used aspect of Wikidata. We already have alternatives - use the Commons sitelinks, and use the Lua code linked to above to find the correct one through linking properties such as . This already handles the sitelinks to Commons galleries without needing a change of approach to sitelinking them from here. What I'm proposing is that we remove all of the cases where P373 is the same as the sitelink (which is most of them, since most cases have only been added based on the sitelinks), and then we can look through the remainder - and while there will be tricky cases, I don't expect that there will be that many of them. If you want to test this, please point out some tricky cases that need resolving! Thanks. ( ) Hi , Over the past years I also worked on resolving thousands of cases of issues with P373. So I am fully aware of the troubles with it. I agree that it is one of the most used properties because it pretends to be a sitelink, but I also disagree with that idea. The main principle of a sitelink is that there is a one to one an item on Wikidata and a category on Commons. For many subjects this is the case, but also for many subjects this is not the case. Over the past month (but also many times before that), I have come acros thousands of subjects that do not have a one to one Wikidata-Commons situation. So no, Commons sitelink is in many cases not an alternative. That is even worse than I thought before! I think it is even worth to investigate if it would be possible to abbolish Commons sitelinks in Wikidata (certainly for categories) (because sitelinks only allow a 1 to 1 support, all other data is not allowed), and move all the functionalitis that the Commons sitelinks provide to Commons/Wikipedia/etc, to the P373 property. Another alternative is that the Commons sitelinks are redesigned, but that is something I am hoping for more than a decade (as even before Wikidata existed this was already a problem to deal with in Wikipedia). "" find the correct one through linking properties such as "" -> This is just one of the cases where this might be a solution, but there are various other situations to that have no solution. On this page I see no solutions offered to those, which is I think highly problematic. In Dutch we have a saying that people should not throw away shoes befre you got new ones. That is what is happening here. "" What I'm proposing is that we remove all of the cases where P373 is the same as the sitelink (which is most of them, since most cases have only been added based on the sitelinks), and then we can look through the remainder - and while there will be tricky cases, I don't expect that there will be that many of them. "" -> Just alone for rijksmonuments in the Netherlands, almost every single municipality in the Netherlands has cases of for example even 18 items on Wikidata with only one category on Commons. So speaking about ""not many of them"", in percentages almost everything is small compared to millions. "" If you want to test this, please point out some tricky cases that need resolving! "" -> This is turning it around. You want to change something, then you need to come with the solutions. Most Wikidata uers have no idea that discussion is going on here, and will highly likely influence there work. Then expecting that the majority that is not present here comes with the tricky cases, that is not the way to work. What you are basically asking is just to go forward, without making sure you have the solutions in place first. Also that you minimalise the number of cases you think you would get, I would say underestimate, is a bad approach. With this kind of gigantic changes, decisions need to be based on facts and not on imagination. The simple thing that the number of cases involved is still not counted is troubling. In my previous message I wrote that as this property has usage in gigantic propertions, an inventory should be made. On this page I do not see such a thing happening (asking for examples is turning it around and is not an inventory). To me this feels like the issues that have brought up by various users are not taken seriously. The issues addressed concern situations that are not just simple (small) cases, but represent a large structural mismatch. I am also concerned about what has been done with my previous post from 30 May 2020. In there I made a first basic analysis of the situation. Also that has been ignored. As both the analysis and issues raised by users are not addressed first, this discussion is walking in a dead-end street and can only have one outcome: proposal rejected. ( ) @ : From my experience, there are three types of items that need to link to the same Commons category - 'topic', 'list' and 'category' items (or maybe four, if you include 'categories of lists'). I think those are well modeled with the category/list linking properties. All of the other cases I've come across have been due to mis-modelling either here, on a Wikipedia, or on Commons - part of why I was asking for illustrative examples where this wasn't the case. Abolishing Commons sitelinks would be impossible now, as there is no other way to provide a bi-directional link between Commons and Wikidata, and copying QIDs around rather than using the sitelinks would create a maintenance nightmare that the auto-updating of commons categories avoids. For Rijksmonuments, I think having a container category for them works well, but if you're using Wikidata lists then you could automatically use the sitelinks the same as using P373 (also relevant to this point is the de-voy discussion below). I think the solutions already exist, otherwise I wouldn't be supporting this PfD so emphatically - and again, asking for cases where the solutions don't work. I hope that the Wikidata modelling is not so inflexible that a temporary fix introduced in 2013 *has* to continue into the future indefinitely. Thanks. ( ) Hi , Over the past years I also worked on resolving thousands of cases of issues with P373. So I am fully aware of the troubles with it. I agree that it is one of the most used properties because it pretends to be a sitelink, but I also disagree with that idea. The main principle of a sitelink is that there is a one to one an item on Wikidata and a category on Commons. For many subjects this is the case, but also for many subjects this is not the case. Over the past month (but also many times before that), I have come acros thousands of subjects that do not have a one to one Wikidata-Commons situation. So no, Commons sitelink is in many cases not an alternative. That is even worse than I thought before! I think it is even worth to investigate if it would be possible to abbolish Commons sitelinks in Wikidata (certainly for categories) (because sitelinks only allow a 1 to 1 support, all other data is not allowed), and move all the functionalitis that the Commons sitelinks provide to Commons/Wikipedia/etc, to the P373 property. Another alternative is that the Commons sitelinks are redesigned, but that is something I am hoping for more than a decade (as even before Wikidata existed this was already a problem to deal with in Wikipedia). "" find the correct one through linking properties such as "" -> This is just one of the cases where this might be a solution, but there are various other situations to that have no solution. On this page I see no solutions offered to those, which is I think highly problematic. In Dutch we have a saying that people should not throw away shoes befre you got new ones. That is what is happening here. "" What I'm proposing is that we remove all of the cases where P373 is the same as the sitelink (which is most of them, since most cases have only been added based on the sitelinks), and then we can look through the remainder - and while there will be tricky cases, I don't expect that there will be that many of them. "" -> Just alone for rijksmonuments in the Netherlands, almost every single municipality in the Netherlands has cases of for example even 18 items on Wikidata with only one category on Commons. So speaking about ""not many of them"", in percentages almost everything is small compared to millions. "" If you want to test this, please point out some tricky cases that need resolving! "" -> This is turning it around. You want to change something, then you need to come with the solutions. Most Wikidata uers have no idea that discussion is going on here, and will highly likely influence there work. Then expecting that the majority that is not present here comes with the tricky cases, that is not the way to work. What you are basically asking is just to go forward, without making sure you have the solutions in place first. Also that you minimalise the number of cases you think you would get, I would say underestimate, is a bad approach. With this kind of gigantic changes, decisions need to be based on facts and not on imagination. The simple thing that the number of cases involved is still not counted is troubling. In my previous message I wrote that as this property has usage in gigantic propertions, an inventory should be made. On this page I do not see such a thing happening (asking for examples is turning it around and is not an inventory). To me this feels like the issues that have brought up by various users are not taken seriously. The issues addressed concern situations that are not just simple (small) cases, but represent a large structural mismatch. I am also concerned about what has been done with my previous post from 30 May 2020. In there I made a first basic analysis of the situation. Also that has been ignored. As both the analysis and issues raised by users are not addressed first, this discussion is walking in a dead-end street and can only have one outcome: proposal rejected. ( ) @ : From my experience, there are three types of items that need to link to the same Commons category - 'topic', 'list' and 'category' items (or maybe four, if you include 'categories of lists'). I think those are well modeled with the category/list linking properties. All of the other cases I've come across have been due to mis-modelling either here, on a Wikipedia, or on Commons - part of why I was asking for illustrative examples where this wasn't the case. Abolishing Commons sitelinks would be impossible now, as there is no other way to provide a bi-directional link between Commons and Wikidata, and copying QIDs around rather than using the sitelinks would create a maintenance nightmare that the auto-updating of commons categories avoids. For Rijksmonuments, I think having a container category for them works well, but if you're using Wikidata lists then you could automatically use the sitelinks the same as using P373 (also relevant to this point is the de-voy discussion below). I think the solutions already exist, otherwise I wouldn't be supporting this PfD so emphatically - and again, asking for cases where the solutions don't work. I hope that the Wikidata modelling is not so inflexible that a temporary fix introduced in 2013 *has* to continue into the future indefinitely. Thanks. ( ) @ : From my experience, there are three types of items that need to link to the same Commons category - 'topic', 'list' and 'category' items (or maybe four, if you include 'categories of lists'). I think those are well modeled with the category/list linking properties. All of the other cases I've come across have been due to mis-modelling either here, on a Wikipedia, or on Commons - part of why I was asking for illustrative examples where this wasn't the case. Abolishing Commons sitelinks would be impossible now, as there is no other way to provide a bi-directional link between Commons and Wikidata, and copying QIDs around rather than using the sitelinks would create a maintenance nightmare that the auto-updating of commons categories avoids. For Rijksmonuments, I think having a container category for them works well, but if you're using Wikidata lists then you could automatically use the sitelinks the same as using P373 (also relevant to this point is the de-voy discussion below). I think the solutions already exist, otherwise I wouldn't be supporting this PfD so emphatically - and again, asking for cases where the solutions don't work. I hope that the Wikidata modelling is not so inflexible that a temporary fix introduced in 2013 *has* to continue into the future indefinitely. Thanks. ( ) [MASK] - I don't deny that this property is confusing (especially for newcomers) and it's an ugly kludge, but given the fact that it's virtually impossible to do proper SPARQL queries without it, many things will break if we remove it, and many other things mentioned above (like the gallery / category problem) we can't really remove this property. ( ) @ : There are work-arounds for SPARQL queries that were described above, although they could definitely be made simpler to use. The gallery/category problem is already solved from a sitelink perspective. I'm proposing a period where the property is deprecated, can you help solve the issues that might be caused by the property being [MASK], please? Thanks. ( ) @ : There are work-arounds for SPARQL queries that were described above, although they could definitely be made simpler to use. The gallery/category problem is already solved from a sitelink perspective. I'm proposing a period where the property is deprecated, can you help solve the issues that might be caused by the property being [MASK], please? Thanks. ( ) Delete this property has always been an outlier and with the other sites link its now redundant and frankly highly confusing. ( ) [MASK] Many uses, a lot of things would break and this is a really useful thing. -- @ : Yep, anything that for Wikidata should always [MASK] permanently, aren't they? ( ) @ : Yep, anything that for Wikidata should always [MASK] permanently, aren't they? ( ) [MASK] causes too many problems for me to support deletion. Every issue needs to be addressed before deletion, as this is used a hell of a lot and will cause crosswiki issues. -- ( ) I would rather consider reasons like this are not valid [MASK] reasons, but for our purposes. ( ) I would rather consider reasons like this are not valid [MASK] reasons, but for our purposes. ( ) [MASK] There are many occasions where a pairing category item exists so the (re-)use of the interwiki is not possible as it is used elsewhere. It needs to remain, and it needs to remain active and undeprecated.   — @ : Can you give some examples, please? Thanks. ( ) @ : Something like . I regularly do a merge/cleanup where I move the Commons category interwiki to the Category: item from the topic-item, ensuring we have the CommonsCat on the topic-item and adding the Topic-Cat: property. And over time I have also seen numerous species and redundant species names (whatever they are called) where the CommonsCat is on both items. [I don't remember maintenance activities specifics].   — @ : I think the cases like / are already solved by following the / links, if not then they normally just need cleanup so they are properly linked, they don't really need except as a convenience shortcut. Thanks. ( ) @ : Can you give some examples, please? Thanks. ( ) @ : Something like . I regularly do a merge/cleanup where I move the Commons category interwiki to the Category: item from the topic-item, ensuring we have the CommonsCat on the topic-item and adding the Topic-Cat: property. And over time I have also seen numerous species and redundant species names (whatever they are called) where the CommonsCat is on both items. [I don't remember maintenance activities specifics].   — @ : I think the cases like / are already solved by following the / links, if not then they normally just need cleanup so they are properly linked, they don't really need except as a convenience shortcut. Thanks. ( ) @ : Something like . I regularly do a merge/cleanup where I move the Commons category interwiki to the Category: item from the topic-item, ensuring we have the CommonsCat on the topic-item and adding the Topic-Cat: property. And over time I have also seen numerous species and redundant species names (whatever they are called) where the CommonsCat is on both items. [I don't remember maintenance activities specifics].   — @ : I think the cases like / are already solved by following the / links, if not then they normally just need cleanup so they are properly linked, they don't really need except as a convenience shortcut. Thanks. ( ) @ : I think the cases like / are already solved by following the / links, if not then they normally just need cleanup so they are properly linked, they don't really need except as a convenience shortcut. Thanks. ( ) @ : I think the cases like / are already solved by following the / links, if not then they normally just need cleanup so they are properly linked, they don't really need except as a convenience shortcut. Thanks. ( ) [MASK] for now. Removing P373 makes the querying the commosncat via SPARQL-queries and API queries one magnitude more complex. Rationale for removing the P373 is that there is no fast method for querying the commonscat backlink from Lua (= queries like this is my P373 value, what is my Wikidata ID? ) this could be fixed by adding relevant function to scribunto. Second problem is that the P373 values arent automatically updated when category is moved. This could be handled by bots like the double redirections are tracked and updated. -- ( ) [MASK] This property is needed in order to show a link to the Commons category in the sidebar on Wikipedia and other projects when the category is linked in another item (see this ), at least not until is resolved. -- ( ) @ : That function, if I remember correctly, has nothing to do with P373, that's just a cross-wiki link sidebar that match such links with language(s) you speak, this means even we don't use this property, we can also see that thing, unless you disable it via , that sidebar remains when necessary. -- ( ) I’m talking about , it does show a link to the Commons category entered in of the linked item, it’s useful since we can’t add Commons categories as sitelink in items that are not categories (like a Wikipedia article). And ""P373"" is literally in the name of the Phabricator task. All of this is better explained and . -- ( ) @ : That function, if I remember correctly, has nothing to do with P373, that's just a cross-wiki link sidebar that match such links with language(s) you speak, this means even we don't use this property, we can also see that thing, unless you disable it via , that sidebar remains when necessary. -- ( ) I’m talking about , it does show a link to the Commons category entered in of the linked item, it’s useful since we can’t add Commons categories as sitelink in items that are not categories (like a Wikipedia article). And ""P373"" is literally in the name of the Phabricator task. All of this is better explained and . -- ( ) I’m talking about , it does show a link to the Commons category entered in of the linked item, it’s useful since we can’t add Commons categories as sitelink in items that are not categories (like a Wikipedia article). And ""P373"" is literally in the name of the Phabricator task. All of this is better explained and . -- ( ) Speedy [MASK] Widely in use, namely in in more than 100 projects, including Wikipedia, Wikisource, and others. This should be discussed at the / on those projects before taking actions! -- ( ) @ : The discussion started in 2019, there's nothing speedy about it now... There is drop-in replacement Lua code available that can easily be used to replace existing uses, it's already in use on enwp ( for example). Thanks. ( ) @ : The discussion started in 2019, there's nothing speedy about it now... There is drop-in replacement Lua code available that can easily be used to replace existing uses, it's already in use on enwp ( for example). Thanks. ( ) [MASK] for now, according to multiple arguments above. ( ) @ If you think is good for you, [MASK] all properties per above, not just this one and delete others, then I think this page can be deprecated ( ) @ If you think is good for you, [MASK] all properties per above, not just this one and delete others, then I think this page can be deprecated ( ) @ : The doubleness is unwanted, however the core problem is that we often have 2 Wikidata item pages for 1 item (the first one for article links, the second one for category links of the same item). To link the two item pages mutually is complicated. The system solution would be to merge these pairs (eg. Music and Category:Music, or Paris and Category:Paris). But unfortunately, we must be realistic and accept that this right solution is unenforceable in the near future. If the creators of Wikidata did not think of this at the beginning, it will be very difficult to fix it later. But even if this will resolved, some complicated relations will remain: e.g. Painting vs. Category:Painting vs. Category:Paintings vs. List of paintings etc. We should have realized from the beginning that there are two main types of categories: ""item categories"" and ""group categories"". The creators of Wikidata had little experience with Commons, so they got the idea from Wikipedia that a typical category is a ""group category"", a and so they did not notice existence of ""item categories"" which are typical with singular names. ""Item categories"" (typically ""singular categories"") should be joined directly to the item page of their item. ""Group categories"" (""plural categories"") are a different problem which can be treated in another, more analytical way. A sitelink is definitely more practical and more functional than just properties. The problem is that in some cases a sitelink is not available directly, but only through properties (P910, P1754, possibly other similar) as a sitelink of another item – and in these cases it is less accessible and less useful than P373. It is therefore not possible to call this entry by a simple link/expression. Thus, P373 translates the indirectly accessible data from the sitelink so that it can be understood even by simple templates, links and infoboxes. If we manage to implant any simple tool directly into the Mediawiki that can replace it, then we can leave and delete P373. Ideally, the remote indirect sitelink from the linked sister item page would appear and behave as if it were a direct sitelink. So it is necessary that the sitelink is really common to both item pages of the item. The easiest way to do this is to merge these pairs of item pages. All other solutions would be just a replacement, unnecessarily complicated and not fully functional. -- ( ) @ : I broadly agree with you. I generally think that there are three types of items here - I tend to talk about ""topic"" items, ""category"" items, and ""list"" items. I tried to explain that at (I should have linked to that above). It would be great if items did allow multiple sitelinks to the same wiki, and then they could be merged, but I understand that it was a deliberate design decision when Wikidata was started. It is easily possible to use Lua to cross between items using / / / - but it would be really nice if that could somehow be built into MediaWiki/Wikibase. Perhaps you could open a phabricator ticket for that? I don't agree that it should be a prerequisite to removing P373, though, since there is a workaround, and it's not that hard to implement. We could get into whether it's less or more functional than P373 if you want - I'd argue that the sitelinks give the 'right' answer more often now. Thanks. ( ) @ : I broadly agree with you. I generally think that there are three types of items here - I tend to talk about ""topic"" items, ""category"" items, and ""list"" items. I tried to explain that at (I should have linked to that above). It would be great if items did allow multiple sitelinks to the same wiki, and then they could be merged, but I understand that it was a deliberate design decision when Wikidata was started. It is easily possible to use Lua to cross between items using / / / - but it would be really nice if that could somehow be built into MediaWiki/Wikibase. Perhaps you could open a phabricator ticket for that? I don't agree that it should be a prerequisite to removing P373, though, since there is a workaround, and it's not that hard to implement. We could get into whether it's less or more functional than P373 if you want - I'd argue that the sitelinks give the 'right' answer more often now. Thanks. ( ) The approach I see here is problematic. This property is one of the most used properties, not just on Wikidata but in the entire Wikimedia ecosphere. Then I read here that only to less than 0,000001 % of the people involved is asked for input, while it effects almost every single community and Wikimedia wiki. With asking for examples, it is like it is talked about a property that is used only on a 1000 items. This is underestimating the problem and a clear sign that the problems addressed by various users is not taken really seriously. What is needed is a structural in depth inventory how any decision regarding the deprecation of this property will effect the entire ecosphere (and beyond?). Asking for ""examples"" to a selected group is a way to stimulate the bias to grow that there is no serious problem and all the opposal can be waved away. Also focussing on ""examples"" would cause to miss the structural problems that are shown by examples that just form the top of the iceberg. ( ) @ : This is the standard venue for the discussion of properties for deletion, I'm not sure there's a better place elsewhere. I'm happy for more people to be pointed to this discussion, although on enwp that might count as 'canvassing'. I'm well aware of how widely the property is used - in terms of numbers, I'm to blame for the infobox on Commons that displays Wikidata information in over 3 million categories, and the work to add more Commons category sitelinks for that has indirectly doubled the number of P373 values (compare to 2.9 million now). I've also mostly deprecated the use of P373 on enwp, and made a lot of automated edits to P373 along with the sitelinks via pi bot. If there is a structural issue that has not been covered here, then I'm missing it, and that's why I asked for examples of 'data/other software issues'. If you want an inventory that is more extensive than my personal experience from the last few years, how can we go about doing that? Thanks. ( ) @ : This is the standard venue for the discussion of properties for deletion, I'm not sure there's a better place elsewhere. I'm happy for more people to be pointed to this discussion, although on enwp that might count as 'canvassing'. I'm well aware of how widely the property is used - in terms of numbers, I'm to blame for the infobox on Commons that displays Wikidata information in over 3 million categories, and the work to add more Commons category sitelinks for that has indirectly doubled the number of P373 values (compare to 2.9 million now). I've also mostly deprecated the use of P373 on enwp, and made a lot of automated edits to P373 along with the sitelinks via pi bot. If there is a structural issue that has not been covered here, then I'm missing it, and that's why I asked for examples of 'data/other software issues'. If you want an inventory that is more extensive than my personal experience from the last few years, how can we go about doing that? Thanks. ( ) For the most part I’ve stopped using this property, and i have no objection to deleting it. - ( ) @ : P373 and other properties are considerably used in and templates at the German Wikivoyage to present additional resources from other Wikimedia wikis -- including the Commons category -- among other information for different locations and institutions. The count of these template calls exceeds sometimes 250 times per article as can be learned from articles like . There are some heavy restrictions to use Wikidata for this aim. We are calling (or trying to call) only one Wikidata entity per template call because the number of Lua Wikidata entity calls per article is limited to 400. That's why a lot of tables, for instance for P31, , language, and currency data, are prepared to prevent using Wikidata . The other restriction is the computing time which is restricted to 10 seconds. Getting Wikidata entities is expensive. To get an imagination: The Lua computing time for the article mentioned takes about 1.5 seconds only for getting the entities (about 5 seconds in total for more than 250 templates). If we would get all data from Wikidata it would take about one minute and more. For comparison, usually one call of a Wikidata infobox at Commons takes three seconds. Commons links cannot be prepared in advance. We have only three ways to get the Commons categories: (1) from P373, (2) from sitelinks, and (3) from P910. The third way is time consuming/expensive (Lua computing time increase of about 30 per cent) and reduces the count of template calls by half and is therefore not applicable -- because of calling additional entities. Way 2 is only sometimes applicable if the Commons sitelink contains a category and not an article link. Unfortunately nobody thought of a separation of main space and category namespaces. This way is alternativly used in our templates. The first way is the only one which gives direct access to the Commons category. The next cause is why we should have two Wikidata items for one thing. There are about 100 millions Wikidata entries but only 5 millions English Wikipedia articles. For many items like hotels, restaurants, and so on there will be never a Wikipedia article but two Wikidata entries: one for the institution itself and a redundant one for its category because there are images at Commons. I am in direct contact with the programmers of the Wikibase API. But it seems the a further (drastic) computing time reduction is impossible. I assume that many voters for deletion never thought of the (comprehensive) usage of Wikidata data in articles. -- ( ) @ : Performance is an issue, I think this links in with the sparql query issue above too. I think de-voy is an extreme example of Wikidata use, but we have seen similar things with the Commons Wikidata Infobox recently too for complex items. I'm not sure it takes that much more resource to check the commons sitelink (which you're probably loading anyway), and if it's not to a category, then look up P910 and find the commonscat from there (you wouldn't need to check P373 any more). This wouldn't need to always be done, since the commons category is often with the topic item unless a commons gallery or other project category items exists (which links to your 'two items for one thing' point - normally there only needs to be one topic item that links to the commons category). I suspect the best solution in this case is to increase the allowed number of Wikidata entity calls and computing time for de-voy, if the performance really can't be improved further on the server side. I generally think the human cost of keeping P373 updated/in sync with the sitelinks outweighs the extra server time. Thanks. ( ) For overlaping geographic objects. Example: and . Or and . An alternative is to merge them, but that would be conterproductive. For submodels that does not have their own Commons category. Example: and . Or , and . Maybe the Commons categories should be further subdivided, but it is a bit tiddly with a deep category tree with just one or a few files in each. Since Wikidata is more granular than Commons it is inevidable that there will be cases where multiple Wikidata objects are related to one Commons category. / @ : I think in those cases, it makes sense to have separate commons categories, if there are enough photos. For the first set, see e.g., vs. . For the second set, if they only have one photo, then it probably just needs a value, but if there are multiple then why not have a commons category? I know aircraft photos in particular tend to be very tightly categorised by model on Commons, for example see . Thanks. ( ) @ : Performance is an issue, I think this links in with the sparql query issue above too. I think de-voy is an extreme example of Wikidata use, but we have seen similar things with the Commons Wikidata Infobox recently too for complex items. I'm not sure it takes that much more resource to check the commons sitelink (which you're probably loading anyway), and if it's not to a category, then look up P910 and find the commonscat from there (you wouldn't need to check P373 any more). This wouldn't need to always be done, since the commons category is often with the topic item unless a commons gallery or other project category items exists (which links to your 'two items for one thing' point - normally there only needs to be one topic item that links to the commons category). I suspect the best solution in this case is to increase the allowed number of Wikidata entity calls and computing time for de-voy, if the performance really can't be improved further on the server side. I generally think the human cost of keeping P373 updated/in sync with the sitelinks outweighs the extra server time. Thanks. ( ) For overlaping geographic objects. Example: and . Or and . An alternative is to merge them, but that would be conterproductive. For submodels that does not have their own Commons category. Example: and . Or , and . Maybe the Commons categories should be further subdivided, but it is a bit tiddly with a deep category tree with just one or a few files in each. Since Wikidata is more granular than Commons it is inevidable that there will be cases where multiple Wikidata objects are related to one Commons category. / @ : I think in those cases, it makes sense to have separate commons categories, if there are enough photos. For the first set, see e.g., vs. . For the second set, if they only have one photo, then it probably just needs a value, but if there are multiple then why not have a commons category? I know aircraft photos in particular tend to be very tightly categorised by model on Commons, for example see . Thanks. ( ) For overlaping geographic objects. Example: and . Or and . An alternative is to merge them, but that would be conterproductive. For submodels that does not have their own Commons category. Example: and . Or , and . Maybe the Commons categories should be further subdivided, but it is a bit tiddly with a deep category tree with just one or a few files in each. @ : I think in those cases, it makes sense to have separate commons categories, if there are enough photos. For the first set, see e.g., vs. . For the second set, if they only have one photo, then it probably just needs a value, but if there are multiple then why not have a commons category? I know aircraft photos in particular tend to be very tightly categorised by model on Commons, for example see . Thanks. ( ) Generally, I don't oppose getting rid of this property (due to redundancy) if all concerns are claimed resolved or negligible. There are just matters which simply need to be considered with regards to the users of data (cf. the point I made about the sidebar). For the infoboxes and templates issue, each wiki has different attitude, though. For instance, cswiki uses which is used in templates to fetch ""commonscat"" (or gallery) instead querying P373 or the sitelinks directly (the module decides where to look). Such design principle (cf. ) only requires changing one thing when Wikidata decides to change. -- ( ) @ : It looks like cswiki uses a similar approach to enwp/commons, that's good. Can you help convert other modules on cswiki and similar language wikis? Thanks. ( ) When necessary, I can weigh in. But naturally this change would demand prior communication. -- ( ) @ : It looks like cswiki uses a similar approach to enwp/commons, that's good. Can you help convert other modules on cswiki and similar language wikis? Thanks. ( ) When necessary, I can weigh in. But naturally this change would demand prior communication. -- ( ) When necessary, I can weigh in. But naturally this change would demand prior communication. -- ( ) P373 is redundant, but there is a clear use case (give me a Commons category of the topic). Note that even the list at of 100+ wikis and 1000+ templates is incomplete, usage is higher. Algorithmic P910-sitelink/sitelink way (caused by bad prior galleries sitelinking decision) is complicated and resource-intensive, while using P373 is simple. -- ( ) @ : Agreed it's simpler, and agreed it's redundant. Disagreed that it's complicated to check through P910 and sitelink - this is routinely done by and the one pointed out just above this. There are many uses, but those will only increase while this shortcut is still active, deprecating it would lead to a reduction of them. Thanks. ( ) @ : Agreed it's simpler, and agreed it's redundant. Disagreed that it's complicated to check through P910 and sitelink - this is routinely done by and the one pointed out just above this. There are many uses, but those will only increase while this shortcut is still active, deprecating it would lead to a reduction of them. Thanks. ( ) @ : There are some issues which complicates using only commonscatlink: I recently tried to make some tables by listeriabot and P373 is much easier for getting than commonscatlink. So there should be some way for obtaining this link in one step like property. And second problem is 1:1 - is almost impossible to have link to commons in all items where is now P373 only with sitelinks and P910 (and similar). e.g in wikipedia is one article for museum (school, company...), but in Wikidata there are usually two items - institution and building. Article on Wikipedia is more often about institution, but in commons there are images for building. Similar case is municipality which consists from more villages, but one of them have same name as municipality. Is some wikis there are two articles, in some one article, but usually both with the same commonscat. Next case - protected area/another protected area/hill(pond, forest) with same name both located in same place but not necessary with same area. Another cases - street, which is located on two different municipalities, village, which is divided in two municipalities... usually both have same commonscat So there is not only , but also , , , , , and probably some others for searching correct commonscat withou P373. ( ) @ : In turn, (1) This is the sparql issue. It is possible to access the sitelinks (there was some example code to do this above), but it is more complex. (2a) Ideally in those cases we would have media for both the institution and the building - e.g., pictures of the people that work there, historical documents, etc. That's fine on Commons, and they may also have separate Wikipedia articles If they aren't notable enough to have such media/coverage, perhaps we shouldn't have separate items for them here at the moment. (2b) I think these need separate commons categories, one for the municipality and one for the village, otherwise we should probably default to linking them only from the municipality unless we're sure that the images are also only of the village (in which case having them in a separate category helps others realise that too). (2c) This is tricky, perhaps it can be solved via as per the question below. (2d) If it's a single street, shouldn't it have a single item? BTW, in general we have the same problem with linking to Wikipedia articles in these cases, but Wikidata doesn't have a separate string property to do that. Thanks. ( ) Example of street which is divided into two municipalities and . One part of this street is in city, second on the borders (every side of street is another municipality) and third in village. I know about situation that all street is in one municipality and the second have only houses with address in that street. But this virtual street have its own ID in street register, so merging is not the best solution. Problem with institution/building is primary Wikipedia problem, often tehre is one article about both. And often there are only photos of building, but article is about institution. There is also problem with which have = . ( ) @ : Are the streets physically connected, or separate? Personally I still think the best option is to merge them, if separate commons categories aren't appropriate, I don't think there's a problem with having multiple values. Similarly, I think multiple values are OK in exceptions like we're discussing here (and better than having P373), but generally there should only be one P910 value, so the constraint mostly makes sense. Thanks. ( ) I recently tried to make some tables by listeriabot and P373 is much easier for getting than commonscatlink. So there should be some way for obtaining this link in one step like property. And second problem is 1:1 - is almost impossible to have link to commons in all items where is now P373 only with sitelinks and P910 (and similar). e.g in wikipedia is one article for museum (school, company...), but in Wikidata there are usually two items - institution and building. Article on Wikipedia is more often about institution, but in commons there are images for building. Similar case is municipality which consists from more villages, but one of them have same name as municipality. Is some wikis there are two articles, in some one article, but usually both with the same commonscat. Next case - protected area/another protected area/hill(pond, forest) with same name both located in same place but not necessary with same area. Another cases - street, which is located on two different municipalities, village, which is divided in two municipalities... usually both have same commonscat e.g in wikipedia is one article for museum (school, company...), but in Wikidata there are usually two items - institution and building. Article on Wikipedia is more often about institution, but in commons there are images for building. Similar case is municipality which consists from more villages, but one of them have same name as municipality. Is some wikis there are two articles, in some one article, but usually both with the same commonscat. Next case - protected area/another protected area/hill(pond, forest) with same name both located in same place but not necessary with same area. Another cases - street, which is located on two different municipalities, village, which is divided in two municipalities... usually both have same commonscat So there is not only , but also , , , , , and probably some others for searching correct commonscat withou P373. @ : In turn, (1) This is the sparql issue. It is possible to access the sitelinks (there was some example code to do this above), but it is more complex. (2a) Ideally in those cases we would have media for both the institution and the building - e.g., pictures of the people that work there, historical documents, etc. That's fine on Commons, and they may also have separate Wikipedia articles If they aren't notable enough to have such media/coverage, perhaps we shouldn't have separate items for them here at the moment. (2b) I think these need separate commons categories, one for the municipality and one for the village, otherwise we should probably default to linking them only from the municipality unless we're sure that the images are also only of the village (in which case having them in a separate category helps others realise that too). (2c) This is tricky, perhaps it can be solved via as per the question below. (2d) If it's a single street, shouldn't it have a single item? BTW, in general we have the same problem with linking to Wikipedia articles in these cases, but Wikidata doesn't have a separate string property to do that. Thanks. ( ) Example of street which is divided into two municipalities and . One part of this street is in city, second on the borders (every side of street is another municipality) and third in village. I know about situation that all street is in one municipality and the second have only houses with address in that street. But this virtual street have its own ID in street register, so merging is not the best solution. Problem with institution/building is primary Wikipedia problem, often tehre is one article about both. And often there are only photos of building, but article is about institution. There is also problem with which have = . ( ) @ : Are the streets physically connected, or separate? Personally I still think the best option is to merge them, if separate commons categories aren't appropriate, I don't think there's a problem with having multiple values. Similarly, I think multiple values are OK in exceptions like we're discussing here (and better than having P373), but generally there should only be one P910 value, so the constraint mostly makes sense. Thanks. ( ) Example of street which is divided into two municipalities and . One part of this street is in city, second on the borders (every side of street is another municipality) and third in village. I know about situation that all street is in one municipality and the second have only houses with address in that street. But this virtual street have its own ID in street register, so merging is not the best solution. Problem with institution/building is primary Wikipedia problem, often tehre is one article about both. And often there are only photos of building, but article is about institution. There is also problem with which have = . ( ) @ : Are the streets physically connected, or separate? Personally I still think the best option is to merge them, if separate commons categories aren't appropriate, I don't think there's a problem with having multiple values. Similarly, I think multiple values are OK in exceptions like we're discussing here (and better than having P373), but generally there should only be one P910 value, so the constraint mostly makes sense. Thanks. ( ) @ : Are the streets physically connected, or separate? Personally I still think the best option is to merge them, if separate commons categories aren't appropriate, I don't think there's a problem with having multiple values. Similarly, I think multiple values are OK in exceptions like we're discussing here (and better than having P373), but generally there should only be one P910 value, so the constraint mostly makes sense. Thanks. ( ) Comment @ : Although I don't vote [MASK], neither vote delete here, I'm doubting that how to resolve things where duplicated values are really required for two and more items, as a pair of example: , and , currently all 3 items are pointing P373 to . -- ( ) @ : This one is complex, good example. The best way I think this can be solved is through . The first two already used that to link to , I've done the same for the other and the inverse now. Does that make sense? I don't completely like this solution, but I think it's better than P373. Thanks. ( ) @ : This one is complex, good example. The best way I think this can be solved is through . The first two already used that to link to , I've done the same for the other and the inverse now. Does that make sense? I don't completely like this solution, but I think it's better than P373. Thanks. ( ) @ : Instead of thinking outside the box, how about we throw the box out of the window? Create new properties ""Page on Wikipedia"", ""Page on Wikisource"", ""Page on Wiktionary"" etc Make those accessible through Delete sitelinks entirely (..AFTER existing sitelink data has been copied to the new properties) Use P373 for etc — ( or ping me) That would indeed make things more uniformly awful and unusable - it would no longer be a Commons-specific problem, *everyone* would have problems... Thanks. ( ) @ : I see absolutely no reason why sitelinks can't be properties. If needed they could be presented to the user the same way sitelinks are currently presented, while internally working as a property. — ( or ping me) @ : Oh, you were serious? The problem is that properties are one-way - you can go from the Wikidata item to the linked page, but there's then no way to go backwards from that page to Wikidata. That's what sitelinks enable. Even if you could somehow recode properties to have those backlinks, how would you then handle cases where there are multiple backlinks to different Wikidata items? I just don't think what you're suggesting is possible. Thanks. ( ) @ : How about redirects? Create a new namespace and have, for example, with ""#REDIRECT[[Q1089270]]"" as its contents. When a user adds a link to an item for that same page with a higher priority than the existing link, replace it. So one item could have the ""Article on Wikipedia"" property using high priority to become the sitelink while other items could have the same page in the ""Article on Wikipedia"" link with a lower priority. As an example, (an article that describes both the Smurfs as a franchise as well as the comic book series) can be on (the franchise) with high priority so mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForCurrentPage will return that when requesting the ID for that page. But it can also be added to (the comic book series) with normal priority. This wouldn't change the interwiki on frwiki, but now on there will be a usable interwiki link to frwiki, where currently there is none! This would also allow adding multiple article links from the same wiki to a single item. You could actually add a Commons category with high priority and the Commons gallery with a lower priority. Dream big. — ( or ping me) @ : It sounds like an overcomplicated solution. In particular, I really want to avoid manual QIDs being copied everywhere, as they are a nightmare to manage - much better to use sitelinks that auto-update, or [MASK] the QIDs in structured data where bots can easily update them. What really annoys me here is that we *already* have a system that works well - just use sitelinks and / - everything beyond that, including , just complicates things unnecessarily. Thanks. ( ) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) Create new properties ""Page on Wikipedia"", ""Page on Wikisource"", ""Page on Wiktionary"" etc Make those accessible through Delete sitelinks entirely (..AFTER existing sitelink data has been copied to the new properties) Use P373 for etc That would indeed make things more uniformly awful and unusable - it would no longer be a Commons-specific problem, *everyone* would have problems... Thanks. ( ) @ : I see absolutely no reason why sitelinks can't be properties. If needed they could be presented to the user the same way sitelinks are currently presented, while internally working as a property. — ( or ping me) @ : Oh, you were serious? The problem is that properties are one-way - you can go from the Wikidata item to the linked page, but there's then no way to go backwards from that page to Wikidata. That's what sitelinks enable. Even if you could somehow recode properties to have those backlinks, how would you then handle cases where there are multiple backlinks to different Wikidata items? I just don't think what you're suggesting is possible. Thanks. ( ) @ : How about redirects? Create a new namespace and have, for example, with ""#REDIRECT[[Q1089270]]"" as its contents. When a user adds a link to an item for that same page with a higher priority than the existing link, replace it. So one item could have the ""Article on Wikipedia"" property using high priority to become the sitelink while other items could have the same page in the ""Article on Wikipedia"" link with a lower priority. As an example, (an article that describes both the Smurfs as a franchise as well as the comic book series) can be on (the franchise) with high priority so mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForCurrentPage will return that when requesting the ID for that page. But it can also be added to (the comic book series) with normal priority. This wouldn't change the interwiki on frwiki, but now on there will be a usable interwiki link to frwiki, where currently there is none! This would also allow adding multiple article links from the same wiki to a single item. You could actually add a Commons category with high priority and the Commons gallery with a lower priority. Dream big. — ( or ping me) @ : It sounds like an overcomplicated solution. In particular, I really want to avoid manual QIDs being copied everywhere, as they are a nightmare to manage - much better to use sitelinks that auto-update, or [MASK] the QIDs in structured data where bots can easily update them. What really annoys me here is that we *already* have a system that works well - just use sitelinks and / - everything beyond that, including , just complicates things unnecessarily. Thanks. ( ) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) @ : I see absolutely no reason why sitelinks can't be properties. If needed they could be presented to the user the same way sitelinks are currently presented, while internally working as a property. — ( or ping me) @ : Oh, you were serious? The problem is that properties are one-way - you can go from the Wikidata item to the linked page, but there's then no way to go backwards from that page to Wikidata. That's what sitelinks enable. Even if you could somehow recode properties to have those backlinks, how would you then handle cases where there are multiple backlinks to different Wikidata items? I just don't think what you're suggesting is possible. Thanks. ( ) @ : How about redirects? Create a new namespace and have, for example, with ""#REDIRECT[[Q1089270]]"" as its contents. When a user adds a link to an item for that same page with a higher priority than the existing link, replace it. So one item could have the ""Article on Wikipedia"" property using high priority to become the sitelink while other items could have the same page in the ""Article on Wikipedia"" link with a lower priority. As an example, (an article that describes both the Smurfs as a franchise as well as the comic book series) can be on (the franchise) with high priority so mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForCurrentPage will return that when requesting the ID for that page. But it can also be added to (the comic book series) with normal priority. This wouldn't change the interwiki on frwiki, but now on there will be a usable interwiki link to frwiki, where currently there is none! This would also allow adding multiple article links from the same wiki to a single item. You could actually add a Commons category with high priority and the Commons gallery with a lower priority. Dream big. — ( or ping me) @ : It sounds like an overcomplicated solution. In particular, I really want to avoid manual QIDs being copied everywhere, as they are a nightmare to manage - much better to use sitelinks that auto-update, or [MASK] the QIDs in structured data where bots can easily update them. What really annoys me here is that we *already* have a system that works well - just use sitelinks and / - everything beyond that, including , just complicates things unnecessarily. Thanks. ( ) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) @ : Oh, you were serious? The problem is that properties are one-way - you can go from the Wikidata item to the linked page, but there's then no way to go backwards from that page to Wikidata. That's what sitelinks enable. Even if you could somehow recode properties to have those backlinks, how would you then handle cases where there are multiple backlinks to different Wikidata items? I just don't think what you're suggesting is possible. Thanks. ( ) @ : How about redirects? Create a new namespace and have, for example, with ""#REDIRECT[[Q1089270]]"" as its contents. When a user adds a link to an item for that same page with a higher priority than the existing link, replace it. So one item could have the ""Article on Wikipedia"" property using high priority to become the sitelink while other items could have the same page in the ""Article on Wikipedia"" link with a lower priority. As an example, (an article that describes both the Smurfs as a franchise as well as the comic book series) can be on (the franchise) with high priority so mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForCurrentPage will return that when requesting the ID for that page. But it can also be added to (the comic book series) with normal priority. This wouldn't change the interwiki on frwiki, but now on there will be a usable interwiki link to frwiki, where currently there is none! This would also allow adding multiple article links from the same wiki to a single item. You could actually add a Commons category with high priority and the Commons gallery with a lower priority. Dream big. — ( or ping me) @ : It sounds like an overcomplicated solution. In particular, I really want to avoid manual QIDs being copied everywhere, as they are a nightmare to manage - much better to use sitelinks that auto-update, or [MASK] the QIDs in structured data where bots can easily update them. What really annoys me here is that we *already* have a system that works well - just use sitelinks and / - everything beyond that, including , just complicates things unnecessarily. Thanks. ( ) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) @ : How about redirects? Create a new namespace and have, for example, with ""#REDIRECT[[Q1089270]]"" as its contents. When a user adds a link to an item for that same page with a higher priority than the existing link, replace it. So one item could have the ""Article on Wikipedia"" property using high priority to become the sitelink while other items could have the same page in the ""Article on Wikipedia"" link with a lower priority. As an example, (an article that describes both the Smurfs as a franchise as well as the comic book series) can be on (the franchise) with high priority so mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForCurrentPage will return that when requesting the ID for that page. But it can also be added to (the comic book series) with normal priority. This wouldn't change the interwiki on frwiki, but now on there will be a usable interwiki link to frwiki, where currently there is none! This would also allow adding multiple article links from the same wiki to a single item. You could actually add a Commons category with high priority and the Commons gallery with a lower priority. Dream big. — ( or ping me) @ : It sounds like an overcomplicated solution. In particular, I really want to avoid manual QIDs being copied everywhere, as they are a nightmare to manage - much better to use sitelinks that auto-update, or [MASK] the QIDs in structured data where bots can easily update them. What really annoys me here is that we *already* have a system that works well - just use sitelinks and / - everything beyond that, including , just complicates things unnecessarily. Thanks. ( ) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) @ : It sounds like an overcomplicated solution. In particular, I really want to avoid manual QIDs being copied everywhere, as they are a nightmare to manage - much better to use sitelinks that auto-update, or [MASK] the QIDs in structured data where bots can easily update them. What really annoys me here is that we *already* have a system that works well - just use sitelinks and / - everything beyond that, including , just complicates things unnecessarily. Thanks. ( ) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) @ : My suggestion does not require manually copying QIDs. The sitelinks work , but not well : there are many cases where we want to add more pages to one item or one page to multiple items. — ( or ping me) I would love to just mark P373 as (DEPRECATED), but take much more times before the actual deletion, anyone oppose me? -- ( ) @ : one month and half later, no comment. Go ahead :) ( ) That's wrong. See comment in the section above.-- ( ) @ : -- ( ) All after 12 September 2020 . -- ( ) Sorry, since 25 July 2020. -- ( ) @ : I would love to see that happen. I estimate that it would take 6-18 months after deprecation before the property was ready for deletion - while a bot can do most of the work (where P373 matches the sitelink) it will depend on how many cases need manual attention. Thanks. ( ) That's wrong. See comment in the section above. -- ( ) @ : -- ( ) All after 12 September 2020 . -- ( ) Sorry, since 25 July 2020. -- ( ) @ : -- ( ) All after 12 September 2020 . -- ( ) Sorry, since 25 July 2020. -- ( ) All after 12 September 2020 . -- ( ) Sorry, since 25 July 2020. -- ( ) Sorry, since 25 July 2020. -- ( ) @ : I would love to see that happen. I estimate that it would take 6-18 months after deprecation before the property was ready for deletion - while a bot can do most of the work (where P373 matches the sitelink) it will depend on how many cases need manual attention. Thanks. ( ) Delete per Mike Peel. ( ) [MASK] as long we don't have any better way to link commons, it should do. -- ( ) @ : But we *do* have a better way to link to Commons, we have the sitelinks, and all of their auto-update and two-directional access goodness. We don't need this temporary non-updating and one-directional property any more. Thanks. ( ) @ : if gallery pages were retired and those sitelinks would all go to categories, or there would be a seperate kind of sitelink specifically for categories, then that would make the property obsolete (as far as i'm concerned, anyway). tho burying all of Commons under ""other sites"" would still be kinda suck, i'd prefer if it were it's own kind of sitelink (along with Wikipedia, etc) -- ( ) @ : I think Commons galleries are a distraction here - even if they were gone, then we still have both articles and categories on the Wikipedias to handle. That's why the setup of having the Commons category link on the category item if it exists, or on the topic item if it doesn't, works quite well. Code can follow the / links to find the appropriate Commons link. Where there are galleries, we can just create category items to work around them. Agreed that it would be better if the sitelink wasn't under 'other sites'! Thanks. ( ) New vkers @ , :, no comments to this better way? Why don't you consider changing your votes? -- ( ) I'm not satisfied that issues will be fixed, as stated above. Please do not ping me here asking me to change my vote, just because you do not agree with it. You have already opposed a no consensus close and now you are trying to encourage the [MASK] voters to change to delete. I don't feel I have anything to add here (my views very much mirror those of ŠJů above), which is why I had not commented. My position is [MASK] . You can ping me with questions, but pinging me saying ""why don't you consider changing your votes"" is not good in my opinion. Maybe I'm misreading you somewhat here. -- ( ) @ : I think your concerns are really bugs to fix by developers, rather than something we must ""[MASK]"" something, that's why I would support solution than [MASK] this property, since this is really not only a Commons bug, but also a Northern Min bug, a Hakka bug, a Ladino (aka Judaeo-Spanish) bug, ... and even, a Wikidata bug. -- ( ) And, about the small wikis, please can someone why says ""[MASK] P373 because small wikis will lost their values"" watch up the ? Small wikis can be problemic even by keeping this property. -- ( ) @ : But we *do* have a better way to link to Commons, we have the sitelinks, and all of their auto-update and two-directional access goodness. We don't need this temporary non-updating and one-directional property any more. Thanks. ( ) @ : if gallery pages were retired and those sitelinks would all go to categories, or there would be a seperate kind of sitelink specifically for categories, then that would make the property obsolete (as far as i'm concerned, anyway). tho burying all of Commons under ""other sites"" would still be kinda suck, i'd prefer if it were it's own kind of sitelink (along with Wikipedia, etc) -- ( ) @ : I think Commons galleries are a distraction here - even if they were gone, then we still have both articles and categories on the Wikipedias to handle. That's why the setup of having the Commons category link on the category item if it exists, or on the topic item if it doesn't, works quite well. Code can follow the / links to find the appropriate Commons link. Where there are galleries, we can just create category items to work around them. Agreed that it would be better if the sitelink wasn't under 'other sites'! Thanks. ( ) New vkers @ , :, no comments to this better way? Why don't you consider changing your votes? -- ( ) I'm not satisfied that issues will be fixed, as stated above. Please do not ping me here asking me to change my vote, just because you do not agree with it. You have already opposed a no consensus close and now you are trying to encourage the [MASK] voters to change to delete. I don't feel I have anything to add here (my views very much mirror those of ŠJů above), which is why I had not commented. My position is [MASK] . You can ping me with questions, but pinging me saying ""why don't you consider changing your votes"" is not good in my opinion. Maybe I'm misreading you somewhat here. -- ( ) @ : I think your concerns are really bugs to fix by developers, rather than something we must ""[MASK]"" something, that's why I would support solution than [MASK] this property, since this is really not only a Commons bug, but also a Northern Min bug, a Hakka bug, a Ladino (aka Judaeo-Spanish) bug, ... and even, a Wikidata bug. -- ( ) And, about the small wikis, please can someone why says ""[MASK] P373 because small wikis will lost their values"" watch up the ? Small wikis can be problemic even by keeping this property. -- ( ) @ : if gallery pages were retired and those sitelinks would all go to categories, or there would be a seperate kind of sitelink specifically for categories, then that would make the property obsolete (as far as i'm concerned, anyway). tho burying all of Commons under ""other sites"" would still be kinda suck, i'd prefer if it were it's own kind of sitelink (along with Wikipedia, etc) -- ( ) @ : I think Commons galleries are a distraction here - even if they were gone, then we still have both articles and categories on the Wikipedias to handle. That's why the setup of having the Commons category link on the category item if it exists, or on the topic item if it doesn't, works quite well. Code can follow the / links to find the appropriate Commons link. Where there are galleries, we can just create category items to work around them. Agreed that it would be better if the sitelink wasn't under 'other sites'! Thanks. ( ) @ : I think Commons galleries are a distraction here - even if they were gone, then we still have both articles and categories on the Wikipedias to handle. That's why the setup of having the Commons category link on the category item if it exists, or on the topic item if it doesn't, works quite well. Code can follow the / links to find the appropriate Commons link. Where there are galleries, we can just create category items to work around them. Agreed that it would be better if the sitelink wasn't under 'other sites'! Thanks. ( ) New vkers @ , :, no comments to this better way? Why don't you consider changing your votes? -- ( ) I'm not satisfied that issues will be fixed, as stated above. Please do not ping me here asking me to change my vote, just because you do not agree with it. You have already opposed a no consensus close and now you are trying to encourage the [MASK] voters to change to delete. I don't feel I have anything to add here (my views very much mirror those of ŠJů above), which is why I had not commented. My position is [MASK] . You can ping me with questions, but pinging me saying ""why don't you consider changing your votes"" is not good in my opinion. Maybe I'm misreading you somewhat here. -- ( ) @ : I think your concerns are really bugs to fix by developers, rather than something we must ""[MASK]"" something, that's why I would support solution than [MASK] this property, since this is really not only a Commons bug, but also a Northern Min bug, a Hakka bug, a Ladino (aka Judaeo-Spanish) bug, ... and even, a Wikidata bug. -- ( ) And, about the small wikis, please can someone why says ""[MASK] P373 because small wikis will lost their values"" watch up the ? Small wikis can be problemic even by keeping this property. -- ( ) I'm not satisfied that issues will be fixed, as stated above. Please do not ping me here asking me to change my vote, just because you do not agree with it. You have already opposed a no consensus close and now you are trying to encourage the [MASK] voters to change to delete. I don't feel I have anything to add here (my views very much mirror those of ŠJů above), which is why I had not commented. My position is [MASK] . You can ping me with questions, but pinging me saying ""why don't you consider changing your votes"" is not good in my opinion. Maybe I'm misreading you somewhat here. -- ( ) @ : I think your concerns are really bugs to fix by developers, rather than something we must ""[MASK]"" something, that's why I would support solution than [MASK] this property, since this is really not only a Commons bug, but also a Northern Min bug, a Hakka bug, a Ladino (aka Judaeo-Spanish) bug, ... and even, a Wikidata bug. -- ( ) And, about the small wikis, please can someone why says ""[MASK] P373 because small wikis will lost their values"" watch up the ? Small wikis can be problemic even by keeping this property. -- ( ) @ : I think your concerns are really bugs to fix by developers, rather than something we must ""[MASK]"" something, that's why I would support solution than [MASK] this property, since this is really not only a Commons bug, but also a Northern Min bug, a Hakka bug, a Ladino (aka Judaeo-Spanish) bug, ... and even, a Wikidata bug. -- ( ) And, about the small wikis, please can someone why says ""[MASK] P373 because small wikis will lost their values"" watch up the ? Small wikis can be problemic even by keeping this property. -- ( ) All of the issues discussed in the last months were either answered by , or they are concerns about the transition process from P373 to sitelinks. However, it was explained many times already that the property will NOT be [MASK] on the spot - on the contrary, it will be DEPRECATED and only [MASK] *after* all the transition issues are addressed. Everyone please [MASK] this in mind. And if we fail to address some of the issues, we can always de-deprecate it. I'd suggest closing this proposal as there are no new arguments. All has been discussed and explained a hundred times. ( ) Very strong [MASK] unless there is a suitable solution for the Wikidata Infobox within taxa categories in Wikimedia Commons. Currently, the navigation links available in the infobox for the parent taxa are provided by this property, why we used this property? because a lot of sitelinks for taxa lead to galleries and not categories. Indeed if you manage to come to when you are in and that you click on ""Lepidoptera"" within the infobox, its thanks to P373, because the sitelink in a gallery page. ( ) @ : See . This was something I was planning on tackling after deprecation of P373, but it can just as easily be sorted out now. Thanks. ( ) Ah ok, thanks, I have no specific reason to oppose if my concern can be fixed. Good holidays! ( ) @ : See . This was something I was planning on tackling after deprecation of P373, but it can just as easily be sorted out now. Thanks. ( ) Ah ok, thanks, I have no specific reason to oppose if my concern can be fixed. Good holidays! ( ) Ah ok, thanks, I have no specific reason to oppose if my concern can be fixed. Good holidays! ( ) How the 1:M relations should be modeled on wikidata? Ie. cases where the granularity in Wikidata is much higher than in Wikimedia Commons. (Example ; a railway station consisting of several protected buildings with their own wikidata items and all are pointing to the same commons cat. ). -- ( ) (I drafted a much longer reply to this at - but decided that would be too much text at this point of time! Thanks. ( ) ) Deprecate P373 , with full understanding of how complex this will be. It might be easier if a consensus could be developed on commons that commons categories should be linked to topics and not other categories. — Martin ( · ) Nothing need to explain more, just Support marking DEPRECATED. ( ) [MASK] – P373 must not be discarded. -- ( ) En, and every properties must also not be discarded, even created by former LTA creators, every properties have functions on every parts, we even shouldn't have WD:PFD page, right?! ( ) En, and every properties must also not be discarded, even created by former LTA creators, every properties have functions on every parts, we even shouldn't have WD:PFD page, right?! ( ) [MASK] it'll ne used while multiple use of same category for more as one datarecords. -- ( ) @ : datarecords mean what? SPARQL? Then let's continue reporting via , as it still has bugs regareless deprecating P373 or not. -- ( ) @ : here an example. In commons many times the same subject has been used for similar objects like a mountain. This mountain could be the mountain by himself, a protected area named by the hill and possibly a inn on the top as well. All are in the same area and in the same cat in commons but definately all are not the same subject. Than you can use P373 for all three items but only once as ""master"" showing the infobox in commons cat. -- ( ) Still, a bug pending reporting to Phabricator, not a panorama that can lead P373 permanently kept. ( ) @ For your matter, I suggest you to propose splitting via . ( ) @ Unfortunately this proposal doesn’t work in many cases. I’m working on cultural heritage monument (Bavaria) based on a structure given by the official public departments. In many cases we only have one picture is available (with the hope to getting more over the time). Not good but in the meantime accepted to provide one cat for such single pictures while following a common look and feel structure. The cat structure show in many cases only one picture for different items like a house, barn, wall or whatever having all own datarecords in wikidata. In this case the same picture will taken for all listet datarecords together wit P373. One record will be stay as the “master” with the wikidata infobox only. All others get only with P373 link related to this category. You can’t cut down again and again for one picture cats for the same picture . This blow up zero content and will be not accepted from people working day by day with cultural heritage monuments in commons. -- ( ) @ There are indeed situations where you want to link several items to the same Commons category (although I am not sure if that is true for your use case). Anyway, in such cases, you can easily link from all them using , as was suggested above by Mike. Did you consider this option? ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) @ : datarecords mean what? SPARQL? Then let's continue reporting via , as it still has bugs regareless deprecating P373 or not. -- ( ) @ : here an example. In commons many times the same subject has been used for similar objects like a mountain. This mountain could be the mountain by himself, a protected area named by the hill and possibly a inn on the top as well. All are in the same area and in the same cat in commons but definately all are not the same subject. Than you can use P373 for all three items but only once as ""master"" showing the infobox in commons cat. -- ( ) Still, a bug pending reporting to Phabricator, not a panorama that can lead P373 permanently kept. ( ) @ For your matter, I suggest you to propose splitting via . ( ) @ Unfortunately this proposal doesn’t work in many cases. I’m working on cultural heritage monument (Bavaria) based on a structure given by the official public departments. In many cases we only have one picture is available (with the hope to getting more over the time). Not good but in the meantime accepted to provide one cat for such single pictures while following a common look and feel structure. The cat structure show in many cases only one picture for different items like a house, barn, wall or whatever having all own datarecords in wikidata. In this case the same picture will taken for all listet datarecords together wit P373. One record will be stay as the “master” with the wikidata infobox only. All others get only with P373 link related to this category. You can’t cut down again and again for one picture cats for the same picture . This blow up zero content and will be not accepted from people working day by day with cultural heritage monuments in commons. -- ( ) @ There are indeed situations where you want to link several items to the same Commons category (although I am not sure if that is true for your use case). Anyway, in such cases, you can easily link from all them using , as was suggested above by Mike. Did you consider this option? ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) @ : here an example. In commons many times the same subject has been used for similar objects like a mountain. This mountain could be the mountain by himself, a protected area named by the hill and possibly a inn on the top as well. All are in the same area and in the same cat in commons but definately all are not the same subject. Than you can use P373 for all three items but only once as ""master"" showing the infobox in commons cat. -- ( ) Still, a bug pending reporting to Phabricator, not a panorama that can lead P373 permanently kept. ( ) @ For your matter, I suggest you to propose splitting via . ( ) @ Unfortunately this proposal doesn’t work in many cases. I’m working on cultural heritage monument (Bavaria) based on a structure given by the official public departments. In many cases we only have one picture is available (with the hope to getting more over the time). Not good but in the meantime accepted to provide one cat for such single pictures while following a common look and feel structure. The cat structure show in many cases only one picture for different items like a house, barn, wall or whatever having all own datarecords in wikidata. In this case the same picture will taken for all listet datarecords together wit P373. One record will be stay as the “master” with the wikidata infobox only. All others get only with P373 link related to this category. You can’t cut down again and again for one picture cats for the same picture . This blow up zero content and will be not accepted from people working day by day with cultural heritage monuments in commons. -- ( ) @ There are indeed situations where you want to link several items to the same Commons category (although I am not sure if that is true for your use case). Anyway, in such cases, you can easily link from all them using , as was suggested above by Mike. Did you consider this option? ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) Still, a bug pending reporting to Phabricator, not a panorama that can lead P373 permanently kept. ( ) @ For your matter, I suggest you to propose splitting via . ( ) @ Unfortunately this proposal doesn’t work in many cases. I’m working on cultural heritage monument (Bavaria) based on a structure given by the official public departments. In many cases we only have one picture is available (with the hope to getting more over the time). Not good but in the meantime accepted to provide one cat for such single pictures while following a common look and feel structure. The cat structure show in many cases only one picture for different items like a house, barn, wall or whatever having all own datarecords in wikidata. In this case the same picture will taken for all listet datarecords together wit P373. One record will be stay as the “master” with the wikidata infobox only. All others get only with P373 link related to this category. You can’t cut down again and again for one picture cats for the same picture . This blow up zero content and will be not accepted from people working day by day with cultural heritage monuments in commons. -- ( ) @ There are indeed situations where you want to link several items to the same Commons category (although I am not sure if that is true for your use case). Anyway, in such cases, you can easily link from all them using , as was suggested above by Mike. Did you consider this option? ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) @ Unfortunately this proposal doesn’t work in many cases. I’m working on cultural heritage monument (Bavaria) based on a structure given by the official public departments. In many cases we only have one picture is available (with the hope to getting more over the time). Not good but in the meantime accepted to provide one cat for such single pictures while following a common look and feel structure. The cat structure show in many cases only one picture for different items like a house, barn, wall or whatever having all own datarecords in wikidata. In this case the same picture will taken for all listet datarecords together wit P373. One record will be stay as the “master” with the wikidata infobox only. All others get only with P373 link related to this category. You can’t cut down again and again for one picture cats for the same picture . This blow up zero content and will be not accepted from people working day by day with cultural heritage monuments in commons. -- ( ) @ There are indeed situations where you want to link several items to the same Commons category (although I am not sure if that is true for your use case). Anyway, in such cases, you can easily link from all them using , as was suggested above by Mike. Did you consider this option? ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) @ There are indeed situations where you want to link several items to the same Commons category (although I am not sure if that is true for your use case). Anyway, in such cases, you can easily link from all them using , as was suggested above by Mike. Did you consider this option? ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) Folks I’d said everything related to my concerns. With permanent repetition of reasoning it’ll be not powerful and more convincing. Anyhow, I’ll see that most of you will get rid off and the work ends on high volume users like me. To make it short, I give up and do anything you want to do and I’m looking forward to find a workaround. Possibly I have to maintain again appr. 200k datasets of Bavarian monuments. Little frustrated greetings. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) FWIW, in this case a potential way proposed would probably help you: to finally unbreak the unfair ""one sitelink per one wiki"" limits, but only limit the application sites to Commons, Incubator, mul.wikisource and beta.wikiversity. ( ) for deprecating. ( ) Delete . However, something should be done about many gallery-pages which are completely redundant and useless, but cannot be [MASK] from Commons for some weird reason. No one uses them, no one wants them, but are still linked to WD items and Commons categories are linked through main category property (to an item with only Commons category sitelink). ( ) Delete use sitelinks, that's what they are. Delete (actually deprecate first, of course, that goes without saying). -- ( ) Looks like this proposal to starting to edge towards consensus. It would be very helpful to have a detailed plan of exactly how the migration/deprecation would occur, so that no valuable links are lost — Martin ( · ) @ : If this leads to deletion, my plan for implementing it would be: Manually post notices for all templates that currently use this property, to encourage them to migrate to using sitelinks (via the existing WikidataIB code, if they can't do this directly), and follow up on those discussions. Being realistic, this would take about 6 months to migrate uses over to the sitelinks. Propose a bot task that would remove all values where they match the sitelink (this should cover around 90% of them). This would be quick to code, but would take a few weeks to get through the bot approvals process, and it would take a few months to run through all uses. Semi-automatically run through remaining values to remove or migrate them to sitelinks, as appropriate. This is the most controversial part, and it would take a while to do this. It depends on which approach we take - the quickest would be just to remove the values, the slowest would be to manually check each of them to see if they could be turned into sitelinks. My preference would be in the middle, obvious issues would be resolved, the obvious bad values would be removed, and the tricky ones would be the last to be resolved. There would be multiple opportunities to provide input into this process if we go ahead with it. Thanks. ( ) I don't see any issue with points 1 and 2 myself. I would like to see a much more detailed plan for how to tackle the ones in point 3. Perhaps an algorithm/flowchart to show how the items will retain their links to related commons categories in each imaginable scenario. I will make a start on some of the easy cases, when I get a chance, but I'm sure you've got a lot more insight into the various possible situations. — Martin ( · ) @ : I have made a start on a possible algorithm for dealing with P373 in different situations. Please can you have a look and correct/add anything on ? — Martin ( · ) @ : If this leads to deletion, my plan for implementing it would be: Manually post notices for all templates that currently use this property, to encourage them to migrate to using sitelinks (via the existing WikidataIB code, if they can't do this directly), and follow up on those discussions. Being realistic, this would take about 6 months to migrate uses over to the sitelinks. Propose a bot task that would remove all values where they match the sitelink (this should cover around 90% of them). This would be quick to code, but would take a few weeks to get through the bot approvals process, and it would take a few months to run through all uses. Semi-automatically run through remaining values to remove or migrate them to sitelinks, as appropriate. This is the most controversial part, and it would take a while to do this. It depends on which approach we take - the quickest would be just to remove the values, the slowest would be to manually check each of them to see if they could be turned into sitelinks. My preference would be in the middle, obvious issues would be resolved, the obvious bad values would be removed, and the tricky ones would be the last to be resolved. There would be multiple opportunities to provide input into this process if we go ahead with it. Thanks. ( ) I don't see any issue with points 1 and 2 myself. I would like to see a much more detailed plan for how to tackle the ones in point 3. Perhaps an algorithm/flowchart to show how the items will retain their links to related commons categories in each imaginable scenario. I will make a start on some of the easy cases, when I get a chance, but I'm sure you've got a lot more insight into the various possible situations. — Martin ( · ) @ : I have made a start on a possible algorithm for dealing with P373 in different situations. Please can you have a look and correct/add anything on ? — Martin ( · ) Manually post notices for all templates that currently use this property, to encourage them to migrate to using sitelinks (via the existing WikidataIB code, if they can't do this directly), and follow up on those discussions. Being realistic, this would take about 6 months to migrate uses over to the sitelinks. Propose a bot task that would remove all values where they match the sitelink (this should cover around 90% of them). This would be quick to code, but would take a few weeks to get through the bot approvals process, and it would take a few months to run through all uses. Semi-automatically run through remaining values to remove or migrate them to sitelinks, as appropriate. This is the most controversial part, and it would take a while to do this. It depends on which approach we take - the quickest would be just to remove the values, the slowest would be to manually check each of them to see if they could be turned into sitelinks. My preference would be in the middle, obvious issues would be resolved, the obvious bad values would be removed, and the tricky ones would be the last to be resolved. I don't see any issue with points 1 and 2 myself. I would like to see a much more detailed plan for how to tackle the ones in point 3. Perhaps an algorithm/flowchart to show how the items will retain their links to related commons categories in each imaginable scenario. I will make a start on some of the easy cases, when I get a chance, but I'm sure you've got a lot more insight into the various possible situations. — Martin ( · ) @ : I have made a start on a possible algorithm for dealing with P373 in different situations. Please can you have a look and correct/add anything on ? — Martin ( · ) [MASK] : In general, i would agree that redundancy should be avoided in advance, since it might leed to inconsistencies, but in this case I do not see the advantage of deleting this already existing property. for performance/scalability reasons (also see ) a lot of queries result in a timeout, they have to be split into several smaller expected result sets using additional constraints/filters/selection parameters or another tool/way/method/access path, e.g. since begin of this year my watchlist is completley broken due to scalability problems: to find a workaround for timeouts/scalability/performance problems redundancy might help. If one tool (e.g. PetScan, SPARQL, Quarry, API, HarvestTemplates, QuickStatement, ...) or way/method/access path (P373 vs. Sitelink) does not work to get the necessary information another tool/way/method/access path might work (e.h. without resulting in a timeout) sitelinks are sometimes removed by vandals or by newbies by accident, instead of removing just one sitelink they remove all or a lot of sitelinks. The labels as well as the P373-property might help to re-identify the right wikidata object within the 96 millions existing objects ( ) to reconnect Redundancy can be found at a lot of places, for example: descriptions are maintained in wikidata objects and in articles, e.g. see , / various IDs like GND, VIAF, LCCN, IMDb, Filmportal, Transfermarkt, Wfb, ... are maintained in articles as well as in wikidata objects, e.g. see geographical locations and heritage monument IDs are maintained in articles, Commonscats, wikidata objects, ... commonscats cound not only be found in wikidata-objects, but also in articles, regular categories and lists within wikidata we have for example redundant relationsships between objects, for example ""is part of/consists of"", ""kind/parent"", category for list/list for category, article for category/category for article, ""different from"", ... where only one direction would be sufficient Redundancy might help to identify inconsistencies, duplicates and errors, for example, when trying to import/harvest various IDs from de-WP duplicate articles (different names, but same entity) or duplicate wikidata-objects (two objects with same IDs) can be identified due to constraint violations keeping the P373-property gives more flexibility (several objects might have the same P373-property-value, but only one of them might have a sitelink to a commonscat) When deleting the P373-property, queries and tools that have relied on this property might break, and it would reduce the possible ways/methods/access paths to takle a problem/information need if one way is not working (e.g. tool not available, query returns a timeout, etc.) -- ( ) @ : The query issue is the only good reason I've seen to [MASK] this property. Redundancy does make things quicker, but it also makes it a lot harder to maintain - unless we want to automatically synchronise values with the sitelinks, which is something I could implement? Thanks. ( ) Hello @ :, yes, In my opinion it should be synchronized automatically, if the commonscat property is empty, it should be filled by the value of the sitelink. -- ( ) @ : I'd prefer to just maintain the sitelinks, but if this PfD closes in favour of keeping P373, then I could write a bot script to synchronise it with the sitelinks. I expect that would cause a lot of issues with people trying to change the property value that get bot-reverted if they don't also update the sitelink, though, which could be avoided if we delete this property and just use the sitelinks. Thanks. ( ) a lot of queries result in a timeout, they have to be split into several smaller expected result sets using additional constraints/filters/selection parameters or another tool/way/method/access path, e.g. since begin of this year my watchlist is completley broken due to scalability problems: to find a workaround for timeouts/scalability/performance problems redundancy might help. If one tool (e.g. PetScan, SPARQL, Quarry, API, HarvestTemplates, QuickStatement, ...) or way/method/access path (P373 vs. Sitelink) does not work to get the necessary information another tool/way/method/access path might work (e.h. without resulting in a timeout) sitelinks are sometimes removed by vandals or by newbies by accident, instead of removing just one sitelink they remove all or a lot of sitelinks. The labels as well as the P373-property might help to re-identify the right wikidata object within the 96 millions existing objects ( ) to reconnect descriptions are maintained in wikidata objects and in articles, e.g. see , / various IDs like GND, VIAF, LCCN, IMDb, Filmportal, Transfermarkt, Wfb, ... are maintained in articles as well as in wikidata objects, e.g. see geographical locations and heritage monument IDs are maintained in articles, Commonscats, wikidata objects, ... commonscats cound not only be found in wikidata-objects, but also in articles, regular categories and lists within wikidata we have for example redundant relationsships between objects, for example ""is part of/consists of"", ""kind/parent"", category for list/list for category, article for category/category for article, ""different from"", ... where only one direction would be sufficient @ : The query issue is the only good reason I've seen to [MASK] this property. Redundancy does make things quicker, but it also makes it a lot harder to maintain - unless we want to automatically synchronise values with the sitelinks, which is something I could implement? Thanks. ( ) Hello @ :, yes, In my opinion it should be synchronized automatically, if the commonscat property is empty, it should be filled by the value of the sitelink. -- ( ) @ : I'd prefer to just maintain the sitelinks, but if this PfD closes in favour of keeping P373, then I could write a bot script to synchronise it with the sitelinks. I expect that would cause a lot of issues with people trying to change the property value that get bot-reverted if they don't also update the sitelink, though, which could be avoided if we delete this property and just use the sitelinks. Thanks. ( ) Hello @ :, yes, In my opinion it should be synchronized automatically, if the commonscat property is empty, it should be filled by the value of the sitelink. -- ( ) @ : I'd prefer to just maintain the sitelinks, but if this PfD closes in favour of keeping P373, then I could write a bot script to synchronise it with the sitelinks. I expect that would cause a lot of issues with people trying to change the property value that get bot-reverted if they don't also update the sitelink, though, which could be avoided if we delete this property and just use the sitelinks. Thanks. ( ) @ : I'd prefer to just maintain the sitelinks, but if this PfD closes in favour of keeping P373, then I could write a bot script to synchronise it with the sitelinks. I expect that would cause a lot of issues with people trying to change the property value that get bot-reverted if they don't also update the sitelink, though, which could be avoided if we delete this property and just use the sitelinks. Thanks. ( ) Delete : unnecessary redundancy. Not much more to be said. ( | ) @ Yeah ... maybe. But it will be back, you can be sure of that — Martin ( · ) @ : This property is *continuously* causing confusion amongst editors, and it really isn't needed any more now that we have the sitelinks and the Wikidata Infobox on Commons. If this closes as no consensus, I would immediately re-nominate it for deletion. I've spent a lot of time on this discussion to respond to the concerns, and I think they have all been resolved as best as they can, so I really hope that we could start removing uses of this property soon. Thanks. ( ) I'm afraid that we should close it, but not ""no consensus"", rather ""CONSENSUS TO DEPRECATE P373"". ( ) Close as deprecate or [MASK] but continuously override with bot (as discussed with M2k~dewiki in February this year). Anyway, most of the recent arguments are for deprecation. ( ) @ : This property is *continuously* causing confusion amongst editors, and it really isn't needed any more now that we have the sitelinks and the Wikidata Infobox on Commons. If this closes as no consensus, I would immediately re-nominate it for deletion. I've spent a lot of time on this discussion to respond to the concerns, and I think they have all been resolved as best as they can, so I really hope that we could start removing uses of this property soon. Thanks. ( ) I'm afraid that we should close it, but not ""no consensus"", rather ""CONSENSUS TO DEPRECATE P373"". ( ) Close as deprecate or [MASK] but continuously override with bot (as discussed with M2k~dewiki in February this year). Anyway, most of the recent arguments are for deprecation. ( ) That is useful and thanks for making that - it is not the whole picture though. Unlike your example, most item do not have a category item, so the commons sitelink goes on the item itself. The main reason that P373 is seen as useful/indispensable is that it is many-to-1 unlike the sitelinks which are 1-to-1. If there are multiple items (e.g. a museum and the building that houses the museum) which need to link to the same Commons category then it can be harder to do this without P373. By the way, you might be interested in what I started on the talk page. — Martin ( · ) @ : Nice figure! The situation is *already* like the right-hand side, though, since the sitelinks are required for the Wikidata Infobox to work in Commons categories, this is what we've been implementing over the last 4 years or so. Except we *also* have the P373 layer over the top, which leads to the confusion. You might find useful for understanding the current situation. Thanks. ( ) @ : Nice figure! The situation is *already* like the right-hand side, though, since the sitelinks are required for the Wikidata Infobox to work in Commons categories, this is what we've been implementing over the last 4 years or so. Except we *also* have the P373 layer over the top, which leads to the confusion. You might find useful for understanding the current situation. Thanks. ( ) [MASK] I think we all have noticed a problem with redundancy from the very beginning, but also the clumsiness with the connection of the corresponding article, and later with the corresponding category of some Wikipedia. Think from little to the big, not vice versa. For example, you have an article about a small settlement, a village or a small town and a couple of photos and so you can make a category on Commons. But it is a very small chance that there will be a need for a specific category on Wikipedia and the Commons Gallery – for a long time. In this way, it seems to me that it is unnecessarily given a great advantage for the galleries. Also remember that on some wikipedia they have a very strict recommendation of a minimum of five articles to create a category. This is for case 1-to-1 Commons category to Wikipedia category. -- ( ) @ : I don't understand, sorry. You can link to a Commons category from a Wikidata item on the topic, you don't need to have separate categories on Wikipedias. Or if there's also a Commons gallery, you can just create a 'Category:' item on Wikidata and use / to link between them, no problems. This really doesn't need a dedicated property. Thanks. ( ) @ : I don't understand, sorry. You can link to a Commons category from a Wikidata item on the topic, you don't need to have separate categories on Wikipedias. Or if there's also a Commons gallery, you can just create a 'Category:' item on Wikidata and use / to link between them, no problems. This really doesn't need a dedicated property. Thanks. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: signed_form_(P3969): No alternative to property shown. No consensus to delete. -- ( ) No alternative to property shown. No consensus to delete. -- ( ) Oops, forgot the pings: @ , , , , , : @ : (from the original proposal) - ( ) Support deletion. -- ( ) Oppose deletion until you can show an alternative way of conveying the same relationship (from a spoken language to a signed form of that language). ( ) @ : ↑↑↑ Can you answer? — Martin ( · ) @ : ↑↑↑ Can you answer? — Martin ( · ) One last attempt to ping to comment on this — Martin ( · ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2410: [MASK]: Changing a property's datatype from string to external-id is a special change that does not require deletion. It is common practice to discuss this on the property talk page. -- ( ) [MASK]: Changing a property's datatype from string to external-id is a special change that does not require deletion. It is common practice to discuss this on the property talk page. -- ( ) A request after consensus should be made in .-- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2215: [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) Delete Huh, I missed or don't remember that discussion. Anyway, seems clear this should be removed. ( ) Delete Clear case, thanks for the clenaup. ( ) Delete Other data system now utilized is better. @ , , , : ( ) Delete thanks for the clean-up. ( ) Delete For future reference: previous usage of the property ( ), after it ( ). CC and from the . ( ) Delete The new system to organize data, seems better. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P3623: [MASK] by consensus. ( ) [MASK] by consensus. ( ) Yes, it makes sense to delte it. Delete ❪ ❫ Delete The website is not working either. It's better to delete it rather than having an archive url. ( ) Delete Low usage, dead page. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Alexa_rank_(P1661): Don't need to delete ( ) Don't need to delete ( ) Values with a point in time qualifier should be kept for historical purposes. Not sure what to do about entries with no date qualifier. ( ) How about the date when the property was added or check ? ( ) What's the actual goal here? Add the last known Alexa rank? Add the yearly ranks? Monthly? Daily? Just some random date? @ :-- ( ) Just the time when the property was added to a Wikidata item if has a backup. ( ) @ : We may change it to ""Last Alexa rank"" but it will open the door to scam and misleading because you don't have the main reference (the website shut down) and we can't ensure the rank is right or not-- ( ) How about the date when the property was added or check ? ( ) What's the actual goal here? Add the last known Alexa rank? Add the yearly ranks? Monthly? Daily? Just some random date? @ :-- ( ) Just the time when the property was added to a Wikidata item if has a backup. ( ) @ : We may change it to ""Last Alexa rank"" but it will open the door to scam and misleading because you don't have the main reference (the website shut down) and we can't ensure the rank is right or not-- ( ) What's the actual goal here? Add the last known Alexa rank? Add the yearly ranks? Monthly? Daily? Just some random date? @ :-- ( ) Just the time when the property was added to a Wikidata item if has a backup. ( ) @ : We may change it to ""Last Alexa rank"" but it will open the door to scam and misleading because you don't have the main reference (the website shut down) and we can't ensure the rank is right or not-- ( ) Just the time when the property was added to a Wikidata item if has a backup. ( ) @ : We may change it to ""Last Alexa rank"" but it will open the door to scam and misleading because you don't have the main reference (the website shut down) and we can't ensure the rank is right or not-- ( ) @ : We may change it to ""Last Alexa rank"" but it will open the door to scam and misleading because you don't have the main reference (the website shut down) and we can't ensure the rank is right or not-- ( ) Support Alexa is closed in May 2022, there is no useful use of outdated data and not even for historical purposes. -- ( ) Support Alexa.com is now closed and there is no point in keeping past records.-- ( ) Vigorous Oppose Historical data with an associated time is still useful, and a low Alexa rank is a very useful indication that a website was of significant interest at the time. However, entries without ""point in time"" should be [MASK], as they are now meaningless. It may be possible to use the Internet Archive to retrieve historical data, and to use a bot to popuate these with new, dated, values. A moment's searching finds extensive backups of at least the top 50, see , and there is also data accessible for the top 500 if we look deeper; see, for example, . This data has also been used to drive web crawling activities by the IA, who may also have archived data that can be mined for this. See, for example, ( ) [MASK] I agree with opinion of . -- ( ) [MASK] . A lot of Alexa rankings are very clearly able to be dated and confirmed using the Internet Archive, and damn near every single one of those is useful. ( ) [MASK] per . Retired website is not a valid reason to remove the property. In this case, we should preserve the historical data. Ranks can still be used by looking at the archives ( ). Regards ( ) [MASK] , but remove any non-dated values and deprecate any new additions that are not clearly referenced to IA. ( ) [MASK] dated values only. [MASK] dated values only. — [MASK] dated rankings for historical value. ( ) [MASK] , per (values with dates are useful, values without dates are often not, even if Alexa was still active rankings without dates would be of marginal use as the ranking varies over time) ( ) [MASK] , per . We are not only documenting the present, but also the past. -- ( ) [MASK] Pre-may 2022 data, if any, can still be extracted from using . and are roughly coincidental with one another. - ( ) Oppose A value by itself is a meaningless data-point. To create information in the sense of knowledge-management, there is a load of additional information required, that is not available at any data point, e.g. total amount of clicks in that period, number of clicks in that language, geographical spread, etc. Therefore, the singled out number even with a date remains non-qualifiable and therefore basically useless. ( ) Note there is a as a mandatory qualifier. ( ) Note there is a as a mandatory qualifier. ( ) [MASK] This is useful historical data. -- ( ) [MASK] dated values, per . — [ | ] ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6366: Don't need to delete ( ) Don't need to delete ( ) [MASK] . MAG have an open downloadable dataset that can be imported some time in the future. -- ( ) [MASK] the MAG identifiers have effectively been subsumed in to openalex. it would be best to update all entities to have a matching openalex identifier before deleting the old MAG identifiers ( ) What I means is not to remove MAG IDs at all even if OpenAlex ID is present - since MAG is a stable dataset. ( ) What I means is not to remove MAG IDs at all even if OpenAlex ID is present - since MAG is a stable dataset. ( ) [MASK] discontinued website, but widely used and we have somehow working formatter (through archive.org). -- ( ) Hopefully the downloadable dataset mentioned above is available at some point, since archive.org has often never indexed the ID from what I have seen. ( ) Hopefully the downloadable dataset mentioned above is available at some point, since archive.org has often never indexed the ID from what I have seen. ( ) [MASK] per above ( ) I have seen a database which is unitedly-released by and under license in 2017. The url is , hope that someone can have a try and test whether it's really is and userful. -- ( ) [MASK] The service may be retired, but the identifier is still useful. -- ( ) [MASK] - per above. ( ) [MASK] per above. –– ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P8372: Don't need to delete ( ) Don't need to delete ( ) [MASK] At least a number of ORCID profiles contains such information ( ) and can be imported to Wikidata. Also it may be a good idea to introduce a subscription by The Wikipedia Library (though Scopus is not subscribed either). ( ) It's still impossible to dump the 132,277,722 records through and redistribute it under - simply because it is unfree. For uses as , use instead. ( ) Many other properties link to unfree resources and Wikidata is not required to be complete. ( ) It's still impossible to dump the 132,277,722 records through and redistribute it under - simply because it is unfree. For uses as , use instead. ( ) Many other properties link to unfree resources and Wikidata is not required to be complete. ( ) Many other properties link to unfree resources and Wikidata is not required to be complete. ( ) [MASK] We are never going to be bulk-importing this (as you say, WoS is not free) but where we do pick up the ID, it is useful to [MASK] it for future indexing/deduplication. DOI is not an adequate replacement as WoS contains a lot of material produced before DOIs were routinely issued. ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10955: It was recreated with the correct settings by MSGJ. ( ) It was recreated with the correct settings by MSGJ. ( ) Delete and re-create with datatype ID. ( ) Yes, please delete and recreate it as external ID. It is fully unused at this moment. ( ) Created and [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Makes sense. Thanks for notifying and creating, and . -- ( ) Created and [MASK] — Martin ( · ) Makes sense. Thanks for notifying and creating, and . -- ( ) Makes sense. Thanks for notifying and creating, and . -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10628: Delete and replace with ( ) Delete and replace with ( ) Delete per nom. Furthermore, it seems that the support the proposal received was largely from editors that the nominator blatantly canvassed, and that valid objections were overlooked. 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). [MASK] at LEAST until the UI issue is fixed. And can you please explain ""this is how the use of coordinates is implemented on multiple Wikimedia projects""? Specific examples would be nice. When we were looking at this earlier the Commons UI for example was quite confused about Martian coordinates with P625. Distinguishing between different globes with the properties is helpful for constraints and for any end-use application that doesn't know about or care to check globe - the vast majority of P625's are for Earth and don't require that check. ( ) @ : Waiting until the UI issue is fixed is OK, but I'm worried that more of these are being created over time? Please at least comment on the phab ticket to help make its importance clear? For use on other Wikimedia projects, just look at the uses of . In particular, P625 is used in ""coord"" templates on Wikipedias, and in the Commons infobox, but this property is not. Thanks. ( ) @ : ""just look at the uses of "" - can you be clearer - how does one do this? Post a link? ( ) @ : Go to the talk page, search for ""This property is being used by:"", click 'Expand'. Wish that were easier to link to! Thanks. ( ) @ : Got it, thanks. That's a lot of templates, but the vast majority wouldn't apply to non-Earth objects, right? How many of them correctly handle the globe component? ( ) @ , , : I have created a gadget to display and change the globe for P625. Add the following line to your page: importScript(""User:Bamyers99/CoordGlobe.js""); Clicking the globe name will display a dialog with a list of globes to choose from. Here is a query of some items to try it out on. -- ( ) @ : That is very nice, thanks. Hmm, I guess I really can't complain about this being missing in the UI now. ( ) Nice script; thank you. I'm seeing lots of cases of features with set to another body, but with the coordinates' globe set to ""Earth"". Is that something a bot could fix? @ : Something for PiBot? @ : Good idea, coded up and permission to run it requested at . Thanks. ( ) Also related: , copy from globe to (except for Earth). Thanks. ( ) @ : Please add , as used on . Charon has been added. The original list came from the globeUris variable and is what the GeoData extension supports. -- ( ) @ : It would be good to get that list updated. I've started . Thanks. ( ) Outstanding, , I've been hoping for a tool like this for years. Thank you. Given this creation, I see no reason for or . @ : Waiting until the UI issue is fixed is OK, but I'm worried that more of these are being created over time? Please at least comment on the phab ticket to help make its importance clear? For use on other Wikimedia projects, just look at the uses of . In particular, P625 is used in ""coord"" templates on Wikipedias, and in the Commons infobox, but this property is not. Thanks. ( ) @ : ""just look at the uses of "" - can you be clearer - how does one do this? Post a link? ( ) @ : Go to the talk page, search for ""This property is being used by:"", click 'Expand'. Wish that were easier to link to! Thanks. ( ) @ : Got it, thanks. That's a lot of templates, but the vast majority wouldn't apply to non-Earth objects, right? How many of them correctly handle the globe component? ( ) @ : ""just look at the uses of "" - can you be clearer - how does one do this? Post a link? ( ) @ : Go to the talk page, search for ""This property is being used by:"", click 'Expand'. Wish that were easier to link to! Thanks. ( ) @ : Got it, thanks. That's a lot of templates, but the vast majority wouldn't apply to non-Earth objects, right? How many of them correctly handle the globe component? ( ) @ : Go to the talk page, search for ""This property is being used by:"", click 'Expand'. Wish that were easier to link to! Thanks. ( ) @ : Got it, thanks. That's a lot of templates, but the vast majority wouldn't apply to non-Earth objects, right? How many of them correctly handle the globe component? ( ) @ : Got it, thanks. That's a lot of templates, but the vast majority wouldn't apply to non-Earth objects, right? How many of them correctly handle the globe component? ( ) @ , , : I have created a gadget to display and change the globe for P625. Add the following line to your page: importScript(""User:Bamyers99/CoordGlobe.js""); Clicking the globe name will display a dialog with a list of globes to choose from. Here is a query of some items to try it out on. -- ( ) @ : That is very nice, thanks. Hmm, I guess I really can't complain about this being missing in the UI now. ( ) Nice script; thank you. I'm seeing lots of cases of features with set to another body, but with the coordinates' globe set to ""Earth"". Is that something a bot could fix? @ : Something for PiBot? @ : Good idea, coded up and permission to run it requested at . Thanks. ( ) Also related: , copy from globe to (except for Earth). Thanks. ( ) @ : Please add , as used on . Charon has been added. The original list came from the globeUris variable and is what the GeoData extension supports. -- ( ) @ : It would be good to get that list updated. I've started . Thanks. ( ) Outstanding, , I've been hoping for a tool like this for years. Thank you. Given this creation, I see no reason for or . @ : That is very nice, thanks. Hmm, I guess I really can't complain about this being missing in the UI now. ( ) Nice script; thank you. I'm seeing lots of cases of features with set to another body, but with the coordinates' globe set to ""Earth"". Is that something a bot could fix? @ : Something for PiBot? @ : Good idea, coded up and permission to run it requested at . Thanks. ( ) Also related: , copy from globe to (except for Earth). Thanks. ( ) @ : Good idea, coded up and permission to run it requested at . Thanks. ( ) Also related: , copy from globe to (except for Earth). Thanks. ( ) Also related: , copy from globe to (except for Earth). Thanks. ( ) @ : Please add , as used on . Charon has been added. The original list came from the globeUris variable and is what the GeoData extension supports. -- ( ) @ : It would be good to get that list updated. I've started . Thanks. ( ) Charon has been added. The original list came from the globeUris variable and is what the GeoData extension supports. -- ( ) @ : It would be good to get that list updated. I've started . Thanks. ( ) @ : It would be good to get that list updated. I've started . Thanks. ( ) Outstanding, , I've been hoping for a tool like this for years. Thank you. Given this creation, I see no reason for or . Ok, I've slashed out my ""vote [MASK]"" above - I'm still not entirely comfortable deleting since I do see other reasons to have separate properties here, but I don't feel strongly about it now either way, given the UI solution we have now. ( ) Delete , per the requester's arguments and the ones I gave when opposing the creation of this and similar properties. ( ) Thanks for closing it. I should be able to migrate values over soon. Thanks. ( ) @ : Update: I can copy over the values fine, but I can't currently figure out how to copy over any qualifier or sources at the same time, and quite a few seem to have a reference. Perhaps @ : could do this more easily, since it looks like they moved the values over from P625 in the first place? Thanks. ( ) @ : I only see to do by hand. ( ) @ : Ah, I was mostly focusing on , which has a few thousand. I'll clear through these ones by hand now, but ~2k is a few too many to do that with. Thanks. ( ) OK, this one now has no uses left, and is ready to be [MASK]. Thanks. ( ) It seems indeed there is absolutely no P10628 statements for the time being : ● ● @ : I only see to do by hand. ( ) @ : Ah, I was mostly focusing on , which has a few thousand. I'll clear through these ones by hand now, but ~2k is a few too many to do that with. Thanks. ( ) OK, this one now has no uses left, and is ready to be [MASK]. Thanks. ( ) It seems indeed there is absolutely no P10628 statements for the time being : ● ● @ : Ah, I was mostly focusing on , which has a few thousand. I'll clear through these ones by hand now, but ~2k is a few too many to do that with. Thanks. ( ) OK, this one now has no uses left, and is ready to be [MASK]. Thanks. ( ) It seems indeed there is absolutely no P10628 statements for the time being : ● ● OK, this one now has no uses left, and is ready to be [MASK]. Thanks. ( ) It seems indeed there is absolutely no P10628 statements for the time being : ● ● It seems indeed there is absolutely no P10628 statements for the time being : ● ● ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P9788: Delete ( ) Delete ( ) Delete per nom. Delete per nom. Also pinging people involved in the : @ , , , , , :. — ( ) Delete per nom. ( ) Delete – I can only agree with the nomination here. -- ( ) Delete per nom.-- ( ) @ all usage removed. —‍ ( • ) Done thanks for the clean up and the ping. ( ) Done thanks for the clean up and the ping. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6646: [MASK] - ( ) [MASK] - ( ) Support I assume no comments have been made because this is a clear case to delete Support I assume no comments have been made because this is a clear case to delete ( ) Support -- ( ) Support , is a much more stable value. — ( ) Support -- ( ) Support , is a much more stable value. — ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10725: [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) Delete doesn't seem to be used nor does this serve a continuing purpose. ( ) Delete , if it no longer works... - ( ) Delete , useless and obsolete. ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6262: [MASK] ( ) [MASK] ( ) Delete 66 uses only, no external use (like wikitemplate), no need to preserve. -- ( ) Delete Not important to link to ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P7164: [MASK] values that have been removed may be found . ( ) [MASK] values that have been removed may be found . ( ) It's useless for external users because all the links are dead It's useless for us because Mixer basically contained no relevant information about the game (take as an example: there's game title, game logo, viewer count at random moment of time, and random lowres stream screenshots; nothing can be used in our other properties) The values we currently have were matched poorly with quite a few false positives. There're , and most of them are vurtually unsolvable because even the archived versions of the links are usually dead. For instance, both and are linked Sigh, all that wasted effort really hurts ( ) Comment . The property was 3 years ago and I already said back then that it was completely pointless to [MASK] such a property. I still don't understand why it was decided to [MASK] it. Even if we have archive links, they are, as it is correctly pointed out here, almost useless. It is one thing to have a database like , which is well archived and still useful, but it is quite another to have a database like Mixer, which does not really contain any useful information for Wikidata. With such a property, we have only accumulated a great number of constraint violations. How to address them without being able to find at least some good archived copy is not clear at all. , the only site that archives JavaScript sites properly, has almost nothing (see or , that is certainly not enough). Wayback Machine is not an option at all, as it saved a lot of links with a . The only thing left to do here is to set a deprecated rank for all values of this property with qualifier or delete property. By the way, we have a that also experiences a lack of archive links, but here we have a completely different story. This database unlike Mixer (which has only a game title, a logo and a low-resolution cover/screenshot) has at least some basic and more or less . Regards ( ) Comment I’m usually all for keeping properties for dead websites (indeed, I am planning to propose properties for websites that are already dead! ;-) ; but this is a bit of a different case. Reading back through the , I do see the point of having Wikidata serving as index to ; but I was never impressed with our coverage: we have hundreds of cases where the same ID is assigned to different games that happen to share the same name − for example 97266 (that 404s, oh the irony) associated with both the 1992 and the 2013 . Not convinced this helps anyone. ( ) Delete Above discussion seems convincing, particularly if this property was poorly matched to items to begin with. ( ) + Notified . Regards ( ) Delete as it was a service with daily updated information, not suitable for archive search. ( ) Delete In this case I think deletion is definitely warranted based on the above arguments. ( ) Delete per Jean-Fred and Kirilloparma. — (he/him · ) Delete as in the comments above. ( ) Delete Every time I come across these IDs - there are only 404 page archived each time. In some cases, the IDs are placed in the wrong version of the game and there is no way to fix it. It would certainly be interesting to see how many IDs are actually archived game pages rather than 404s. But it doesn't seem to be worth the effort. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6712: Consensus to delete. - ( ) Consensus to delete. - ( ) Support obviously, after 4 years this property is unused, there datatype is not optimal and there is other way to store the same data. Cheers, ( ) I checked several of the lexemes using this property and none of them had or (or any other alternative property). - ( ) @ : The property has now been substituted everywhere it occurred (thanks to @ : for performing many of the substitutions). ( ) @ : The property has now been substituted everywhere it occurred (thanks to @ : for performing many of the substitutions). ( ) Support - ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4211_(P4211): Done (thanks @ :!) @ , , : ( ) Done (thanks @ :!) @ , , : ( ) There are currently 912 uses as main statements. There is also a separate Mix'n'match catalog for this: This in addition to the 1057 uses of mentioned above and its catalogue. Oddly the two aren't kept in synch (maybe identifiers for both properties (or all three) could be added to these. is hardly used (45 uses almost a year after creeation) and doesn't have a Mix'n'match catalogue. I don't think we should delete the properties before the Mix'n'match question is resolved. I don't have much of an opinion of any of the three properties are worth keeping. @ , , , , : @ , , , , : @ : who worked on either catalogue in MxM. @ , , , : @ , , , : who participated in the proposal discussion for the new property. --- It would be better if someone can change data for new version. -- ( ) Good afternoon! Bashwiki needs help :) We would like, if one of the programmers could help, to change all the old data to new ones with one click, if this is not possible, notify us so that we do everything manually. In the previous site, the index of articles in Russian and Bashkir was different, in the new site they are the same. We will be grateful for any help: practical or theoretical :) -- ( ) @ : If you can supply the mappings between the old ids and the new ones, you might want to make a request at . These can then be added to Wikidata and Mixnmatch. --- I recently made a and exported around 2k IDs from Bashkir (from a template used for encyclopaedia links) and Russian wikipedia (from direct links in the new format). But it still needs to replace somewhere around 800 identifiers. @ : I can't think of anything better than manual work on them 1 by 1. So it will probably also require the help of the Bashkir community to sort out the mix-n-match catalogue to then automatically remove the old property. ( ) There are currently 912 uses as main statements. There is also a separate Mix'n'match catalog for this: This in addition to the 1057 uses of mentioned above and its catalogue. Oddly the two aren't kept in synch (maybe identifiers for both properties (or all three) could be added to these. is hardly used (45 uses almost a year after creeation) and doesn't have a Mix'n'match catalogue. I don't think we should delete the properties before the Mix'n'match question is resolved. I don't have much of an opinion of any of the three properties are worth keeping. @ , , , , : @ , , , , : @ : who worked on either catalogue in MxM. @ , , , : @ , , , : who participated in the proposal discussion for the new property. --- It would be better if someone can change data for new version. -- ( ) Good afternoon! Bashwiki needs help :) We would like, if one of the programmers could help, to change all the old data to new ones with one click, if this is not possible, notify us so that we do everything manually. In the previous site, the index of articles in Russian and Bashkir was different, in the new site they are the same. We will be grateful for any help: practical or theoretical :) -- ( ) @ : If you can supply the mappings between the old ids and the new ones, you might want to make a request at . These can then be added to Wikidata and Mixnmatch. --- I recently made a and exported around 2k IDs from Bashkir (from a template used for encyclopaedia links) and Russian wikipedia (from direct links in the new format). But it still needs to replace somewhere around 800 identifiers. @ : I can't think of anything better than manual work on them 1 by 1. So it will probably also require the help of the Bashkir community to sort out the mix-n-match catalogue to then automatically remove the old property. ( ) It would be better if someone can change data for new version. -- ( ) Good afternoon! Bashwiki needs help :) We would like, if one of the programmers could help, to change all the old data to new ones with one click, if this is not possible, notify us so that we do everything manually. In the previous site, the index of articles in Russian and Bashkir was different, in the new site they are the same. We will be grateful for any help: practical or theoretical :) -- ( ) @ : If you can supply the mappings between the old ids and the new ones, you might want to make a request at . These can then be added to Wikidata and Mixnmatch. --- I recently made a and exported around 2k IDs from Bashkir (from a template used for encyclopaedia links) and Russian wikipedia (from direct links in the new format). But it still needs to replace somewhere around 800 identifiers. @ : I can't think of anything better than manual work on them 1 by 1. So it will probably also require the help of the Bashkir community to sort out the mix-n-match catalogue to then automatically remove the old property. ( ) @ : If you can supply the mappings between the old ids and the new ones, you might want to make a request at . These can then be added to Wikidata and Mixnmatch. --- I recently made a and exported around 2k IDs from Bashkir (from a template used for encyclopaedia links) and Russian wikipedia (from direct links in the new format). But it still needs to replace somewhere around 800 identifiers. @ : I can't think of anything better than manual work on them 1 by 1. So it will probably also require the help of the Bashkir community to sort out the mix-n-match catalogue to then automatically remove the old property. ( ) I recently made a and exported around 2k IDs from Bashkir (from a template used for encyclopaedia links) and Russian wikipedia (from direct links in the new format). But it still needs to replace somewhere around 800 identifiers. @ : I can't think of anything better than manual work on them 1 by 1. So it will probably also require the help of the Bashkir community to sort out the mix-n-match catalogue to then automatically remove the old property. ( ) 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. ( ) The problem is that most of the archive links don't work, and the old articles have simply been moved to new IDs under new format - so it's better to be replaced rather than kept. ( ) @ , , , , , :, @ , , , , : removed all existing values in Wikidata elements, replacing the old identifier with a new one. At the same time, some identifiers are only in the Bashkir language. ( ) It's not Wikidata problem that ID isn't available anymore. Once it existed should be kept as outdated ID. ( ) The problem is that most of the archive links don't work, and the old articles have simply been moved to new IDs under new format - so it's better to be replaced rather than kept. ( ) @ , , , , , :, @ , , , , : removed all existing values in Wikidata elements, replacing the old identifier with a new one. At the same time, some identifiers are only in the Bashkir language. ( ) It's not Wikidata problem that ID isn't available anymore. Once it existed should be kept as outdated ID. ( ) @ , , , , , :, @ , , , , : removed all existing values in Wikidata elements, replacing the old identifier with a new one. At the same time, some identifiers are only in the Bashkir language. ( ) It's not Wikidata problem that ID isn't available anymore. Once it existed should be kept as outdated ID. ( ) It's not Wikidata problem that ID isn't available anymore. Once it existed should be kept as outdated ID. ( ) Remove property as identifiers are completely moved to the new property. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P4210_(P4210): Done @ , , , , , : ( ) Done @ , , , , , : ( ) ""Unused"" is by itself not a valid reason of deletion. More research on this ID is needed (is this ID deprecated? succeeded by other scheme?) ( ) It seems to have no URL formatter nor any related properties, which is weird. The URL for seems to be invalid, although ICTV is still a thing from my google search. ( ) ICTV still has a database of viruses. It seems to be on their main site now. But the database includes all the different ICTV releases of the data. Luckily, it seems to follow a semi-predictable pattern. For example, has the IDs and for the 2021 and 2020 releases, respectively. It also has a bunch of other previous releases that seem to follow the same pattern of year+id. It seems to exist, but I'm not quite sure how to use it. ( ) There have been about 375 objects with IDs, which had to be [MASK] again: Now, this property is unused again. ( ) It seems to have no URL formatter nor any related properties, which is weird. The URL for seems to be invalid, although ICTV is still a thing from my google search. ( ) ICTV still has a database of viruses. It seems to be on their main site now. But the database includes all the different ICTV releases of the data. Luckily, it seems to follow a semi-predictable pattern. For example, has the IDs and for the 2021 and 2020 releases, respectively. It also has a bunch of other previous releases that seem to follow the same pattern of year+id. It seems to exist, but I'm not quite sure how to use it. ( ) There have been about 375 objects with IDs, which had to be [MASK] again: Now, this property is unused again. ( ) ICTV still has a database of viruses. It seems to be on their main site now. But the database includes all the different ICTV releases of the data. Luckily, it seems to follow a semi-predictable pattern. For example, has the IDs and for the 2021 and 2020 releases, respectively. It also has a bunch of other previous releases that seem to follow the same pattern of year+id. It seems to exist, but I'm not quite sure how to use it. ( ) There have been about 375 objects with IDs, which had to be [MASK] again: Now, this property is unused again. ( ) There have been about 375 objects with IDs, which had to be [MASK] again: Now, this property is unused again. ( ) @ : (= ) and (= ). BTW: Delete . -- ( ) Delete by arguments Succu. -- ( ) @ : (= ) and (= ). BTW: Delete . -- ( ) Delete by arguments Succu. -- ( ) @ : (= ) and (= ). BTW: Delete . -- ( ) Delete by arguments Succu. -- ( ) @ : (= ) and (= ). BTW: Delete . -- ( ) Delete by arguments Succu. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6077: Done @ , , , : ( ) Done @ , , , : ( ) @ :, I am not sure to understand. You're telling that the mentioned properties should be [MASK] because fits for all them? -- Yes, as already mentioned by @ . ( ) Yes, as already mentioned by @ . ( ) @ , who proposed the properties, is in favor of unification. @ , who created the properties. Notified Support In favor of merger : as explained, as the four properties have now a shared URL structure, they can be merged (or, I guess in other words, 3 of them can be [MASK] in order to [MASK] a unique one). For exemple, with the update of the federation website, en.rugby-japan.jp/sevens-womens/member/detail/$1 can now be replaced by rugby-japan.jp/player/$1 , which includes men/women category and rugby union/sevens code in one unique URL. After that, P4937 can be renamed Japan Rugby Football Union ID instead of Japan Rugby Football Union men's player ID . ( ) Support if it's like descripted by Daxipedia. -- And I have changed the English label and description of P4937, and flushed the translations in other languages, keeping old labels as aliases, by . -- ( ) I have copied necessary property statements from P4938, P4940, and P4941 to P4937, by . ( ) fr & ary Wikipedia have usage tracking categories for P4938, P4940, and P4941, but no pages are included there. I think now we have ready for deleting these 3 properties. ( ) I have copied necessary property statements from P4938, P4940, and P4941 to P4937, by . ( ) fr & ary Wikipedia have usage tracking categories for P4938, P4940, and P4941, but no pages are included there. I think now we have ready for deleting these 3 properties. ( ) fr & ary Wikipedia have usage tracking categories for P4938, P4940, and P4941, but no pages are included there. I think now we have ready for deleting these 3 properties. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: player_properties_for_Japan_Rugby_Football_Union: Done @ , : ( ) Done @ , : ( ) Delete abandoned by ISO, no point in keeping this. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10241: No consensus to detelte. The request has been open for more than a year, with minimal participation overall; 2 opposes and no support for deletion apart from the nominator. It has been argued that The property currently serves a need and could be useful. It has also been raised that a broader discussion on ontology is needed, and I would personally recommend this (and potentially a on that as a next step, before a potential 3rd nomination for deletion. -- ( ) No consensus to detelte. The request has been open for more than a year, with minimal participation overall; 2 opposes and no support for deletion apart from the nominator. It has been argued that The property currently serves a need and could be useful. It has also been raised that a broader discussion on ontology is needed, and I would personally recommend this (and potentially a on that as a next step, before a potential 3rd nomination for deletion. -- ( ) Note that this was discussed last year at . @ : We do subpages for PfD now, have moved it over for you. Thanks. ( ) The link on the Watchlist page, that says this is a current discussion, points to the closed previous discussion. So, comments on this PfD will likely be a mess. -- ( ) The link on the Watchlist page, that says this is a current discussion, points to the closed previous discussion. So, comments on this PfD will likely be a mess. -- ( ) Comment Personally I think this is helpful to [MASK] so we don't have to make individual items for every single animal species, we have right now and I think it would be way more messy if people started making ""individual dog"", ""individual coati"" etc. ( ) Oppose As a mater of fact its also very helpful for fictional characters. ( ) Oppose As a mater of fact its also very helpful for fictional characters. ( ) Oppose It's specific enough for a different property to be useful. Additionally, deleting this property would only work if we made taxons subclasses, so a general discussions on ontology is needed - and I would welcome such a discussion because the way we treat individual humans, individual animals, individual trees, individual buildings o individual protected areas is quite different. -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10241: [MASK] It's as much of an ID as all those other sites that use some form of a person's name as their ID's. ( ) The talk page include two unresolved disputes: Should items like have this property? How should this property be labeled? Should items like have this property? How should this property be labeled? -- ( ) Actually, I don't see any unresolved dispute. The website provides data about 999,999,999,999 natural numbers (from to ), so the answer to the first question is ""no"". The answer to the second question is ""the current one"": any label that aims to generalize the property would make the property itself coincide with . I think the only question we should ask ourselves is: is a valid resource deserving to be linked? -- ( ) Actually, I don't see any unresolved dispute. The website provides data about 999,999,999,999 natural numbers (from to ), so the answer to the first question is ""no"". The answer to the second question is ""the current one"": any label that aims to generalize the property would make the property itself coincide with . I think the only question we should ask ourselves is: is a valid resource deserving to be linked? -- ( ) Not done There is no consensus for deletion of this property. There has been a long discussion at the about the question if we should have this property. I do not see why the decision made in 2018 should be overruled now. -- ( ) ###Output: ",keep +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P6205: many of the id's links are archived. e.g. . though the link format is broken at the moment. deprecate and mark as obsolete but [MASK]. here's . ( ) If this property is [MASK], the non-numeric identifiers should be transferred to the prior to being removed. ( ) has been created. ( ) If this property is [MASK], the non-numeric identifiers should be transferred to the prior to being removed. ( ) has been created. ( ) has been created. ( ) I would love to say Delete , @ : to me the scheme has been largely changed, results the former property can't compatible with the current scheme entirely, probably the core algorithm of this service has re-written. -- ( ) [MASK] Even though the ID is not visible in the URL anymore, it is still present in the source code of the page and still works fine to redirect to the page . I added some Wikidata usage instructions within the property page in order to retrive the ID : "" To find the Kicker ID, open the page source and look after ""objectId: ""spielersteckbrief: XXXXX"""" where XXXXX is the ID "". Therefore I think this property has no reason to be [MASK] ( ) @ : in light of the comment by are you happy to now support deletion? — Martin ( · ) @ : in light of the comment by are you happy to now support deletion? — Martin ( · ) Delete I have added all IDs that were only in the old kicker format in the new kicker format to the Wikidata-Items. Therefore there shouldn’t be a need for the old property. – ( ) Delete , Notified , Notified — ( ) [MASK] , could still be potentially useful I think (and a static dump of the data before it was [MASK] wouldn’t be as easy to discover or use). With the current labels (“former scheme” and “actual scheme”) it seems okay to me to have both properties. — ( ) Delete all the data is still accessible via the new ID and it's unlikely that someone has a use for the old ID. ❪ ❫ Delete deprecated, even if the previous IDs can still be found in places. -- ( ) Done Deprecated property, a majority of the participants of this discussion has supported the deletion of this property. Data has been migrated to the new Kicker property. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P7829_(P7829): ( ) @ : Is it possible to migrate ? -- ( ) @ : done (either migrated, removed or migrated to described in URL depending on the case) ( ) @ : done (either migrated, removed or migrated to described in URL depending on the case) ( ) Done Deprecated property, replaced by current property. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P6107_(P6107): There are 5 entries and all added on the same date by @ . That looks indeed like lack of notability. ( ) The intent of this property is to complement the main property of Moegirlpedia ID to achieve comprehensive correspondence, as this site function as a backdrop for content deported from the main Moegirlpedia site due to Chinese regulatory rules, however the uptime of the H-moe site have been far from best in recent months, hence it would be pretty difficult for anyone to try to add new entries for the site into Wikidata in the past few months, which explain its current relative low usage. ( ) The intent of this property is to complement the main property of Moegirlpedia ID to achieve comprehensive correspondence, as this site function as a backdrop for content deported from the main Moegirlpedia site due to Chinese regulatory rules, however the uptime of the H-moe site have been far from best in recent months, hence it would be pretty difficult for anyone to try to add new entries for the site into Wikidata in the past few months, which explain its current relative low usage. ( ) Delete Gibberish contents with nothing given even small notabilities. -- ( ) ""gibberish"" to people who do not want to see content against Chinese law I guess ( ) ""gibberish"" to people who do not want to see content against Chinese law I guess ( ) Delete barely used identifier of spin-off of user-generated narrowly focused database. -- ( ) narrowly focused? ( ) narrowly focused? ( ) Question Do we really need to delete the subject item ? Wasn't it part of Moegirlpedia? ( ) That is for another discussion. After the site being made unavailable since earlier last month, and then earlier this month rumor on Twitter surfaced that claim contributors from China being taken away by Chinese government, Chinese Wikipedia judged the the Chinese Wikipedia article did not meet notability guideline despite expecting situation might change in short term, and hence [MASK] the article. With the Chinese Wikipedia article [MASK], the Wikidata item no longer have any Wikipedia link and likely being [MASK] because of it not meeting notability criteria #1. Yet, as far as this Prperty P10724 remain in existence, I think it still meet notability criteria #3, and thus shouldn't be [MASK]. It was not officially part of Moegirlpedia but more like a complementary site to it. In the early day HMoegirl shared account database and other resources with the main Moegirlpedia site, but such arrangement have been problematic as Moegirlpedia progressively move into Chinese server and subject the wiki to Chinese government regulation, while Hmoegirl continue to host content that are against Chinese law in multiple aspects. Hence as of summer of year 2022 the official stance is no official relationship between the two sites, despite editors and contents across the sites. ( ) That is for another discussion. After the site being made unavailable since earlier last month, and then earlier this month rumor on Twitter surfaced that claim contributors from China being taken away by Chinese government, Chinese Wikipedia judged the the Chinese Wikipedia article did not meet notability guideline despite expecting situation might change in short term, and hence [MASK] the article. With the Chinese Wikipedia article [MASK], the Wikidata item no longer have any Wikipedia link and likely being [MASK] because of it not meeting notability criteria #1. Yet, as far as this Prperty P10724 remain in existence, I think it still meet notability criteria #3, and thus shouldn't be [MASK]. It was not officially part of Moegirlpedia but more like a complementary site to it. In the early day HMoegirl shared account database and other resources with the main Moegirlpedia site, but such arrangement have been problematic as Moegirlpedia progressively move into Chinese server and subject the wiki to Chinese government regulation, while Hmoegirl continue to host content that are against Chinese law in multiple aspects. Hence as of summer of year 2022 the official stance is no official relationship between the two sites, despite editors and contents across the sites. ( ) Done per missing notability and website being unavailable. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10724: Delete It seems that this site is currently not working. It is better to make it stop. / Delete Right. Yerelnet is not working anymore. We don't need this property. -- Delete Looks reasonable. ( ) Done Clear consensus for deletion. -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10863: Delete Too bad the site closed. Given the limited usage I don't see any point keeping this. ( ) Delete limited usage and inaccessible content -- ( ) Delete Per AthurPSmith -- Done Clear consensus for deletion -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P1996: Delete — Martin ( · ) Delete — Martin ( · ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Notified . — ( ) Notified . — Delete -- ( ) Delete -- Delete - ( ) Delete -- ( ) Delete -- 🍹 497377 Delete — ( ) pinging @ : Okay with you? ( ) If these have all been migrated over, I think this looks great. Much cleaner than the old property. ( ) If these have all been migrated over, I think this looks great. Much cleaner than the old property. ( ) @ , yes. has unique values. Everything else are duplicate IDs with different links, e.g. commons/mr-nigel-dodds/1388 and commons/nigel-dodds/1388 . — Thank you for clarifying — Martin ( · ) Thank you for clarifying — Martin ( · ) @ Almost 2 years later the property is still NOT [MASK], and 164 links to it persist. ( ) Done All data has now been migrated -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: P3917_(P3917): Consensus to migrate to and delete — Martin ( · ) Consensus to migrate to and delete — Martin ( · ) @ , : do you have any opinion? To me, I do not see why number is not the correct datatype. Do you mean it should be external identifier? If so, to which link? Or string? Or something else? ( ) We don't have a number datatype and the quantity type we do has it's +/- interval by default. I don't have strong feelings but would be okay with migrating it to . ❪ ❫ When I proposed P3917, I ignored many things about how Wikidata work. Now, I agree with migrating it to . -- We don't have a number datatype and the quantity type we do has it's +/- interval by default. I don't have strong feelings but would be okay with migrating it to . ❪ ❫ When I proposed P3917, I ignored many things about how Wikidata work. Now, I agree with migrating it to . -- Delete a number is not a quantity, store information in a new property with the correct datatype: external identifier. ( ) [MASK] Used by some MediaWiki extensions, Please consult MediaWiki.org before deletions. -- @ : ^^ Is this really? ^^ -- ( ) I have no idea but I haven't been able to find references to P3917 myself, on mediawiki.org or in a search of most MediaWiki extension repositories. -- @ : ^^ Is this really? ^^ -- ( ) I have no idea but I haven't been able to find references to P3917 myself, on mediawiki.org or in a search of most MediaWiki extension repositories. -- I have no idea but I haven't been able to find references to P3917 myself, on mediawiki.org or in a search of most MediaWiki extension repositories. -- Delete Agree with migration to P528. -- ( ) [MASK] In use at at the Spanish Wikipedia. Please discuss at the first. -- ( ) I will make sure the module is updated before deleting the property — Martin ( · ) I will make sure the module is updated before deleting the property — Martin ( · ) , , Done Property [MASK], all templates have been adjusted -- ( ) ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10692: Delete per proponent; I suggest to proceed after the creation proposal is closed. -- has just been created; this is now ready for deletion. has just been created; this is now ready for deletion. Delete -- Regards, Done Clear consensus for deletion. -- ( ) ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P2021: ( ) Notified , Notified — ( ) Delete per nom. -- ( ) Delete - an updated identifier is available. -- ( ) Delete per nom. -- ( ) Delete per nom. There seems to be nothing against deleting. -- @ : Is it possible to migrate ? -- ( ) @ , , , : We still have 57 statements that have not been migrated. -- ( ) @ I'm going to migrate them the next days. -- @ : Done. -- @ : Could you have a look, please? -- It looks like all instances have been replaced. It's not immediately clear to me why how the property works wasn't just changed instead of a new property being created. Do you want me personally to delete it? If so, ping me again. — @ : I agree with you, but in any case it's no longer useful. I would delete it, but since I'm involved in the discussion, I haven't, and I would ask you personally to delete it. -- Gotcha. Can do now. — @ I'm going to migrate them the next days. -- @ : Done. -- @ : Could you have a look, please? -- It looks like all instances have been replaced. It's not immediately clear to me why how the property works wasn't just changed instead of a new property being created. Do you want me personally to delete it? If so, ping me again. — @ : I agree with you, but in any case it's no longer useful. I would delete it, but since I'm involved in the discussion, I haven't, and I would ask you personally to delete it. -- Gotcha. Can do now. — @ : Done. -- @ : Could you have a look, please? -- It looks like all instances have been replaced. It's not immediately clear to me why how the property works wasn't just changed instead of a new property being created. Do you want me personally to delete it? If so, ping me again. — @ : I agree with you, but in any case it's no longer useful. I would delete it, but since I'm involved in the discussion, I haven't, and I would ask you personally to delete it. -- Gotcha. Can do now. — @ : Could you have a look, please? -- It looks like all instances have been replaced. It's not immediately clear to me why how the property works wasn't just changed instead of a new property being created. Do you want me personally to delete it? If so, ping me again. — @ : I agree with you, but in any case it's no longer useful. I would delete it, but since I'm involved in the discussion, I haven't, and I would ask you personally to delete it. -- Gotcha. Can do now. — It looks like all instances have been replaced. It's not immediately clear to me why how the property works wasn't just changed instead of a new property being created. Do you want me personally to delete it? If so, ping me again. — @ : I agree with you, but in any case it's no longer useful. I would delete it, but since I'm involved in the discussion, I haven't, and I would ask you personally to delete it. -- Gotcha. Can do now. — @ : I agree with you, but in any case it's no longer useful. I would delete it, but since I'm involved in the discussion, I haven't, and I would ask you personally to delete it. -- Gotcha. Can do now. — Gotcha. Can do now. — ###Output: ",no_consensus +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P7859: Done now that values have been migrated and it has been about a month since the last non-sock activity on this page. ( ) Done now that values have been migrated and it has been about a month since the last non-sock activity on this page. ( ) The proponent and the creator of the property have been contacted in their talk pages; this page has also been linked in the talk pages of the templates indicated in the {{ }} . -- I'm the original proponent and I agree to delete it down when the WorldCat Identities website is shut down. ""either VIAF-based or LCCN-based"" does not diminish its value since one cannot pick one of the two alternatives without having the WorldCat Identities data. But without the website, it's useless -- ( ) I'm the original proponent and I agree to delete it down when the WorldCat Identities website is shut down. ""either VIAF-based or LCCN-based"" does not diminish its value since one cannot pick one of the two alternatives without having the WorldCat Identities data. But without the website, it's useless -- ( ) @ : I don't see why it would need to be [MASK]. The ""worth"" is exactly historical purposes and it costs nothing, I'd assume. Cheers, ( ) [MASK] I think we should retain it for a period of time after the data is [MASK] from the website. For one thing, it would be a useful reference to check on the rate of adoption of . There are many cases of without or , so it would be useful to see how they are handled in . We could mark the property as deprecated then compare and periodically. ( ) The comparison between As of now, out of 1.93 M items having WorldCat Identities ID, only items have no VIAF. The comparison between Entities and Identities can be interesting, of course, although I think it wouldn't be much different from the comparison between Entities and VIAF itself. -- The comparison between As of now, out of 1.93 M items having WorldCat Identities ID, only items have no VIAF. The comparison between Entities and Identities can be interesting, of course, although I think it wouldn't be much different from the comparison between Entities and VIAF itself. -- Delete Too many bot edits, too many errors. No chance of correction after shut down. -- ( ) PS: Please take a look at : William Shakespeare (Not Found), Guillaume Caoursin (redirect: WorldCat Entities ID), William Verbeck (Not Found) etc. (redirect: VIAF). -- ( ) Interesting. They have now redirected many of the Worldcat Identities to the corresponding entry in Entities or VIAF. Some like William Shakespeare had a malformed ID in but the correct Identities ID on redirects correctly to Entities. ( ) I also thought that the ID for Shakespeare was malformed but instead of lccn-n7895332 (now redirect). -- ( ) PS: Please take a look at : William Shakespeare (Not Found), Guillaume Caoursin (redirect: WorldCat Entities ID), William Verbeck (Not Found) etc. (redirect: VIAF). -- ( ) Interesting. They have now redirected many of the Worldcat Identities to the corresponding entry in Entities or VIAF. Some like William Shakespeare had a malformed ID in but the correct Identities ID on redirects correctly to Entities. ( ) I also thought that the ID for Shakespeare was malformed but instead of lccn-n7895332 (now redirect). -- ( ) Interesting. They have now redirected many of the Worldcat Identities to the corresponding entry in Entities or VIAF. Some like William Shakespeare had a malformed ID in but the correct Identities ID on redirects correctly to Entities. ( ) I also thought that the ID for Shakespeare was malformed but instead of lccn-n7895332 (now redirect). -- ( ) I also thought that the ID for Shakespeare was malformed but instead of lccn-n7895332 (now redirect). -- ( ) Comment Today (or yesterday) WorldCat Identities ceased to exist. Since all the ""np"" and ""nc"" IDs (4k here) are now resulting in ""not found"" pages, and their historical value and external use are both irrelevant, I'm going to remove them, if no objection is made. -- I'll object to that. The presence of the np and nc IDs indicate that there are library records related to the associated items. They are a big clue to users and editors that there will be relevant information in library catalogues to retrieve and link to that item. I'd recommend marking them as deprecated statements with . ( ) @From Hill To Shore: Please [MASK] it simple. If we have two WorldCat ids users need to know that identities are not entities or was it tentities? Now translate this into Arabic, Japanese, and Hindi. Many of the WorldCat ids are outdated or wrong. WorldCat ids have changed over the years. Leaving the mistakes and creating the opportunity for new ones is not a good solution. -- ( ) I am not sure why you are concerned about translation. The whole premise of Wikidata is that statements are machine-readable and easily translated into any language. If is not translated into a particular language, simply add the relevant labels to the property and the item. Also, I have no idea why you are urging me to ""[MASK] it simple."" Where do you draw the line on wiping deprecated information from our database in the interests of keeping things ""simple""? I am objecting here because an editor is proposing unilateral action to delete ahead of this discussion being concluded. If more editors join the discussion and disagree with my position, then the consensus will be against me and deletion will proceed. ( ) There are already for withdrawn identifier values. So we can't use this qualifier for a project ceased to exist. -- ( ) I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make in your comment there. ""Because the statement exists, we can't use the statement."" ( ) It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? I'll object to that. The presence of the np and nc IDs indicate that there are library records related to the associated items. They are a big clue to users and editors that there will be relevant information in library catalogues to retrieve and link to that item. I'd recommend marking them as deprecated statements with . ( ) @From Hill To Shore: Please [MASK] it simple. If we have two WorldCat ids users need to know that identities are not entities or was it tentities? Now translate this into Arabic, Japanese, and Hindi. Many of the WorldCat ids are outdated or wrong. WorldCat ids have changed over the years. Leaving the mistakes and creating the opportunity for new ones is not a good solution. -- ( ) I am not sure why you are concerned about translation. The whole premise of Wikidata is that statements are machine-readable and easily translated into any language. If is not translated into a particular language, simply add the relevant labels to the property and the item. Also, I have no idea why you are urging me to ""[MASK] it simple."" Where do you draw the line on wiping deprecated information from our database in the interests of keeping things ""simple""? I am objecting here because an editor is proposing unilateral action to delete ahead of this discussion being concluded. If more editors join the discussion and disagree with my position, then the consensus will be against me and deletion will proceed. ( ) There are already for withdrawn identifier values. So we can't use this qualifier for a project ceased to exist. -- ( ) I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make in your comment there. ""Because the statement exists, we can't use the statement."" ( ) It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? @From Hill To Shore: Please [MASK] it simple. If we have two WorldCat ids users need to know that identities are not entities or was it tentities? Now translate this into Arabic, Japanese, and Hindi. Many of the WorldCat ids are outdated or wrong. WorldCat ids have changed over the years. Leaving the mistakes and creating the opportunity for new ones is not a good solution. -- ( ) I am not sure why you are concerned about translation. The whole premise of Wikidata is that statements are machine-readable and easily translated into any language. If is not translated into a particular language, simply add the relevant labels to the property and the item. Also, I have no idea why you are urging me to ""[MASK] it simple."" Where do you draw the line on wiping deprecated information from our database in the interests of keeping things ""simple""? I am objecting here because an editor is proposing unilateral action to delete ahead of this discussion being concluded. If more editors join the discussion and disagree with my position, then the consensus will be against me and deletion will proceed. ( ) There are already for withdrawn identifier values. So we can't use this qualifier for a project ceased to exist. -- ( ) I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make in your comment there. ""Because the statement exists, we can't use the statement."" ( ) It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? I am not sure why you are concerned about translation. The whole premise of Wikidata is that statements are machine-readable and easily translated into any language. If is not translated into a particular language, simply add the relevant labels to the property and the item. Also, I have no idea why you are urging me to ""[MASK] it simple."" Where do you draw the line on wiping deprecated information from our database in the interests of keeping things ""simple""? I am objecting here because an editor is proposing unilateral action to delete ahead of this discussion being concluded. If more editors join the discussion and disagree with my position, then the consensus will be against me and deletion will proceed. ( ) There are already for withdrawn identifier values. So we can't use this qualifier for a project ceased to exist. -- ( ) I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make in your comment there. ""Because the statement exists, we can't use the statement."" ( ) It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? There are already for withdrawn identifier values. So we can't use this qualifier for a project ceased to exist. -- ( ) I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make in your comment there. ""Because the statement exists, we can't use the statement."" ( ) It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make in your comment there. ""Because the statement exists, we can't use the statement."" ( ) It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? It's not so difficult. is used for a single withdrawn identifier. If a project ceased to exist this is something else. If you have problems to understand this distinction you might understand why users will have problems distinguishing between six properties connected to WorldCat. This is what is meant with: ""[MASK] it simple."" -- ( ) If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? If you think is not the best description for this deprecation then simply create a new item with a deprecation reason you find suitable. ""I don't like your choice of reason,"" is not an argument to delete instead of deprecate. As we have seen through the life of Worldcat Identities, many IDs have changed from ""nc""/""np"" prefixed IDs to ""VIAF""/""LCCN"" prefixed IDs. This is because the nc/np entries are for items in the library catalogue and libraries are likely to generate new IDs for them over time. There is a strong likelihood that this behaviour will continue and the residual nc/np items will gain over a period of time. Keeping the nc/np entries as deprecated will make it easier to find matches later rather than have us repeat the identification process all over again. I have no problem with removing when we have a present. Your focus is on preventing user confusion, which I don't see as an issue, unless you are advocating the removal of all deprecated information (what makes this case special compared to any other case of deprecation?). My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed that may help us continue to match items to new library IDs. ( ) ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? ""My focus is on preserving the useful curation work we have completed"" - which of the P7859 statements are result of such work and would you support that those that are not can be [MASK]? Comment : could we [MASK] this property and change the identifiers' links to Archive.org links? ( ) The outcome is not convincing. : William Shakespeare: "" "" Guillaume Caoursin: OK William Verbeck (Id 1): "" "" William Verbeck (Id 2): OK -- ( ) The outcome is not convincing. : William Shakespeare: "" "" Guillaume Caoursin: OK William Verbeck (Id 1): "" "" William Verbeck (Id 2): OK William Shakespeare: "" "" Guillaume Caoursin: OK William Verbeck (Id 1): "" "" William Verbeck (Id 2): OK -- ( ) [MASK] per From Hill to Shore at least until we've shifted to entities all the ones that we can. ( ) It would be counterproductive to generate from outdated IDs. Better use as source. As Epìdosis suggested we don't need to delete all all a once. We should make a plan to work through them. -- ( ) I agree. WorldCat Identities may reflect an outdated situation, so it's not the best option to mass-derive WorldCat Entities. I would prefer as Kolja21, or (probably worse) , which was in fact the source from which our WorldCat Identities IDs have been derived in 99.9% cases. -- I find this argument to be very strange. How would you ""generate from outdated IDs""? Of course you will need to make a comparison with other remaining IDs (or other identical statements) to verify a match before inserting . However, the key distinction that you appear to be proposing is to delete ahead of the work to migrate and then attempt to repeat years of work to locate, match and insert the ID on 1.93M Wikidata items. The presence of allows us to target the migration work, so should not be removed until the migration is complete, though I am happy to support phased removal by removing when there is a present on the same item. Once the migration of the easy matches are complete we will be left with some residual items that don't have yet. It would be worth revisiting this discussion at that time (either as part of the current discussion on this page, if still open, or a replacement discussion) to agree what we should do with the residual entries (deprecate or delete). ( ) It would be counterproductive to generate from outdated IDs. Better use as source. As Epìdosis suggested we don't need to delete all all a once. We should make a plan to work through them. -- ( ) I agree. WorldCat Identities may reflect an outdated situation, so it's not the best option to mass-derive WorldCat Entities. I would prefer as Kolja21, or (probably worse) , which was in fact the source from which our WorldCat Identities IDs have been derived in 99.9% cases. -- I find this argument to be very strange. How would you ""generate from outdated IDs""? Of course you will need to make a comparison with other remaining IDs (or other identical statements) to verify a match before inserting . However, the key distinction that you appear to be proposing is to delete ahead of the work to migrate and then attempt to repeat years of work to locate, match and insert the ID on 1.93M Wikidata items. The presence of allows us to target the migration work, so should not be removed until the migration is complete, though I am happy to support phased removal by removing when there is a present on the same item. Once the migration of the easy matches are complete we will be left with some residual items that don't have yet. It would be worth revisiting this discussion at that time (either as part of the current discussion on this page, if still open, or a replacement discussion) to agree what we should do with the residual entries (deprecate or delete). ( ) I agree. WorldCat Identities may reflect an outdated situation, so it's not the best option to mass-derive WorldCat Entities. I would prefer as Kolja21, or (probably worse) , which was in fact the source from which our WorldCat Identities IDs have been derived in 99.9% cases. -- I find this argument to be very strange. How would you ""generate from outdated IDs""? Of course you will need to make a comparison with other remaining IDs (or other identical statements) to verify a match before inserting . However, the key distinction that you appear to be proposing is to delete ahead of the work to migrate and then attempt to repeat years of work to locate, match and insert the ID on 1.93M Wikidata items. The presence of allows us to target the migration work, so should not be removed until the migration is complete, though I am happy to support phased removal by removing when there is a present on the same item. Once the migration of the easy matches are complete we will be left with some residual items that don't have yet. It would be worth revisiting this discussion at that time (either as part of the current discussion on this page, if still open, or a replacement discussion) to agree what we should do with the residual entries (deprecate or delete). ( ) I find this argument to be very strange. How would you ""generate from outdated IDs""? Of course you will need to make a comparison with other remaining IDs (or other identical statements) to verify a match before inserting . However, the key distinction that you appear to be proposing is to delete ahead of the work to migrate and then attempt to repeat years of work to locate, match and insert the ID on 1.93M Wikidata items. The presence of allows us to target the migration work, so should not be removed until the migration is complete, though I am happy to support phased removal by removing when there is a present on the same item. Once the migration of the easy matches are complete we will be left with some residual items that don't have yet. It would be worth revisiting this discussion at that time (either as part of the current discussion on this page, if still open, or a replacement discussion) to agree what we should do with the residual entries (deprecate or delete). ( ) [MASK] for now, Delete once a migration to P10832 have been set up. Per the use of VIAF or LC values in the construction of Identities IDs, I personnally see little point in storing them ad vitam now that the website is dead; on the authors I have worked on, I have never see Identities linked from others authorities files. However, I think that before taking any action we should have a bot run through the current P7859 and add P10832 when there is a redirection to it. Seeing the good workd Msynbot is doing, perhaps @ : could have a look at it? -- ( ) This is doable and not too complex. However: For efficiency reasons, it would be great if someone could obtain a complete mapping table of redirects as the bot would otherwise have to request almost 2 million URLs from the source. There should be consensus to do this, which is apparently not the case at the moment (see above). — ( ) This is doable and not too complex. However: For efficiency reasons, it would be great if someone could obtain a complete mapping table of redirects as the bot would otherwise have to request almost 2 million URLs from the source. There should be consensus to do this, which is apparently not the case at the moment (see above). For efficiency reasons, it would be great if someone could obtain a complete mapping table of redirects as the bot would otherwise have to request almost 2 million URLs from the source. There should be consensus to do this, which is apparently not the case at the moment (see above). — ( ) [MASK] and link to archived page . WorldCat identities indexed the names of entities in languages other than English, and as far as I can tell WorldCat entities is effectively English-only. Take a look, for example, at the item for محمّد سعد الله خان کھيتران: ; this person's name in their native language Saraiki was on their WorldCat identities page but not on the entities page. While it may be noted that the Library of Congress link lists 6 native labels, 5 out of 6 of them are incomplete and/or spelled incorrectly. Most writers of languages that are not one of a few widely spoken ones like English, French, etc. have erroneous information recorded throughout in their records in various databases. So we could really use any and all links to information which can be cross referenced to help determine the correct information. When and if this information is available via WorldCat entities is when the deletion of this property should be discussed. [MASK] and link to archived page . WorldCat identities indexed the names of entities in languages other than English, and as far as I can tell WorldCat entities is effectively English-only. Take a look, for example, at the item for محمّد سعد الله خان کھيتران: ; this person's name in their native language Saraiki was on their WorldCat identities page but not on the entities page. While it may be noted that the Library of Congress link lists 6 native labels, 5 out of 6 of them are incomplete and/or spelled incorrectly. Most writers of languages that are not one of a few widely spoken ones like English, French, etc. have erroneous information recorded throughout in their records in various databases. So we could really use any and all links to information which can be cross referenced to help determine the correct information. When and if this information is available via WorldCat entities is when the deletion of this property should be discussed. ( ) Delete . Before deletion we need a bot to make sure that every item with a beginning 'viaf' or 'lccn' also has a corresponding or . Normally I would prefer to [MASK] old identifiers, especially if they redirect to new identifiers, but has a very high conflation rate. Of 488 values added to items on my watchlist, I deprecated 62 for conflation, which is 12.7%. Using redirects from to add would result in many errors. I agree with Kolja24 that it would be better to find using more reliable identifiers such as . -- ( ) I've rechecked the values that I deprecated for conflation. Now they all redirect to correct Worldcat Entities that are not conflated. Therefore I no longer oppose using the redirects to migrate from to , although Worldcat Entities usually already have Wikidata IDs on them, which might be a better way to migrate if we had access to the Worldcat data. I still don't think will be any use in the long term, but deletion can wait until after migration. -- ( ) I've rechecked the values that I deprecated for conflation. Now they all redirect to correct Worldcat Entities that are not conflated. Therefore I no longer oppose using the redirects to migrate from to , although Worldcat Entities usually already have Wikidata IDs on them, which might be a better way to migrate if we had access to the Worldcat data. I still don't think will be any use in the long term, but deletion can wait until after migration. -- ( ) Delete , Worldcat Identities project is taken down. -- weak [MASK] , until migration is done. After it is done, another deletion discussion can take place. ( ) What migration? What migration? I'm clear here for [MASK]. [MASK] -- ( ) When you have time, consider providing a reason? When you have time, consider providing a reason? Delete , dubious quality, lack of sources. If derived from viaf or lccn use these instead. [MASK] Worldcat Identities redirects in most cases to Worldcat Entities. Absolutely essential. ( ) @Grimes2: A rar visitor. How did you find this discussion? Comment BTW: P7859 and P10832 should be displayed one below the other so that the comparison is easier. @Grimes2: A rar visitor. How did you find this discussion? Comment BTW: P7859 and P10832 should be displayed one below the other so that the comparison is easier. [MASK] : Certain until P10832 is populated following a migration strategy. Especially uaeful when the p7859 refirects to the new P10832 entity. -- Comment : May I be so bold as to venture that the evidence it overwhelming that P7859 is retained until P10832 is populated. There is then the question of what is using the P7859 value out of Wikidata? Is it only the authority control template or something else? While that debate may not be helpful a more productive approach might be to agree a roadmap on how P10832 is to be populated. There's bits of that spread throughout the above vote but it would be helpful to see an agreed way forward in one place. That is focus on getting P10832 populated rather than P7859 [MASK]. Thankyou. -- : , = = 5 IDs = many things, but no mountain in Antarctica. Most WorldCat Identities IDs were imported through other IDs and never checked. The only thing that is overwhelming is bad quality of this property. Taking a secondary source for migration while Wikidata has the original source (LCAuth etc.) would be counterproductive. It's a basic rule: Use citable and original sources! -- ( ) P7859's which redirrect to viaf and not worldcat entities are of no/limited use in determine P10832. P7859 which redirect to worldcat entries are more useful. I have no clue about any P7859 value not directing to a worldcat entity. And I'd love to look at this more but I've not got the resource. Thankyou. -- : , = = 5 IDs = many things, but no mountain in Antarctica. Most WorldCat Identities IDs were imported through other IDs and never checked. The only thing that is overwhelming is bad quality of this property. Taking a secondary source for migration while Wikidata has the original source (LCAuth etc.) would be counterproductive. It's a basic rule: Use citable and original sources! -- ( ) P7859's which redirrect to viaf and not worldcat entities are of no/limited use in determine P10832. P7859 which redirect to worldcat entries are more useful. I have no clue about any P7859 value not directing to a worldcat entity. And I'd love to look at this more but I've not got the resource. Thankyou. -- P7859's which redirrect to viaf and not worldcat entities are of no/limited use in determine P10832. P7859 which redirect to worldcat entries are more useful. I have no clue about any P7859 value not directing to a worldcat entity. And I'd love to look at this more but I've not got the resource. Thankyou. -- [MASK] as per previous comments. I think it's of high importance for archival use and it could simply be modified to use a ""Depreciated rank"" instead of being removed (like many of the old Google-related IDs). Also noticed a user has been gung ho on deleting these before a consensus has been reached. I hope he's as motivated to restore them if the decision is made to [MASK]. -- ( ) Due to an unexpected need to clear some of my to-do list I've boldy gone ahead and added the P10832's needed by the set 90 artcles needed it in Wikiquote. I had to do a handful manually and a frequent reason was the Wolrdcat entity not having an English Label. Done -- Due to an unexpected need to clear some of my to-do list I've boldy gone ahead and added the P10832's needed by the set 90 artcles needed it in Wikiquote. I had to do a handful manually and a frequent reason was the Wolrdcat entity not having an English Label. Done -- Hi @ :, the removals I performed today of a few thousands of values (which are BTW concluded) where based on 3 criteria: 1) IDs which, due to botched format, were invalid or anyway unusable to get new P10832 values ( + ); 2) IDs which were present in items not containing a ID ( ) - on the basis of the reasoning that, in many cases, it could have happened that the VIAF ID from which the WorldCat ID was copied could have been removed because of a mismatch or a conflation and thus the WorldCat ID could be itself a mismatch or a conflation; 3) IDs which were referenced with a ID which is not present anymore in the item (all the other batches of today) - on the basis of the reasoning that, in many cases, it could have happened that the VIAF ID from which the WorldCat ID was copied could have been removed because of a mismatch or a conflation and thus the WorldCat ID could be itself a mismatch or a conflation. If we want to adopt caution in the import of WorldCat Entities IDs from WorldCat Identities IDs, I though that the above cases are doubtful enough to be excluded from the conversion, and thus were to be removed (this is especially true for cases 1 and 3). -- 13:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC) P.S. and removes only deprecated values, which are surely not suitable for conversion to P10832. -- I think you might consider what it says in . Speficially deprecating but not deleting properties that are ""now known to be wrong, but were once thought correct"". What is your reason why your deletions are distinguishable from the general rule? -- ( ) The usefullness of keeping as deprecated the IDs which are obsolete or inexact because of a conflation lies mainly in avoiding that they are readded with normal rank; since here the database is defunct, there is no risk of readdition. Since the discussion above is mainly centered on the need of keeping these IDs only because they are useful for finding new P10832 values, it follows that the IDs which cannot be used for this aim, or that would be harmful if used for this aim (because they could lead to adding mismatched IDs), should be [MASK], IMHO. -- I think you might consider what it says in . Speficially deprecating but not deleting properties that are ""now known to be wrong, but were once thought correct"". What is your reason why your deletions are distinguishable from the general rule? -- ( ) The usefullness of keeping as deprecated the IDs which are obsolete or inexact because of a conflation lies mainly in avoiding that they are readded with normal rank; since here the database is defunct, there is no risk of readdition. Since the discussion above is mainly centered on the need of keeping these IDs only because they are useful for finding new P10832 values, it follows that the IDs which cannot be used for this aim, or that would be harmful if used for this aim (because they could lead to adding mismatched IDs), should be [MASK], IMHO. -- The usefullness of keeping as deprecated the IDs which are obsolete or inexact because of a conflation lies mainly in avoiding that they are readded with normal rank; since here the database is defunct, there is no risk of readdition. Since the discussion above is mainly centered on the need of keeping these IDs only because they are useful for finding new P10832 values, it follows that the IDs which cannot be used for this aim, or that would be harmful if used for this aim (because they could lead to adding mismatched IDs), should be [MASK], IMHO. -- @ : you shouldn't be removing this property while this deletion request is still open. That's really bad practice and as an administrator on this project you should lead by example. What you should do is apologize for being to early, undo your batches and wait for a not involved administrator to close the deletion request. ( ) Hi @ :, I partially agree. I apologize for the batch numbered 2 ( ), which removed the IDs which were present in items not containing a ID, and I'm now undoing it; although I'm still convinced that some percentage of these IDs is surely there because a VIAF was previously present, then was removed because it was perceived as imprecise or conflated, but the WorldCat Identities ID still remained there, I have effectively no precise clue of how high this percentage is, so I think it is reasonable restoring the entire batch. However, for the other batches I personally don't agree, for the following reason: leaving aside the fact that the property is being [MASK], I am still convinced for the above motivations that the IDs removed in the batches 1 and 3 have never been pertinent to the item containing them and thus had to be removed simply because they were mismatched; restoring them and using them for copying new P10832 values could lead to worse conflations, as I (and others) have explained above. For more context, I have recently also removed a which were conflated (per ) and I have received no complaint so far; I repeat, it is not a matter of removing values of a identifier proposed for deletion, it is a matter of removing IDs which are mismatched (an operation which is commonly done for identifiers not proposed for deletion). Of course, if you have evidence that my reasoning is wrong and that the IDs removed in batches 1 and 3 are not mismatched, I will apologize also for them and I will immediately undo them. Thanks, -- That's fine with me. ( ) Hi @ :, I partially agree. I apologize for the batch numbered 2 ( ), which removed the IDs which were present in items not containing a ID, and I'm now undoing it; although I'm still convinced that some percentage of these IDs is surely there because a VIAF was previously present, then was removed because it was perceived as imprecise or conflated, but the WorldCat Identities ID still remained there, I have effectively no precise clue of how high this percentage is, so I think it is reasonable restoring the entire batch. However, for the other batches I personally don't agree, for the following reason: leaving aside the fact that the property is being [MASK], I am still convinced for the above motivations that the IDs removed in the batches 1 and 3 have never been pertinent to the item containing them and thus had to be removed simply because they were mismatched; restoring them and using them for copying new P10832 values could lead to worse conflations, as I (and others) have explained above. For more context, I have recently also removed a which were conflated (per ) and I have received no complaint so far; I repeat, it is not a matter of removing values of a identifier proposed for deletion, it is a matter of removing IDs which are mismatched (an operation which is commonly done for identifiers not proposed for deletion). Of course, if you have evidence that my reasoning is wrong and that the IDs removed in batches 1 and 3 are not mismatched, I will apologize also for them and I will immediately undo them. Thanks, -- That's fine with me. ( ) That's fine with me. ( ) P7859 elements will be removed when they refer to ""viaf values"" ... ""viag*. These appears to provide no additional help in identify a P10832 value that the P214 value itself does not already provide. -- P7859 values that are of the form ""lccn*"" are not being removed, certainly at this stage, even if they do not currently provide a link a WorldCat Entity Id. -- 23:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC) VIAF itself at times requires data cleansing; I think VIAF sometimes has duplicate Id's that need to be merged. -- @ : of course I confirm that unfortunately VIAF has a lot of duplications (and conflations, more worryingly); regarding the two previous points, it's not exactly what I meant in point 3, I try to explain it differently: nearly all WorldCat Identities values have been imported from VIAF values - so, in cases where the VIAF value A used to import a WorldCat Identities value X isn't present anymore in item Z, my batches just removed the WorldCat Identities value X (whichever form it had, either ""viaf-"" or ""lccn-""), on the basis of the high risk that X was probably a residuate of a conflation of item Z with VIAF value A representing different entities. -- In this case (as for every other case) we look at the LCCN value, ""lccn-no2012115736"". That links to that is redirected to the . Thus P10832 is a candidate for the value of P10832 and quite frankly The fact that the WorldCat Identity record says it is associated with Wikidata item id Q6243526. Thus I have every confidence P10832 could be rightfully set to the value of ""E39PCjD79fj4FJ7m3KHHvFBWrC]"" for Q6243526 regards of any mess with state of P7859. In many ways it is easier to focus on getting a value P10832 set rather than migrating it from P7859. P7859 is simply one method that might allow this to happen eeficiently. – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). I fear the case of is bit more intricate, because also ""viaf-"" IDs can be used sometimes to get valid P10832; in this case, 2 out of 5 ""viaf-"" IDs pointed to presently valid P10832 (so, in fact, P10832 is at least triple for this person presently). In fact: viaf-4896153063221319320008 = viaf-288715031 = viaf-306425053 = ; but lccn-no2012115736 = + viaf-1792159474074827660233 = + viaf-610152636065020050681 = . -- I fear the case of is bit more intricate, because also ""viaf-"" IDs can be used sometimes to get valid P10832; in this case, 2 out of 5 ""viaf-"" IDs pointed to presently valid P10832 (so, in fact, P10832 is at least triple for this person presently). In fact: viaf-4896153063221319320008 = viaf-288715031 = viaf-306425053 = ; but lccn-no2012115736 = + viaf-1792159474074827660233 = + viaf-610152636065020050681 = . -- IDs leading to (e.g. ) IDs leading to a VIAF cluster (e.g. ) IDs leading to a WorldCat Entities entity (e.g. ) @@ :: I thank you for looking at this in a practical way and I must apologise for the limited time I can put in on this. My focus is on ""can-do"" of population of accurate P10832 values rather than the removal of other values that are potentially of some us/partial use in P10832 population. I acknowledge that work entities are more problematic in general and that where P7859 yields not found there is a high chance of issues with other identifiers as well, your identification of case 1 indicating an issue at a bigger level that P7859 and probably ought to be dealt with holistically. Equally an lccn-xxxxx-xxxx with two dashes while leading to not found is in case 1 but can sometimes be resolved by converting the second hyphen to a zero. In terms of your case two example that links to a personal VIAF id and id like to spend time looking at that in detail but I am concerned that case does not extrapolate to every case in that identified group and that in some cases retention might help resolve difficulties. In terms of your example of exemplified removals I take the case of where the P7839 entry indicates a WorldCat Entity Id. record might exist. Doing a person search for WorldCat Entities] yields Its then important to verify the data in E39PBJtmpJmHRBf7MYHXXWM9Dq matches what is held in the Wikidata item record, e.g. (VIAF ID=""303829074"", GND ID=""115196137"" ...) and it is safe to set P10832 to ""E39PBJtmpJmHRBf7MYHXXWM9Dq"". And that comes on the references to set for P18032. It is possibly useful to set a value to indicate P10832 wwas derived from a WorldCar redirect (on a particualr date), but it would also be useful to indicate that the contents of the WorldCat Entity Id.record contains referneces that indicate corresoonds to the Wikidata Item Id. This is not a reference of the form the GND database has a reference to WorldCat Entity Id (which would be nice but at least isn't happening for the moment) but rather that WorldCat Entity Id record confirms it correspond to GND ID which the Wikidata Id also confirms in relates to. In summary I will b opposing removals certainly for the moment but will be supporting proceeding with case (3) for person entities especially if referencing is agreed and ideally if a method of automation validation can be agreeed. Thankyou. -- find P10832 through : use the links in the third column of to find P10832 values and add them with references constructed in this way: + + find P10832 through : use the links in the third column of to find P10832 values and add them with references constructed in this way: + + find P10832 through P7859: use the links in the third column of to find P10832 values and add them with references constructed in this way: + delete P7859 values in main statements (query: ) and references containing P7859 values (query: ) delete P7859 I like this series of steps! I am attempting to compile lists of values with respect to the first three steps, although I don't know how fast I can make this compilation happen. ( ) So preparation of Step 1 is almost done: the bot code is ready to be tested and the list of P244 values is almost done being checked against WorldCat, so I hope that within the next few days I can start that part of the migration. (Thanks @ : for doing some early QS runs for that step!) ( ) Alright, for those P7859 values containing ""lccn-"" that resolve to P10832 values , step 1 and step 4 (with respect to main statements) have begun. ( ) As part of point 3 the above plan, of which points 1 and 2 have now been completed, I will tomorrow start a batch removing nearly 4.5k ""nc"" and ""np"" values, which cannot be converted into . I will link it here. . As part of point 3 the above plan, of which points 1 and 2 have now been completed, I will tomorrow start a batch removing nearly 4.5k ""nc"" and ""np"" values, which cannot be converted into . I will link it here. . Imho the VIAF based IDs should be removed since VIAF is a cluster which also contains namesakes. -- ( ) Mahir, can your bot detect when viaf-something redirects to viaf.org? I would favor a deletion in these cases, if the viaf id is present in P214. ( ) As a precisation, in I meant that no one had spoken out against the migration after the bot run had started; you are right observing that I did not specify explicitly ""after the bot run had started"". For the remainder, I am still convinced of what I wrote there. -- But now I have spoken out against this bot run and therefore I continue to demand that this run be stopped immediately and that a proper vote be held on whether this migration is wanted or not. If does not stop the bot run within 24 hours, I will post a complaint on the administrator board. -- ( ) There was a thorough discussion and the bot does a good job. No reason to stop it because of a single user. -- ( ) There was no discussion, at least none in which the opposing side, which was clearly against any deletion, was even heard. As already mentioned, the deletion advocates are looking for a way around this so that the deletion can be carried out without consensus. The fact that this is being done by two administrators is, in my view, outrageous. Based on my experience, I am used to nothing less from , but I am more than disappointed with . And the fact that the other administrators on the admin board did not even ask for a statement from the two of them is beyond audacity and shows once again that administrators are favored here and are seen as infallible. ( ) But now I have spoken out against this bot run and therefore I continue to demand that this run be stopped immediately and that a proper vote be held on whether this migration is wanted or not. If does not stop the bot run within 24 hours, I will post a complaint on the administrator board. -- ( ) There was a thorough discussion and the bot does a good job. No reason to stop it because of a single user. -- ( ) There was no discussion, at least none in which the opposing side, which was clearly against any deletion, was even heard. As already mentioned, the deletion advocates are looking for a way around this so that the deletion can be carried out without consensus. The fact that this is being done by two administrators is, in my view, outrageous. Based on my experience, I am used to nothing less from , but I am more than disappointed with . And the fact that the other administrators on the admin board did not even ask for a statement from the two of them is beyond audacity and shows once again that administrators are favored here and are seen as infallible. ( ) There was a thorough discussion and the bot does a good job. No reason to stop it because of a single user. -- ( ) There was no discussion, at least none in which the opposing side, which was clearly against any deletion, was even heard. As already mentioned, the deletion advocates are looking for a way around this so that the deletion can be carried out without consensus. The fact that this is being done by two administrators is, in my view, outrageous. Based on my experience, I am used to nothing less from , but I am more than disappointed with . And the fact that the other administrators on the admin board did not even ask for a statement from the two of them is beyond audacity and shows once again that administrators are favored here and are seen as infallible. ( ) There was no discussion, at least none in which the opposing side, which was clearly against any deletion, was even heard. As already mentioned, the deletion advocates are looking for a way around this so that the deletion can be carried out without consensus. The fact that this is being done by two administrators is, in my view, outrageous. Based on my experience, I am used to nothing less from , but I am more than disappointed with . And the fact that the other administrators on the admin board did not even ask for a statement from the two of them is beyond audacity and shows once again that administrators are favored here and are seen as infallible. ( ) ids starting viaf- ids starting lccn- ids starting with something else Presently, out of 530901 values of P7859, with viaf- and with lccn-. Thank you. The first query restricted to humans and those where the part of the id after viaf- is also present in P214 : 244280 results. ( ) Thank you. The first query restricted to humans and those where the part of the id after viaf- is also present in P214 : 244280 results. ( ) viaf- : redirect to viaf lccn- : not found present: P7859 can be removed not present: in case of VIAF - remove, since it is only a cluster ID in case of LC test if the value exists in WD somewhere else if not in WD, test if it exists in source if in source, test if it could be added to an existing item in case of VIAF - remove, since it is only a cluster ID in case of LC test if the value exists in WD somewhere else if not in WD, test if it exists in source if in source, test if it could be added to an existing item test if the value exists in WD somewhere else if not in WD, test if it exists in source if in source, test if it could be added to an existing item I agree, IMHO you can proceed removing all the ""present"" ones. +1. No use to [MASK] redirects to VIAF. -- ( ) +1. No use to [MASK] redirects to VIAF. -- ( ) some P214 exists : 1592 results the first result is ""Paul Oskar Kristeller ( )"" - redirects to - that value is ""present"" in P214. 1354 are humans - of these 859 have a GND , 1068 an ISNI , 680 a LC and 559 WorldCat Entities I suggest to remove the P7859 values - P214 is probably better maintained, P7859 could be 1) redirect to a value ""present"" in P214 2) wrong, 3) be another value or a redirect to another value - but when several values for the same item exist, the cluster is maybe more likely to be merge later - opinion? remove? who would check these otherwise? the first result is ""Paul Oskar Kristeller ( )"" - redirects to - that value is ""present"" in P214. 1354 are humans - of these 859 have a GND , 1068 an ISNI , 680 a LC and 559 WorldCat Entities I suggest to remove the P7859 values - P214 is probably better maintained, P7859 could be 1) redirect to a value ""present"" in P214 2) wrong, 3) be another value or a redirect to another value - but when several values for the same item exist, the cluster is maybe more likely to be merge later - opinion? remove? who would check these otherwise? no P214 exists : 344 results of these 295 are humans - none has WorldCat Entities for the first two (Emilio Rúa ( ), Jens G. Nørby ( )) the link redirected to WorldCat Entities, I added that value and added the viaf- value to P214 and in VIAF an ISNI was present which I added too. in case of the former two and others (""Jan Skiba"" ( ), ""Dimitris Kavroudakis"" ( )) the value had been removed by Epidosis but the removal undone by him several that I checked never had P214 before, so someone added these directly from WorldCat, so they probably have at least one work there, the accuracy could be higher than from normal P214-name-matches the 295 values could probably be copied to P214 and have the same error rate or lower as when humans normally add a value to P214 I started reviewing the 295 manually, down to 263 now. of these 295 are humans - none has WorldCat Entities for the first two (Emilio Rúa ( ), Jens G. Nørby ( )) the link redirected to WorldCat Entities, I added that value and added the viaf- value to P214 and in VIAF an ISNI was present which I added too. in case of the former two and others (""Jan Skiba"" ( ), ""Dimitris Kavroudakis"" ( )) the value had been removed by Epidosis but the removal undone by him several that I checked never had P214 before, so someone added these directly from WorldCat, so they probably have at least one work there, the accuracy could be higher than from normal P214-name-matches the 295 values could probably be copied to P214 and have the same error rate or lower as when humans normally add a value to P214 I started reviewing the 295 manually, down to 263 now. I agree about the need of checking manually the point 2 (fortunately not many items), thanks for doing it @ :. For point 1, I agree that in the great great majority of cases we should expect the value of P214 to be correct, or at least more correct than P7859, so I would support removing them. BTW: There are also two types of errors: with viaf-183149717630410952230 = IdRef , other person. ; is a redirect but with the result ""Entity not found"" (see ). -- ( ) Sorry, I made more clear what my comment from today referred to, by adding in front of it "" VIAF - 2024-09 "" - so I will not respond to Demmin here as it is lccn- based, lccn- analysis expected earliest tomorrow, since the removal of the ""present"" values will last until then, but not sure if I will have time tomorrow. Regarding Lucie Guerín, thank you, I also saw such errors. Sometimes I created a new item, so that the error is less likely to be made again, for L. Guerín too, there is now . ( ) BTW: There are also two types of errors: with viaf-183149717630410952230 = IdRef , other person. ; is a redirect but with the result ""Entity not found"" (see ). with viaf-183149717630410952230 = IdRef , other person. ; is a redirect but with the result ""Entity not found"" (see ). -- ( ) Sorry, I made more clear what my comment from today referred to, by adding in front of it "" VIAF - 2024-09 "" - so I will not respond to Demmin here as it is lccn- based, lccn- analysis expected earliest tomorrow, since the removal of the ""present"" values will last until then, but not sure if I will have time tomorrow. Regarding Lucie Guerín, thank you, I also saw such errors. Sometimes I created a new item, so that the error is less likely to be made again, for L. Guerín too, there is now . ( ) Sorry, I made more clear what my comment from today referred to, by adding in front of it "" VIAF - 2024-09 "" - so I will not respond to Demmin here as it is lccn- based, lccn- analysis expected earliest tomorrow, since the removal of the ""present"" values will last until then, but not sure if I will have time tomorrow. Regarding Lucie Guerín, thank you, I also saw such errors. Sometimes I created a new item, so that the error is less likely to be made again, for L. Guerín too, there is now . ( ) some P214 exists : 0 results no P214 exists : 196 results - should be visible at if the page is updated viaf- on non-humans : 0 results viaf- on humans : 89 results (value already copied to P214, but some redirect to WorldCat - manual verification ongoing) viaf- on non-humans : 0 results viaf- on humans : 89 results (value already copied to P214, but some redirect to WorldCat - manual verification ongoing) ( ) down to 39 ( ) down to 39 ( ) new items created, because P7859 was misplaced corresponding P214 was deprecated and marked conflated - value [MASK] corresponding P214 claim created, and from VIAF, if present added ISNI, GND, IDref, BnF, LC, BNE, sometimes PLWABN Thank you! Each of these cases belongs to the batches named ""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244"". I added a section headline before your comment. Will respond more later. ( ) @ : Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to finish the work on viaf- first. I am an opponent of removal without adding P10832 see my comment above from 2024-05-15 in section ""Continued batch removal of IDs that can be replaced"". I reviewed more than 295 human items manually, it was tedious and no pleasure, see above searching for 295. see my comment above from 2024-05-15 in section ""Continued batch removal of IDs that can be replaced"". I reviewed more than 295 human items manually, it was tedious and no pleasure, see above searching for 295. Regarding lccn- : I did check dozens of lccn- manually before, and only found redirects to viaf.org that resulted in ""not found"". Mahir (see above) had a bot running following these redirects and adding P10832 I did check dozens of lccn- manually before, and only found redirects to viaf.org that resulted in ""not found"". Mahir (see above) had a bot running following these redirects and adding P10832 The three cases you provided (thanks again!) indicate, that possibly more P10832 exist for none-human items that had a P7859 value. Since the removal was done by QS batches the removal statements could be downloaded and the P7859 values be looked up by a bot. Each batch is named ""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244"". ( ) The truth is that we have known before that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent. All I could do was manually add the WCE record for the 19 Hungarian counties, with , but I don't want to retrieve the IDs [MASK] from the settlements. This would be followed by the organizations of which I have listed three here, but approx. there were ten that I checked and found a WCE record for nine (regardless of whether the redirection worked or not). And I emphasize that these are only on the margins of the data mass, what about the rest? My suspicion is that now hundreds of thousands of values ​​have been [MASK] that would have helped us to see which elements might have a WCE record. ( ) Re ""The truth is that we have known before that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work."" - who is this group of ""we"", why wasn't I included? Re ""My suspicion is that now hundreds of thousands of values ​​have been [MASK] that would have helped us to see which elements might have a WCE record."" - What is the basis of your ""suspicion""? The batches named ""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244"" included 119173 commands for removal, with a bit over 100 not done due to ""ERROR"". Please 1) give an example where the redirection didn't work 2) say were was that mentioned before 3) explain how P7859 could be helpful. From your mentioned batch of district I looked at the first, namely Ajka District and P7859 seems to have never been present - so I don't understand why you mention these here (same for 2nd and 3rd, didn't check any further). ( ) 1; , I'm sorry if you didn't inform me about it. Please don't delete more identifiers for now, let's develop a concept together first. 2; You're probably right, not hundreds of thousands, but ""only"" a hundred thousand (119173), but that's a lot, because we've lost so many potential connections. I'm not saying that every [MASK] LCCN P7859 had a P10832 counterpart, but I'm definitely saying that the ones that did have a connection, the deletion was a bad decision. 1; I don't understand this now: why do I have to give an example of what you yourself wrote about ""I did check dozens of lccn- manually before, and only found redirects to viaf.org that resulted in ""not found""."" Now shall I give you an example of what you found? 2; P7859 is useful because it points out that this element may have a P10832 counterpart. If we delete this (P7859), the item becomes average, no one will think to look in the WorldCat Entities database to see if there is a record there. 3; This was probably misunderstood: I did not claim that there was a P7859 cancellation in relation to the Hungarian districts, but that I myself am trying to participate in the data cleaning/matching with my modest means. But it is still true that in the case of Hungarian counties and cities, P7859 was [MASK] from several places where P10832 would have been, but was not entered. It is unfortunate, but I can only assume that this may be true in relation to the administrative units of all other countries. (If you haven't checked the districts any further, can I trust that your check will be complete in the case of the [MASK] settlements?) ( ) Hope this addresses all (numbers don't correspond to the above numbers): Re the 119173 non-humans (""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244""): All I checked redirected to . Their placement could have been right or wrong - but there was no reference and no way to see if they were right. External IDs come mostly without references, since they are the reference itself, but if they lead to then there isn't even that kind of reference. - It is not clear how many had a redirect to a content page, despite my assumption none would have one. But since nothing is lost, first of all the value is still in P244, a bot could be run to check the redirects. A bot could check all P244 not only those that had P7859 against ""https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn- /"". So many more can potentially be found. For a start, the bot could check the 119173. Results could be: redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. Last but not least, for several human items I don't understand the value of WCE at all, e.g. . ( ) The truth is that we have known before that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent. All I could do was manually add the WCE record for the 19 Hungarian counties, with , but I don't want to retrieve the IDs [MASK] from the settlements. This would be followed by the organizations of which I have listed three here, but approx. there were ten that I checked and found a WCE record for nine (regardless of whether the redirection worked or not). And I emphasize that these are only on the margins of the data mass, what about the rest? My suspicion is that now hundreds of thousands of values ​​have been [MASK] that would have helped us to see which elements might have a WCE record. ( ) Re ""The truth is that we have known before that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work."" - who is this group of ""we"", why wasn't I included? Re ""My suspicion is that now hundreds of thousands of values ​​have been [MASK] that would have helped us to see which elements might have a WCE record."" - What is the basis of your ""suspicion""? The batches named ""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244"" included 119173 commands for removal, with a bit over 100 not done due to ""ERROR"". Please 1) give an example where the redirection didn't work 2) say were was that mentioned before 3) explain how P7859 could be helpful. From your mentioned batch of district I looked at the first, namely Ajka District and P7859 seems to have never been present - so I don't understand why you mention these here (same for 2nd and 3rd, didn't check any further). ( ) 1; , I'm sorry if you didn't inform me about it. Please don't delete more identifiers for now, let's develop a concept together first. 2; You're probably right, not hundreds of thousands, but ""only"" a hundred thousand (119173), but that's a lot, because we've lost so many potential connections. I'm not saying that every [MASK] LCCN P7859 had a P10832 counterpart, but I'm definitely saying that the ones that did have a connection, the deletion was a bad decision. 1; I don't understand this now: why do I have to give an example of what you yourself wrote about ""I did check dozens of lccn- manually before, and only found redirects to viaf.org that resulted in ""not found""."" Now shall I give you an example of what you found? 2; P7859 is useful because it points out that this element may have a P10832 counterpart. If we delete this (P7859), the item becomes average, no one will think to look in the WorldCat Entities database to see if there is a record there. 3; This was probably misunderstood: I did not claim that there was a P7859 cancellation in relation to the Hungarian districts, but that I myself am trying to participate in the data cleaning/matching with my modest means. But it is still true that in the case of Hungarian counties and cities, P7859 was [MASK] from several places where P10832 would have been, but was not entered. It is unfortunate, but I can only assume that this may be true in relation to the administrative units of all other countries. (If you haven't checked the districts any further, can I trust that your check will be complete in the case of the [MASK] settlements?) ( ) Hope this addresses all (numbers don't correspond to the above numbers): Re the 119173 non-humans (""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244""): All I checked redirected to . Their placement could have been right or wrong - but there was no reference and no way to see if they were right. External IDs come mostly without references, since they are the reference itself, but if they lead to then there isn't even that kind of reference. - It is not clear how many had a redirect to a content page, despite my assumption none would have one. But since nothing is lost, first of all the value is still in P244, a bot could be run to check the redirects. A bot could check all P244 not only those that had P7859 against ""https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn- /"". So many more can potentially be found. For a start, the bot could check the 119173. Results could be: redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. Last but not least, for several human items I don't understand the value of WCE at all, e.g. . ( ) Re ""The truth is that we have known before that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work."" - who is this group of ""we"", why wasn't I included? Re ""My suspicion is that now hundreds of thousands of values ​​have been [MASK] that would have helped us to see which elements might have a WCE record."" - What is the basis of your ""suspicion""? The batches named ""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244"" included 119173 commands for removal, with a bit over 100 not done due to ""ERROR"". Please 1) give an example where the redirection didn't work 2) say were was that mentioned before 3) explain how P7859 could be helpful. From your mentioned batch of district I looked at the first, namely Ajka District and P7859 seems to have never been present - so I don't understand why you mention these here (same for 2nd and 3rd, didn't check any further). ( ) 1; , I'm sorry if you didn't inform me about it. Please don't delete more identifiers for now, let's develop a concept together first. 2; You're probably right, not hundreds of thousands, but ""only"" a hundred thousand (119173), but that's a lot, because we've lost so many potential connections. I'm not saying that every [MASK] LCCN P7859 had a P10832 counterpart, but I'm definitely saying that the ones that did have a connection, the deletion was a bad decision. 1; I don't understand this now: why do I have to give an example of what you yourself wrote about ""I did check dozens of lccn- manually before, and only found redirects to viaf.org that resulted in ""not found""."" Now shall I give you an example of what you found? 2; P7859 is useful because it points out that this element may have a P10832 counterpart. If we delete this (P7859), the item becomes average, no one will think to look in the WorldCat Entities database to see if there is a record there. 3; This was probably misunderstood: I did not claim that there was a P7859 cancellation in relation to the Hungarian districts, but that I myself am trying to participate in the data cleaning/matching with my modest means. But it is still true that in the case of Hungarian counties and cities, P7859 was [MASK] from several places where P10832 would have been, but was not entered. It is unfortunate, but I can only assume that this may be true in relation to the administrative units of all other countries. (If you haven't checked the districts any further, can I trust that your check will be complete in the case of the [MASK] settlements?) ( ) Hope this addresses all (numbers don't correspond to the above numbers): Re the 119173 non-humans (""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244""): All I checked redirected to . Their placement could have been right or wrong - but there was no reference and no way to see if they were right. External IDs come mostly without references, since they are the reference itself, but if they lead to then there isn't even that kind of reference. - It is not clear how many had a redirect to a content page, despite my assumption none would have one. But since nothing is lost, first of all the value is still in P244, a bot could be run to check the redirects. A bot could check all P244 not only those that had P7859 against ""https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn- /"". So many more can potentially be found. For a start, the bot could check the 119173. Results could be: redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. Last but not least, for several human items I don't understand the value of WCE at all, e.g. . ( ) 1; , I'm sorry if you didn't inform me about it. Please don't delete more identifiers for now, let's develop a concept together first. 2; You're probably right, not hundreds of thousands, but ""only"" a hundred thousand (119173), but that's a lot, because we've lost so many potential connections. I'm not saying that every [MASK] LCCN P7859 had a P10832 counterpart, but I'm definitely saying that the ones that did have a connection, the deletion was a bad decision. 1; I don't understand this now: why do I have to give an example of what you yourself wrote about ""I did check dozens of lccn- manually before, and only found redirects to viaf.org that resulted in ""not found""."" Now shall I give you an example of what you found? 2; P7859 is useful because it points out that this element may have a P10832 counterpart. If we delete this (P7859), the item becomes average, no one will think to look in the WorldCat Entities database to see if there is a record there. 3; This was probably misunderstood: I did not claim that there was a P7859 cancellation in relation to the Hungarian districts, but that I myself am trying to participate in the data cleaning/matching with my modest means. But it is still true that in the case of Hungarian counties and cities, P7859 was [MASK] from several places where P10832 would have been, but was not entered. It is unfortunate, but I can only assume that this may be true in relation to the administrative units of all other countries. (If you haven't checked the districts any further, can I trust that your check will be complete in the case of the [MASK] settlements?) ( ) Hope this addresses all (numbers don't correspond to the above numbers): Re the 119173 non-humans (""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244""): All I checked redirected to . Their placement could have been right or wrong - but there was no reference and no way to see if they were right. External IDs come mostly without references, since they are the reference itself, but if they lead to then there isn't even that kind of reference. - It is not clear how many had a redirect to a content page, despite my assumption none would have one. But since nothing is lost, first of all the value is still in P244, a bot could be run to check the redirects. A bot could check all P244 not only those that had P7859 against ""https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn- /"". So many more can potentially be found. For a start, the bot could check the 119173. Results could be: redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. Last but not least, for several human items I don't understand the value of WCE at all, e.g. . ( ) Hope this addresses all (numbers don't correspond to the above numbers): Re the 119173 non-humans (""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244""): All I checked redirected to . Their placement could have been right or wrong - but there was no reference and no way to see if they were right. External IDs come mostly without references, since they are the reference itself, but if they lead to then there isn't even that kind of reference. - It is not clear how many had a redirect to a content page, despite my assumption none would have one. But since nothing is lost, first of all the value is still in P244, a bot could be run to check the redirects. A bot could check all P244 not only those that had P7859 against ""https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn- /"". So many more can potentially be found. For a start, the bot could check the 119173. Results could be: redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. Last but not least, for several human items I don't understand the value of WCE at all, e.g. . Re the 119173 non-humans (""not q5 -P7859 lccn- if corresponding lc value in P244""): All I checked redirected to . Their placement could have been right or wrong - but there was no reference and no way to see if they were right. External IDs come mostly without references, since they are the reference itself, but if they lead to then there isn't even that kind of reference. - It is not clear how many had a redirect to a content page, despite my assumption none would have one. But since nothing is lost, first of all the value is still in P244, a bot could be run to check the redirects. A bot could check all P244 not only those that had P7859 against ""https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn- /"". So many more can potentially be found. For a start, the bot could check the 119173. Results could be: redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. redirect to a value for P10832 exists: the value can be added redirect to a value for P10832 does not exist: how the presence of P7859 would help? You wrote ""that many LCCN IDs have a Worldcat Entity even if the redirection does not work. For example, I only deal with elements related to Hungary, and within that, only those that are on my watch list, that is, a very small part of the entire stock, but I had a WCE record for 90 percent of the elements that I just reviewed, and if we look at public administrative units, then 100 percent."" - please give an example. For the districts you found WCE without P7859. Last but not least, for several human items I don't understand the value of WCE at all, e.g. . ( ) : my combined answer: : my combined answer: : my combined answer: : my combined answer: : my combined answer: : my combined answer: The significance of the presence of P7859 is that it indicates that this item may have a record in the WCE database. Whether the redirection works and it is easy to determine which is the related P10832 record, or the redirection does not work and only a unique search to determine the P10832 record is irrelevant. P7859 is a signal. When you delete P7859 without P10832 in the element, we lose a potential connection. The significance of the presence of P7859 is that it indicates that this item may have a record in the WCE database. Whether the redirection works and it is easy to determine which is the related P10832 record, or the redirection does not work and only a unique search to determine the P10832 record is irrelevant. P7859 is a signal. When you delete P7859 without P10832 in the element, we lose a potential connection. The significance of the presence of P7859 is that it indicates that this item may have a record in the WCE database. Whether the redirection works and it is easy to determine which is the related P10832 record, or the redirection does not work and only a unique search to determine the P10832 record is irrelevant. P7859 is a signal. When you delete P7859 without P10832 in the element, we lose a potential connection. The significance of the presence of P7859 is that it indicates that this item may have a record in the WCE database. Whether the redirection works and it is easy to determine which is the related P10832 record, or the redirection does not work and only a unique search to determine the P10832 record is irrelevant. P7859 is a signal. When you delete P7859 without P10832 in the element, we lose a potential connection. The significance of the presence of P7859 is that it indicates that this item may have a record in the WCE database. Whether the redirection works and it is easy to determine which is the related P10832 record, or the redirection does not work and only a unique search to determine the P10832 record is irrelevant. P7859 is a signal. When you delete P7859 without P10832 in the element, we lose a potential connection. The significance of the presence of P7859 is that it indicates that this item may have a record in the WCE database. Whether the redirection works and it is easy to determine which is the related P10832 record, or the redirection does not work and only a unique search to determine the P10832 record is irrelevant. P7859 is a signal. When you delete P7859 without P10832 in the element, we lose a potential connection. I see that the WCE database is also developing. I have also been dealing with pairing for months, but only on the marginal line I mentioned earlier. My view is definitely that there are more and more items in WCE that weren't there before, or were there under different names. I couldn't find them before, now I can. You see that a name appears in ""text"" format (eg: X. Y.'s letter to W. Z.), but before there was no record for X. Y., now there is. Or there is no record now, but there will be later. I see that the WCE database is also developing. I have also been dealing with pairing for months, but only on the marginal line I mentioned earlier. My view is definitely that there are more and more items in WCE that weren't there before, or were there under different names. I couldn't find them before, now I can. You see that a name appears in ""text"" format (eg: X. Y.'s letter to W. Z.), but before there was no record for X. Y., now there is. Or there is no record now, but there will be later. I see that the WCE database is also developing. I have also been dealing with pairing for months, but only on the marginal line I mentioned earlier. My view is definitely that there are more and more items in WCE that weren't there before, or were there under different names. I couldn't find them before, now I can. You see that a name appears in ""text"" format (eg: X. Y.'s letter to W. Z.), but before there was no record for X. Y., now there is. Or there is no record now, but there will be later. I see that the WCE database is also developing. I have also been dealing with pairing for months, but only on the marginal line I mentioned earlier. My view is definitely that there are more and more items in WCE that weren't there before, or were there under different names. I couldn't find them before, now I can. You see that a name appears in ""text"" format (eg: X. Y.'s letter to W. Z.), but before there was no record for X. Y., now there is. Or there is no record now, but there will be later. I see that the WCE database is also developing. I have also been dealing with pairing for months, but only on the marginal line I mentioned earlier. My view is definitely that there are more and more items in WCE that weren't there before, or were there under different names. I couldn't find them before, now I can. You see that a name appears in ""text"" format (eg: X. Y.'s letter to W. Z.), but before there was no record for X. Y., now there is. Or there is no record now, but there will be later. I see that the WCE database is also developing. I have also been dealing with pairing for months, but only on the marginal line I mentioned earlier. My view is definitely that there are more and more items in WCE that weren't there before, or were there under different names. I couldn't find them before, now I can. You see that a name appears in ""text"" format (eg: X. Y.'s letter to W. Z.), but before there was no record for X. Y., now there is. Or there is no record now, but there will be later. We will only find them if we look back from time to time at the previously unpaired elements. The existence of P7859 is a big help for this, which is why I consider the recent deletions to be a serious mistake. ( ) We will only find them if we look back from time to time at the previously unpaired elements. The existence of P7859 is a big help for this, which is why I consider the recent deletions to be a serious mistake. ( ) We will only find them if we look back from time to time at the previously unpaired elements. The existence of P7859 is a big help for this, which is why I consider the recent deletions to be a serious mistake. ( ) We will only find them if we look back from time to time at the previously unpaired elements. The existence of P7859 is a big help for this, which is why I consider the recent deletions to be a serious mistake. ( ) We will only find them if we look back from time to time at the previously unpaired elements. The existence of P7859 is a big help for this, which is why I consider the recent deletions to be a serious mistake. ( ) We will only find them if we look back from time to time at the previously unpaired elements. The existence of P7859 is a big help for this, which is why I consider the recent deletions to be a serious mistake. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) P.s.: Most of what was placed by me (before you note: I was not consistent in using ""novalue"" and ""somevalue""). These indications indicate that there was P7859, so presumably there is (or will be) P10832, but when I checked this it wasn't. This mark is like a Wikidata item where you left P7859 in even though you didn't find P10832. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) Köszönöm szépen. In the WCE link one can substitute .html with . json and get structured data, this can help to check correctness of existing IDs. Today I counted humans that have P10832, it's over a 1309241, from VIAF only ISNI and GND have more and LC has a bit less. Regarding the signal I agree, deletion end of August (?) was not considering that items in WCE might exist, even if link is broken. I tried to find a download link for my QS, but couldn't find, maybe it is in editgroups which was broken, when I looked, will check again. Maybe the signal can be brought back using P10832, e.g. value unknown and a lccn- reference, similar to what you did. Unfortunately I have no software to mass check IDs, but if no one else is doing it, I *may* try to do it. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832. Why are you doing this? ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) What do you refer to? ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) For example this: or this: ... ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) These are links to items. Regarding the first, please explain ""I'm still not convinced that what you're doing is good. You delete, you delete, but you don't check if there is P10832."" ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) I don't understand what you don't understand. Do not delete identifier P7859 from elements where you cannot immediately insert P10832. This is what I ask, and this is what the community asks of you. The examples I have listed support the fact that he is constantly going against the will of the community. Please stop this. ( ) all : 64181 human : 44766 P244 exists : 6229 P244 is the same : 140 P244 is the same and P10832 exists : 29 part after lccn- contains ""-"" : 723 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 exists : 685 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 is the same when ""-"" removed : 541 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 is the same when ""-"" removed and P10832 exists : 341 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 is the same when ""-"" replaced with ""0"" : 117 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 is the same when ""-"" replaced with ""0"" and P10832 exists : 70 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 is the same when ""-"" replaced with ""00"" : 22 part after lccn- contains ""-"" and P244 is the same when ""-"" replaced with ""00"" and P10832 exists : 16 no P244 and no P10832 : 57543 Removal I checked four of the 341 - in each case redirect didn't work with ""-"" but did work without ""-"" and lead to the existing P10832. ( ) The remaining 337 processed via ( ) I checked four of the 70 - in each case redirect didn't work with ""-"" but did work with ""0"" instead and lead to the existing P10832. Remaining 68 processed via ( ) 16 removed ( ) I checked four of the 341 - in each case redirect didn't work with ""-"" but did work without ""-"" and lead to the existing P10832. ( ) The remaining 337 processed via ( ) The remaining 337 processed via ( ) I checked four of the 70 - in each case redirect didn't work with ""-"" but did work with ""0"" instead and lead to the existing P10832. Remaining 68 processed via ( ) 16 removed ( ) [MASK] but adjust 199 items: adjust P7859 to P244 by removing ""-"" ( ) 47 items: adjust P7859 to P244 by replacing ""-"" with ""0"" ( ) 6 items: adjust P7859 to P244 by replacing ""-"" with ""00"" ( ) 199 items: adjust P7859 to P244 by removing ""-"" ( ) 47 items: adjust P7859 to P244 by replacing ""-"" with ""0"" ( ) 6 items: adjust P7859 to P244 by replacing ""-"" with ""00"" ( ) 723 down to 38 and no P244 is present. ( ) 723 down to 0. ( ) 723 down to 0. ( ) all : 63681 human : 44271 P244 exists : 5775 P244 is the same : 369 (link with ext. URLs ) P244 is the same and P10832 exists : 0 no P244 and no P10832 : 57501 no P244 exists : 57906 @ISNIplus: Thanks for your good work. I just stumbled across the ceb issue: LCAuth was missing in since it was already added to the ceb item . LCAuth was missing in since it was already added to the ceb item . -- ( ) ""P244 is the same and P10832 exists"" increased to 180 due to copying the lccn- value to P244, first that I checked is Rheinfelden, like the Romano d'Ezzelino example. ( ) ""P244 is the same and P10832 exists"" increased to 180 due to copying the lccn- value to P244, first that I checked is Rheinfelden, like the Romano d'Ezzelino example. ( ) Thanks very much for your manual checks. Copying values to (I would suggest to leave a reference to these IDs to make it easier checking them afterwards) seems reasonable to me. I'm sure moreIdentifiers cannot ""be extended to look for WCE if P244 exists but not P10832"", since it is based exclusively on VIAF and VIAF presently doesn't take into account WCE. For P7859 lccn-links resolving to not found, maybe the program already used by @ : can be readapted to do it with not much work. Batches running for 57948 claims including ref as suggested by you, they are named ""+P244,S11797=Q76630151"". moreIdentifiers would just need a call to another URI and work with the response(s), but probably better to have a bot running, could be too many useless calls to WCE. I could create an account ISNIplusBot, and maybe adjust and run existing code. Or maybe I use a local programm, and add results via QS later. ( ) Batches running for 57948 claims including ref as suggested by you, they are named ""+P244,S11797=Q76630151"". moreIdentifiers would just need a call to another URI and work with the response(s), but probably better to have a bot running, could be too many useless calls to WCE. I could create an account ISNIplusBot, and maybe adjust and run existing code. Or maybe I use a local programm, and add results via QS later. ( ) I don't delete P7859, which has two reasons: 1) ""every item P7859 is assigned P10832"" - so you don't care if a specific P7859 redirects to a specific P10832? In two of the cases above the redirects from P7859 pointed to . 2) ""the community's support for the cancellation was not clear"" - For 2a: P7859 for which the P10832 has been added? 2b: P7859 pointing to ? ( ) all : 61685 human : 42478 P244 exists : 61605 P244 is the same : 57713 (link with ext. URLs ) P244 is the same and P10832 exists : 0 no P244 and no P10832 : 80 no P244 exists : 80 I reviewed the 80 manually, now down to 0. ( ) all : 61590 human : 42421 P244 exists : 61590 P244 is the same : 57699 (link with ext. URLs ) ?? P244 is not the same : 61590-57699=3891 (see also: ) P244 is the same and P10832 exists : 0 no P244 and no P10832 : 0 no P244 exists : 0 I agree that we can remove them. +1. -- ( ) +1. -- ( ) all : 3993 human : 2551 P244 exists : 3993 P244 is the same : 104 (link with ext. URLs ) ?? P244 is not the same : 3993-104=3889 (see also: ) P244 is the same and P10832 exists : 0 no P244 and no P10832 : 0 no P244 exists : 0 Héloïse d’Argenteuil (item with lowest ID) P7859 lccn-nr89011057 1 reference VIAF ID 71392176 redirects to Identifies RWO - found on - found on Closely Matching Concepts from Other Schemes : Wikidata Elizabeth Boyd which has nr89011057 P244 n50081967 1 reference imported from Wikimedia project Identifies RWO - found on redirects to P7859 lccn-nr89011057 1 reference VIAF ID 71392176 redirects to Identifies RWO - found on - found on Closely Matching Concepts from Other Schemes : Wikidata Elizabeth Boyd which has nr89011057 redirects to Identifies RWO - found on - found on Closely Matching Concepts from Other Schemes : Wikidata Elizabeth Boyd which has nr89011057 Identifies RWO - found on - found on - found on - found on Closely Matching Concepts from Other Schemes : Wikidata Elizabeth Boyd which has nr89011057 P244 n50081967 1 reference imported from Wikimedia project Identifies RWO - found on redirects to Identifies RWO - found on Identifies RWO - found on redirects to Julia Fitzgerald (item with highest ID) P7859 lccn-n86812674 0 references redirects to P244 n2008042997 0 references Monson, Christine - now created: Christine Monson ( ) redirects to 2023-04-18 1) the (at least now) wrong WCE was added to P7859 2) next edit replaces it with WCI based on correct LC 3) the wrong P244 was added P7859 lccn-n86812674 0 references redirects to redirects to P244 n2008042997 0 references Monson, Christine - now created: Christine Monson ( ) redirects to 2023-04-18 1) the (at least now) wrong WCE was added to P7859 2) next edit replaces it with WCI based on correct LC 3) the wrong P244 was added Monson, Christine - now created: Christine Monson ( ) redirects to redirects to 2023-04-18 1) the (at least now) wrong WCE was added to P7859 2) next edit replaces it with WCI based on correct LC 3) the wrong P244 was added Aleksandr Agin ( ) - P244 LC not found I think ""copy the P7859 value to P244 and give as ref: ""matched by identifier from [P11797] : WorldCat Identities [Q76630151]"" - the two different values will exist in P244 forcing constraint violations and make it more likely people look at the item"" could be a reasonable solution, at least in theory, but since the number of users fixing these constraint violations is very low, I would prefer not to overburden them, so I think the best option would be solving them manually without doing this passage. I found more good LC in P7859, so decided to copy. But they can still be found via query for manual review/removal. ~340 items left that link to P7859, see below. ( ) I found more good LC in P7859, so decided to copy. But they can still be found via query for manual review/removal. ~340 items left that link to P7859, see below. ( ) I reviewed the 32 format violations ( ) manually, for no value I (mostly?): added WCE and [MASK] no value moved no value to WCE added WCE and [MASK] no value moved no value to WCE Currently 308 : ( ) @Vladimir: There are like VIAF ➔ LCAuth (Ābād, fl. 1918) ➔ WorldCat Identities added to : . Later marked as ""conflation"" but it's not a conflation just the import of an unchecked ID. Wrong from the beginning. @ISNIplus: Imho all WorldCat Identities with a deprecated rank can be [MASK]. -- ( ) @ : If they have no P10832 one can look them up in WCE. Less than 240 left. Maybe we can finish that this Sunday and finally delete P7859. ( ) @ : I brought them down to 75, these 75 now via QS - During the manual phase I added several WCE, GND, ISNI, IdRef, LC IDs. ( ) @ : If they have no P10832 one can look them up in WCE. Less than 240 left. Maybe we can finish that this Sunday and finally delete P7859. ( ) @ : I brought them down to 75, these 75 now via QS - During the manual phase I added several WCE, GND, ISNI, IdRef, LC IDs. ( ) There are no P7859 left in references, everything cleaned and substituted with good sources wherever possible. Still 197 links from item pages to P7859 ( ) Still 197 links from item pages to P7859 ( ) Hi, @ . Please revert your batch . It's troubling that mismatched and erroneous identifiers ( ) were added to potentially ~ 4000 (or more) items, and even more so with the expectation that other editors become obliged to fix the errors that you introduced into Wikidata, instead of yourself, as was stated again in a revert edit summary to . Especially given the fact that you were by , "". . . but since the number of users fixing these constraint violations is very low, I would prefer not to overburden them, so I think the best option would be solving them manually without doing this passage."" Here are just a few examples: the addition of 's P244 to , the addition of the LC Name Authority File (LCNAF) identifier for Rodan (Musical group) to , and the addition of the LCNAF identifier for World Health Organization Country Office in Pakistan to . Some or all of the following additional batches introduced incorrect values of P244 into items, as well: , , , , , . -- ( ) @ : you wrote ""and even more so with the expectation that other editors become obliged to fix the errors that you introduced into Wikidata, instead of yourself, as was stated again in a revert edit summary comment to Martin (MSGJ)."" - That is just not true. Please look again. ( ) @ : you wrote 'Especially given the fact that you were advised by Epìdosis, "". . . but since the number of users fixing these constraint violations is very low, I would prefer not to overburden them, so I think the best option would be solving them manually without doing this passage.""' - you probably saw my reply there too? Why do you represent only selected facts of the reality? ( ) Awesome. -- ( ) In references the URLs containing WorldCat Identities are being converted into this property ( ); they are about 700 according to . I think it would be better cleaning them. Anyway, I think the property can be considered ready for deletion. Of course I will not close the procedure, as I am the proponent. Thank you all for the hard work in eliminating the property, Support deletion ASAP. ( ) Support deletion ASAP. (mostly) Unused property Where it is used again, the links are broken Re-appearance can also be the result of vandalism Mere existence of the property attracts useless additions as reported in the beginning of this section The usage reported by in references and conversion done by can be solved by simply letting the bot drop these references. WCI is not usable as a reference. Candidates for P10832 can be found by a SPARQL query based on ""matched by identifier from [P11797] : WorldCat Identities [Q76630151]"" -- ( ) @ : I ran the script to remove those references. Some references that the script didn't understand were skipped. Someone else can remove those or I'll do it when I have time - ( ) (mostly) Unused property Where it is used again, the links are broken Re-appearance can also be the result of vandalism Mere existence of the property attracts useless additions as reported in the beginning of this section The usage reported by in references and conversion done by can be solved by simply letting the bot drop these references. WCI is not usable as a reference. Candidates for P10832 can be found by a SPARQL query based on ""matched by identifier from [P11797] : WorldCat Identities [Q76630151]"" -- ( ) @ : I ran the script to remove those references. Some references that the script didn't understand were skipped. Someone else can remove those or I'll do it when I have time - ( ) - 75 - none from item space - 391 - none from item space ###Output: ",deleted +"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [deleted, keep, no_consensus] : ###Input: Property:P10589: Done with 10 registered users wanting deletion and only 7 opposing there a consensus to delete and we don't want Wikidata to be in legal trouble for pirated material. ( ) Done with 10 registered users wanting deletion and only 7 opposing there a consensus to delete and we don't want Wikidata to be in legal trouble for pirated material. ( ) Weak oppose Linking to a website doesn’t mean endorsing its practices. The question in this case would be whether the benefits of having this site linked outweigh the concerns about legal issues. -- Delete in the past Japanese publisher sent cease and desist letters to aggregators for Scanlation. Having this property might essentially makes us an aggregator for Scanlation and thus opens up the possibility of legal threads against Wikimedia. I think it's ideal if your community can self regulate in this regard and delete the property without needing to interact with Wikimedia legal. ❪ ❫ (Japanese publishers having sent cease and desist letters for scanlation sounds … interesting given that it’s not their – arguably monetary – rights infringed upon, but those of the author, and in Japan itself it wasn’t possible until a few years ago to take legal actions on behalf of a third party against copyright violations. Just as an aside. -- ) Scanlation websites are seldomly located in Japan, so the details of Japanese law don't matter here. ❪ ❫ Admittedly yes, therefore an aside (basically saying that they are taking advantage of another country’s legal provisions where this would not be possible in their own country – indeed not of interest here). -- (Japanese publishers having sent cease and desist letters for scanlation sounds … interesting given that it’s not their – arguably monetary – rights infringed upon, but those of the author, and in Japan itself it wasn’t possible until a few years ago to take legal actions on behalf of a third party against copyright violations. Just as an aside. -- ) Scanlation websites are seldomly located in Japan, so the details of Japanese law don't matter here. ❪ ❫ Admittedly yes, therefore an aside (basically saying that they are taking advantage of another country’s legal provisions where this would not be possible in their own country – indeed not of interest here). -- Scanlation websites are seldomly located in Japan, so the details of Japanese law don't matter here. ❪ ❫ Admittedly yes, therefore an aside (basically saying that they are taking advantage of another country’s legal provisions where this would not be possible in their own country – indeed not of interest here). -- Admittedly yes, therefore an aside (basically saying that they are taking advantage of another country’s legal provisions where this would not be possible in their own country – indeed not of interest here). -- Delete I created this property honestly not knowing it was a scanlation website or what scanlation was. Linking to a website that distributes copyrighted material is basically assisting in that distribution which is illegal. ( ) Delete As for scanlation sites, Japanese and U.S. publishers declared in a joint statement in 2010 that they are illegal. By making them available for free, they are infringing on the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve. ( ) While this is undoubtedly true, there are no financial benefits for copyright holders anyway if nobody publishes their work commercially in a country. If there is no “official” translation that is sold in, e.g., the US, anyone who wants to read it (in English) there has to resort to “unofficial” translations, which have no choice but to infringe on copyright. I don’t want to endorse copyright violations, in no way, but the “financial” point of view doesn’t get us anywhere here. That said, what was the point of creating links to the specific site discussed here in the first place? What benefits were seen in linking it? -- As far as the laws are concerned people can import Japanese comics whether or not they are translated. The Berne convention exists to give mutual recognition of copyright and not require products to be marketed in a country to be protected in that country. ❪ ❫ That’s not the point. There are probably many people in the world who want to read Japanese comics, but cannot read Japanese. That’s the reason why scanlation (and regular translation) exists in the first place. Of course it would be better if they paid the original authors, but the author doesn’t get any money regardless of whether someone abroad reads their comic in scanlation form (without paying) or doesn’t read it at all. Hence the “financial” point of view doesn’t get us anywhere here . There’s more to copyright than remuneration (and the Berne convention presumably exists regardless of financial considerations). -- Copyright is driven by actual laws. You might disagree with those laws but they exist. Scanlation clearly creates deriviative works of copyrighted works. In the US context where Wikimedia has it's legal home, that's forbidden by copyright law unless you have permission or can argue for fair use. Courts have made many rules on copyright and have developed a concept of financial interests in the process. You might not like it or disagree with it, but that's still the law of the land. ❪ ❫ Neither do I disagree with copyright laws (where did I claim that?) nor do I deny that scanlation violates them. All I’m saying is that it does not hurt the authors financially and that the claim by Afaz that they infringe on “the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve” is therefore misleading. Of course they have “financial interests” – they are selling their works in Japan, after all –, but that’s different from “financial benefits”. (Easy example: A greengrocer has a financial interest in getting vegetables sold, but no financial benefit if nobody buys them – a reason for which might be that all the people who would like to buy them live in another city. Does this make stealing the vegetables from the greengrocer and giving them away for free in that other city legal? Obviously not. Does the greengrocer have a financial damage? No, he doesn’t receive money for the vegetables anyway.) But let’s stop this pointless discussion here – both of us agree that scanlation is a copyright violation, while we seem to disagree on why it is (or maybe not; the deriviative work argument is independent of financial aspects, and I’m not sure the US context is actually necessary for it, but anyway). The reason why it derailed was probably my justification for the continuing widespread existence of scanlation despite its illegality – which is unnecessary for the point I wanted to make, I think (now). -- The reason why I’m so nit-picky about this is that it often gets mixed up. If remuneration were the problem, scanlators could solve it by taking money from their “customers” and using it to pay the original authors – but in the absence of permission to do so this would still be a copyright violation. That there is more to copyright than remuneration can also be seen in the advent of Creative Commons licences, where copyright holders waive their right to remuneration without (necessarily) waiving other rights they deserve, such as proper attribution (a misconception many have: “It’s free, so I can use it any way I want”). -- Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) Question I see questions of copyright here but if this was actually an issue of concern with wiki projects merely linking, then wouldn't this be a major issue with wiki projects linking to the Internet Archive ( and the works there that are still under copyright? If there isn't an issue with that I dont see the issue here. - ( ) @ : Can you link any item there where the site infringes the copyright? On the first look, all the content looks like public domain and creative commons as well as previews. Also, not that copyright is not the problem. There are also links to Netflix. Copyright infringement is the problem. -- ( ) (linked from ), for example, doesn’t seem to be public domain, so technically (ianal) the Internet Archive is infringing on the creator’s copyright by making a copy of it available. (It’s just that no one bothers to sue the Internet Archive, I think.) -- ( ) Hmmm. But on all websites where every user can upload content, copyright infringement happens. On wikipedia and commons, too. Just, eventually it gets [MASK]. However, for mangadex, copyright infringement is the core of the website. For internet archive, they have this site: . So, you could report content you think that infringes copyright. But here, I am actually not sure if it is copyright infringement. A lot of old software is made available for free and you can download them from many serious websites. -- ( ) Internet Archive, or archiving in general, might even be covered by Fair Use (I simply don’t know). And given the large number of pages archived there, reporting copyright violations would be a Sisyphean task. As I stated below, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with mere linking, but P10589 is very dispensable anyway. -- ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) While this is undoubtedly true, there are no financial benefits for copyright holders anyway if nobody publishes their work commercially in a country. If there is no “official” translation that is sold in, e.g., the US, anyone who wants to read it (in English) there has to resort to “unofficial” translations, which have no choice but to infringe on copyright. I don’t want to endorse copyright violations, in no way, but the “financial” point of view doesn’t get us anywhere here. That said, what was the point of creating links to the specific site discussed here in the first place? What benefits were seen in linking it? -- As far as the laws are concerned people can import Japanese comics whether or not they are translated. The Berne convention exists to give mutual recognition of copyright and not require products to be marketed in a country to be protected in that country. ❪ ❫ That’s not the point. There are probably many people in the world who want to read Japanese comics, but cannot read Japanese. That’s the reason why scanlation (and regular translation) exists in the first place. Of course it would be better if they paid the original authors, but the author doesn’t get any money regardless of whether someone abroad reads their comic in scanlation form (without paying) or doesn’t read it at all. Hence the “financial” point of view doesn’t get us anywhere here . There’s more to copyright than remuneration (and the Berne convention presumably exists regardless of financial considerations). -- Copyright is driven by actual laws. You might disagree with those laws but they exist. Scanlation clearly creates deriviative works of copyrighted works. In the US context where Wikimedia has it's legal home, that's forbidden by copyright law unless you have permission or can argue for fair use. Courts have made many rules on copyright and have developed a concept of financial interests in the process. You might not like it or disagree with it, but that's still the law of the land. ❪ ❫ Neither do I disagree with copyright laws (where did I claim that?) nor do I deny that scanlation violates them. All I’m saying is that it does not hurt the authors financially and that the claim by Afaz that they infringe on “the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve” is therefore misleading. Of course they have “financial interests” – they are selling their works in Japan, after all –, but that’s different from “financial benefits”. (Easy example: A greengrocer has a financial interest in getting vegetables sold, but no financial benefit if nobody buys them – a reason for which might be that all the people who would like to buy them live in another city. Does this make stealing the vegetables from the greengrocer and giving them away for free in that other city legal? Obviously not. Does the greengrocer have a financial damage? No, he doesn’t receive money for the vegetables anyway.) But let’s stop this pointless discussion here – both of us agree that scanlation is a copyright violation, while we seem to disagree on why it is (or maybe not; the deriviative work argument is independent of financial aspects, and I’m not sure the US context is actually necessary for it, but anyway). The reason why it derailed was probably my justification for the continuing widespread existence of scanlation despite its illegality – which is unnecessary for the point I wanted to make, I think (now). -- The reason why I’m so nit-picky about this is that it often gets mixed up. If remuneration were the problem, scanlators could solve it by taking money from their “customers” and using it to pay the original authors – but in the absence of permission to do so this would still be a copyright violation. That there is more to copyright than remuneration can also be seen in the advent of Creative Commons licences, where copyright holders waive their right to remuneration without (necessarily) waiving other rights they deserve, such as proper attribution (a misconception many have: “It’s free, so I can use it any way I want”). -- Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) As far as the laws are concerned people can import Japanese comics whether or not they are translated. The Berne convention exists to give mutual recognition of copyright and not require products to be marketed in a country to be protected in that country. ❪ ❫ That’s not the point. There are probably many people in the world who want to read Japanese comics, but cannot read Japanese. That’s the reason why scanlation (and regular translation) exists in the first place. Of course it would be better if they paid the original authors, but the author doesn’t get any money regardless of whether someone abroad reads their comic in scanlation form (without paying) or doesn’t read it at all. Hence the “financial” point of view doesn’t get us anywhere here . There’s more to copyright than remuneration (and the Berne convention presumably exists regardless of financial considerations). -- Copyright is driven by actual laws. You might disagree with those laws but they exist. Scanlation clearly creates deriviative works of copyrighted works. In the US context where Wikimedia has it's legal home, that's forbidden by copyright law unless you have permission or can argue for fair use. Courts have made many rules on copyright and have developed a concept of financial interests in the process. You might not like it or disagree with it, but that's still the law of the land. ❪ ❫ Neither do I disagree with copyright laws (where did I claim that?) nor do I deny that scanlation violates them. All I’m saying is that it does not hurt the authors financially and that the claim by Afaz that they infringe on “the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve” is therefore misleading. Of course they have “financial interests” – they are selling their works in Japan, after all –, but that’s different from “financial benefits”. (Easy example: A greengrocer has a financial interest in getting vegetables sold, but no financial benefit if nobody buys them – a reason for which might be that all the people who would like to buy them live in another city. Does this make stealing the vegetables from the greengrocer and giving them away for free in that other city legal? Obviously not. Does the greengrocer have a financial damage? No, he doesn’t receive money for the vegetables anyway.) But let’s stop this pointless discussion here – both of us agree that scanlation is a copyright violation, while we seem to disagree on why it is (or maybe not; the deriviative work argument is independent of financial aspects, and I’m not sure the US context is actually necessary for it, but anyway). The reason why it derailed was probably my justification for the continuing widespread existence of scanlation despite its illegality – which is unnecessary for the point I wanted to make, I think (now). -- The reason why I’m so nit-picky about this is that it often gets mixed up. If remuneration were the problem, scanlators could solve it by taking money from their “customers” and using it to pay the original authors – but in the absence of permission to do so this would still be a copyright violation. That there is more to copyright than remuneration can also be seen in the advent of Creative Commons licences, where copyright holders waive their right to remuneration without (necessarily) waiving other rights they deserve, such as proper attribution (a misconception many have: “It’s free, so I can use it any way I want”). -- Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) That’s not the point. There are probably many people in the world who want to read Japanese comics, but cannot read Japanese. That’s the reason why scanlation (and regular translation) exists in the first place. Of course it would be better if they paid the original authors, but the author doesn’t get any money regardless of whether someone abroad reads their comic in scanlation form (without paying) or doesn’t read it at all. Hence the “financial” point of view doesn’t get us anywhere here . There’s more to copyright than remuneration (and the Berne convention presumably exists regardless of financial considerations). -- Copyright is driven by actual laws. You might disagree with those laws but they exist. Scanlation clearly creates deriviative works of copyrighted works. In the US context where Wikimedia has it's legal home, that's forbidden by copyright law unless you have permission or can argue for fair use. Courts have made many rules on copyright and have developed a concept of financial interests in the process. You might not like it or disagree with it, but that's still the law of the land. ❪ ❫ Neither do I disagree with copyright laws (where did I claim that?) nor do I deny that scanlation violates them. All I’m saying is that it does not hurt the authors financially and that the claim by Afaz that they infringe on “the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve” is therefore misleading. Of course they have “financial interests” – they are selling their works in Japan, after all –, but that’s different from “financial benefits”. (Easy example: A greengrocer has a financial interest in getting vegetables sold, but no financial benefit if nobody buys them – a reason for which might be that all the people who would like to buy them live in another city. Does this make stealing the vegetables from the greengrocer and giving them away for free in that other city legal? Obviously not. Does the greengrocer have a financial damage? No, he doesn’t receive money for the vegetables anyway.) But let’s stop this pointless discussion here �� both of us agree that scanlation is a copyright violation, while we seem to disagree on why it is (or maybe not; the deriviative work argument is independent of financial aspects, and I’m not sure the US context is actually necessary for it, but anyway). The reason why it derailed was probably my justification for the continuing widespread existence of scanlation despite its illegality – which is unnecessary for the point I wanted to make, I think (now). -- The reason why I’m so nit-picky about this is that it often gets mixed up. If remuneration were the problem, scanlators could solve it by taking money from their “customers” and using it to pay the original authors – but in the absence of permission to do so this would still be a copyright violation. That there is more to copyright than remuneration can also be seen in the advent of Creative Commons licences, where copyright holders waive their right to remuneration without (necessarily) waiving other rights they deserve, such as proper attribution (a misconception many have: “It’s free, so I can use it any way I want”). -- Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) Copyright is driven by actual laws. You might disagree with those laws but they exist. Scanlation clearly creates deriviative works of copyrighted works. In the US context where Wikimedia has it's legal home, that's forbidden by copyright law unless you have permission or can argue for fair use. Courts have made many rules on copyright and have developed a concept of financial interests in the process. You might not like it or disagree with it, but that's still the law of the land. ❪ ❫ Neither do I disagree with copyright laws (where did I claim that?) nor do I deny that scanlation violates them. All I’m saying is that it does not hurt the authors financially and that the claim by Afaz that they infringe on “the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve” is therefore misleading. Of course they have “financial interests” – they are selling their works in Japan, after all –, but that’s different from “financial benefits”. (Easy example: A greengrocer has a financial interest in getting vegetables sold, but no financial benefit if nobody buys them – a reason for which might be that all the people who would like to buy them live in another city. Does this make stealing the vegetables from the greengrocer and giving them away for free in that other city legal? Obviously not. Does the greengrocer have a financial damage? No, he doesn’t receive money for the vegetables anyway.) But let’s stop this pointless discussion here – both of us agree that scanlation is a copyright violation, while we seem to disagree on why it is (or maybe not; the deriviative work argument is independent of financial aspects, and I’m not sure the US context is actually necessary for it, but anyway). The reason why it derailed was probably my justification for the continuing widespread existence of scanlation despite its illegality – which is unnecessary for the point I wanted to make, I think (now). -- The reason why I’m so nit-picky about this is that it often gets mixed up. If remuneration were the problem, scanlators could solve it by taking money from their “customers” and using it to pay the original authors – but in the absence of permission to do so this would still be a copyright violation. That there is more to copyright than remuneration can also be seen in the advent of Creative Commons licences, where copyright holders waive their right to remuneration without (necessarily) waiving other rights they deserve, such as proper attribution (a misconception many have: “It’s free, so I can use it any way I want”). -- Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) Neither do I disagree with copyright laws (where did I claim that?) nor do I deny that scanlation violates them. All I’m saying is that it does not hurt the authors financially and that the claim by Afaz that they infringe on “the financial benefits that copyright holders rightfully deserve” is therefore misleading. Of course they have “financial interests” – they are selling their works in Japan, after all –, but that’s different from “financial benefits”. (Easy example: A greengrocer has a financial interest in getting vegetables sold, but no financial benefit if nobody buys them – a reason for which might be that all the people who would like to buy them live in another city. Does this make stealing the vegetables from the greengrocer and giving them away for free in that other city legal? Obviously not. Does the greengrocer have a financial damage? No, he doesn’t receive money for the vegetables anyway.) But let’s stop this pointless discussion here – both of us agree that scanlation is a copyright violation, while we seem to disagree on why it is (or maybe not; the deriviative work argument is independent of financial aspects, and I’m not sure the US context is actually necessary for it, but anyway). The reason why it derailed was probably my justification for the continuing widespread existence of scanlation despite its illegality – which is unnecessary for the point I wanted to make, I think (now). -- The reason why I’m so nit-picky about this is that it often gets mixed up. If remuneration were the problem, scanlators could solve it by taking money from their “customers” and using it to pay the original authors – but in the absence of permission to do so this would still be a copyright violation. That there is more to copyright than remuneration can also be seen in the advent of Creative Commons licences, where copyright holders waive their right to remuneration without (necessarily) waiving other rights they deserve, such as proper attribution (a misconception many have: “It’s free, so I can use it any way I want”). -- Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) Both Afaz's financial argument and your rebuttal are political in nature and a distraction from the merits or deficiencies of the proposal. Let's not derail the discussion into general arguments about intellectual property vs. free culture and questions of artist rights and compensation. The fact that the website is in fact illegal in at least some if not most Wikimedia jurisdictions is a relevant consideration. ( ) Question I see questions of copyright here but if this was actually an issue of concern with wiki projects merely linking, then wouldn't this be a major issue with wiki projects linking to the Internet Archive ( and the works there that are still under copyright? If there isn't an issue with that I dont see the issue here. - ( ) @ : Can you link any item there where the site infringes the copyright? On the first look, all the content looks like public domain and creative commons as well as previews. Also, not that copyright is not the problem. There are also links to Netflix. Copyright infringement is the problem. -- ( ) (linked from ), for example, doesn’t seem to be public domain, so technically (ianal) the Internet Archive is infringing on the creator’s copyright by making a copy of it available. (It’s just that no one bothers to sue the Internet Archive, I think.) -- ( ) Hmmm. But on all websites where every user can upload content, copyright infringement happens. On wikipedia and commons, too. Just, eventually it gets [MASK]. However, for mangadex, copyright infringement is the core of the website. For internet archive, they have this site: . So, you could report content you think that infringes copyright. But here, I am actually not sure if it is copyright infringement. A lot of old software is made available for free and you can download them from many serious websites. -- ( ) Internet Archive, or archiving in general, might even be covered by Fair Use (I simply don’t know). And given the large number of pages archived there, reporting copyright violations would be a Sisyphean task. As I stated below, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with mere linking, but P10589 is very dispensable anyway. -- ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) @ : Can you link any item there where the site infringes the copyright? On the first look, all the content looks like public domain and creative commons as well as previews. Also, not that copyright is not the problem. There are also links to Netflix. Copyright infringement is the problem. -- ( ) (linked from ), for example, doesn’t seem to be public domain, so technically (ianal) the Internet Archive is infringing on the creator’s copyright by making a copy of it available. (It’s just that no one bothers to sue the Internet Archive, I think.) -- ( ) Hmmm. But on all websites where every user can upload content, copyright infringement happens. On wikipedia and commons, too. Just, eventually it gets [MASK]. However, for mangadex, copyright infringement is the core of the website. For internet archive, they have this site: . So, you could report content you think that infringes copyright. But here, I am actually not sure if it is copyright infringement. A lot of old software is made available for free and you can download them from many serious websites. -- ( ) Internet Archive, or archiving in general, might even be covered by Fair Use (I simply don’t know). And given the large number of pages archived there, reporting copyright violations would be a Sisyphean task. As I stated below, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with mere linking, but P10589 is very dispensable anyway. -- ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) (linked from ), for example, doesn’t seem to be public domain, so technically (ianal) the Internet Archive is infringing on the creator’s copyright by making a copy of it available. (It’s just that no one bothers to sue the Internet Archive, I think.) -- ( ) Hmmm. But on all websites where every user can upload content, copyright infringement happens. On wikipedia and commons, too. Just, eventually it gets [MASK]. However, for mangadex, copyright infringement is the core of the website. For internet archive, they have this site: . So, you could report content you think that infringes copyright. But here, I am actually not sure if it is copyright infringement. A lot of old software is made available for free and you can download them from many serious websites. -- ( ) Internet Archive, or archiving in general, might even be covered by Fair Use (I simply don’t know). And given the large number of pages archived there, reporting copyright violations would be a Sisyphean task. As I stated below, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with mere linking, but P10589 is very dispensable anyway. -- ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) Hmmm. But on all websites where every user can upload content, copyright infringement happens. On wikipedia and commons, too. Just, eventually it gets [MASK]. However, for mangadex, copyright infringement is the core of the website. For internet archive, they have this site: . So, you could report content you think that infringes copyright. But here, I am actually not sure if it is copyright infringement. A lot of old software is made available for free and you can download them from many serious websites. -- ( ) Internet Archive, or archiving in general, might even be covered by Fair Use (I simply don’t know). And given the large number of pages archived there, reporting copyright violations would be a Sisyphean task. As I stated below, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with mere linking, but P10589 is very dispensable anyway. -- ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) Internet Archive, or archiving in general, might even be covered by Fair Use (I simply don’t know). And given the large number of pages archived there, reporting copyright violations would be a Sisyphean task. As I stated below, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with mere linking, but P10589 is very dispensable anyway. -- ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) The Internet Archive is also recognised as a library by the US government. ( ) Comment Linking doesn’t mean endorsing, afaik, so the site’s copyright violations alone wouldn’t be valid grounds for deletion of this property. Having a look at , however, it seems that the property was created without thorough discussion, basically because “I think properties for it would be useful”. Wikidata should, imho, be extremely restrictive with respect to which external databases it chooses to systematically link, given the considerable effort of maintaining such link collections, avoiding inconsistencies and so on. That’s why I’d tend to vote for deletion at the moment, unless someone provides a good reason why having external identifier links to the site in question is essential. -- ( ) It's 100% endorsing. You're exposing the copyrighted works to a wider audience by linking to them. You're clearly assisting in their distribution. ( ) Sorry, I should have made clearer that I was specifically talking about legal issues. There can of course be ethical issues with linking (depending on intention), but afaik (and ianal, so please correct me if I’m wrong) courts in various contries have established that website operators cannot be held liable for criminal violations by other sites they merely link, so Wikimedia Foundation could not be (successfully) sued for those links or something like that. Anything else is a question of whether we, as a community, want those links, but as I said, I don’t really see any reason anyway why we should. -- ( ) There's a difference between having a simple link to MangaDex and having a system on Wikidata that tells Wikidata users for every manga, the exact page where they can download a copyright violating copy of that manga. Having a link to every single manga, is like torrent websites that link to individual content and torrent websites do face legal problems. ❪ ❫ Which all the more raises the question why Wikidata would want such a system in the first place; a question the answer to which I still don’t see. Given that it took nine months (the property was created in early April) until someone noticed that there are copyright violations linked, I wouldn’t consider any claim about copyright infringement endorsement intentions plausible (in contrast to torrent sites; and indeed those links will have been created in good faith in most cases), but let’s the lawyers fight that out (or not). -- ( ) Delete , as indicated, on the grounds that there has been no good reason given why having external identifier links to the site in question is essential. -- ( ) It's 100% endorsing. You're exposing the copyrighted works to a wider audience by linking to them. You're clearly assisting in their distribution. ( ) Sorry, I should have made clearer that I was specifically talking about legal issues. There can of course be ethical issues with linking (depending on intention), but afaik (and ianal, so please correct me if I’m wrong) courts in various contries have established that website operators cannot be held liable for criminal violations by other sites they merely link, so Wikimedia Foundation could not be (successfully) sued for those links or something like that. Anything else is a question of whether we, as a community, want those links, but as I said, I don’t really see any reason anyway why we should. -- ( ) Sorry, I should have made clearer that I was specifically talking about legal issues. There can of course be ethical issues with linking (depending on intention), but afaik (and ianal, so please correct me if I’m wrong) courts in various contries have established that website operators cannot be held liable for criminal violations by other sites they merely link, so Wikimedia Foundation could not be (successfully) sued for those links or something like that. Anything else is a question of whether we, as a community, want those links, but as I said, I don’t really see any reason anyway why we should. -- ( ) There's a difference between having a simple link to MangaDex and having a system on Wikidata that tells Wikidata users for every manga, the exact page where they can download a copyright violating copy of that manga. Having a link to every single manga, is like torrent websites that link to individual content and torrent websites do face legal problems. ❪ ❫ Which all the more raises the question why Wikidata would want such a system in the first place; a question the answer to which I still don’t see. Given that it took nine months (the property was created in early April) until someone noticed that there are copyright violations linked, I wouldn’t consider any claim about copyright infringement endorsement intentions plausible (in contrast to torrent sites; and indeed those links will have been created in good faith in most cases), but let’s the lawyers fight that out (or not). -- ( ) Which all the more raises the question why Wikidata would want such a system in the first place; a question the answer to which I still don’t see. Given that it took nine months (the property was created in early April) until someone noticed that there are copyright violations linked, I wouldn’t consider any claim about copyright infringement endorsement intentions plausible (in contrast to torrent sites; and indeed those links will have been created in good faith in most cases), but let’s the lawyers fight that out (or not). -- ( ) Delete , as indicated, on the grounds that there has been no good reason given why having external identifier links to the site in question is essential. -- ( ) As the property proposer, I have no objection to deletion based on the arguments provided. ( | ) @ Comment I won't comment on the actual scanlated content MangaDex works, but they are a gold mine of information, as they maintain links to many of the other manga databases on the internet. Maybe deletion can be waited on until my bot is able to copy as many of the external linkings as possible. In that case, there is another issue brewing, as whenever my bot pulls information from MangaDex it makes a reference and puts the full URL into the reference URL property, although I theorize it would be trivial to clean those up (SPARQL query for stated in MangaDex would bring them all up). ( ) Alternatively, would the problem not solve itself if the link was simply removed, rather than deleting the entire property? ( ) Comment Looks like the property is going to be removed. It seems reasonable however that the actual removal can be put on hold for a period of up to 3 months (or less) to allow for links to other sites to be extracted from this identifier. ( ) Yes, I'm trying to get a whole bunch of properties created so I can extract maximal information from the source. I can see about 8 or 10 new properties being partially populated on top of what is already being extracted. ( ) Alternatively, would the problem not solve itself if the link was simply removed, rather than deleting the entire property? ( ) Comment Looks like the property is going to be removed. It seems reasonable however that the actual removal can be put on hold for a period of up to 3 months (or less) to allow for links to other sites to be extracted from this identifier. ( ) Yes, I'm trying to get a whole bunch of properties created so I can extract maximal information from the source. I can see about 8 or 10 new properties being partially populated on top of what is already being extracted. ( ) Yes, I'm trying to get a whole bunch of properties created so I can extract maximal information from the source. I can see about 8 or 10 new properties being partially populated on top of what is already being extracted. ( ) Delete per the above copyright and legal concerns. @ [MASK] Wikidata is neither a judge nor a police officer. Besides problematic links, the database contains other useful data as well (date of publication, artist, genres, alternative titles, even links to official shops). -- ( ) [MASK] per Jklamo. We shouldn't censor the identifier of this useful database unless we have clear evidence of law. ( ) Delete per the above copyright and legal concerns, we already have better manga/anime databases properties like , and that don't host illegal content, we don't need some random scanlation website. -- ( ) Weak oppose Linking isn't endorsement, and it's very useful for getting links to other manga services. Although, ultimately if it is [MASK] we can still use its API to grab links as long as one of AniList/MyAnimeList/Kitsu are linked, so it wouldn't be the end of the world. Ultimately, my opinion would be based on the opinion of the Wikidata team as to whether this kind of site should be linked to. FWIW, from what I can tell MangaDex does respect the wishes of copyright holders if they do request a takedown, although whether that redeems the site is debatable. ( ) [MASK] , Mangadex is just a platform (non-commercial and ad-free), which like other platforms like YouTube or Facebook could be used for publishing anything, but no evidence provided by nominator that this website opposes copyright holders in any way (other than ""it is free, therefore it is illegal""). The rules are pretty restrictive there, cases when obtaining a license is required are mentioned. ( ) The “ ” are not that “restrictive”: Any scanlated release is allowed to be uploaded regardless of the existence of official translations […] And even if there’s no official translation or it’s out of print, translating something that is copyright-protected and uploading it to the web is still illegal per the (see above). The difference with Facebook or YouTube is that they disallow illegal content and respond to DMCA requests. ( ) A single proof that Mangadex hosts illegal content and does not respond to DMCA requests? ( ) The website is literally designed to host illegal content, like said above: it's at its . The mere fact that their domain reseller and/or Cloudflare had to kick them away because of the number of DMCA requests they were getting is a strong indicator ( ). One of these requests was from VIZ Media, which is owned by two major Japanese publishing companies (Shueisha and Shogakukan). Now, please enlighten me how a website hosting full manga releases translated in multiple languages without the copyright holders' permission doesn't infringe Japanese copyright law and therefore the Berne Convention? ( ) My point was that there is a way to legally host a scanlate website (or any other types of derivative works). It is not difficult to receive a permission from copyright holder to publish your own translation under well defined conditions: non-commercial (optionally providing additional details to help copyright holder to verify that translator are not seeking profit with translation) and only on specific website. Actually, I did it multiple times (not for manga, but it does not matter). Consider that all mindful translators received a permission: it is called ""presumption of innocence"". The links you provided mentions that some time ago a fan group that has been coloring the Boruto manga used official scanlation, which resulted in DCMA takedown. Such types of uploads are not allowed on MangaDex: Scans of physical official releases or rips of digital official releases/webcomics from official sources, such as original releases (raws) or officially translated releases, are not allowed to be uploaded. ( ) The “ ” are not that “restrictive”: Any scanlated release is allowed to be uploaded regardless of the existence of official translations […] And even if there’s no official translation or it’s out of print, translating something that is copyright-protected and uploading it to the web is still illegal per the (see above). The difference with Facebook or YouTube is that they disallow illegal content and respond to DMCA requests. ( ) A single proof that Mangadex hosts illegal content and does not respond to DMCA requests? ( ) The website is literally designed to host illegal content, like said above: it's at its . The mere fact that their domain reseller and/or Cloudflare had to kick them away because of the number of DMCA requests they were getting is a strong indicator ( ). One of these requests was from VIZ Media, which is owned by two major Japanese publishing companies (Shueisha and Shogakukan). Now, please enlighten me how a website hosting full manga releases translated in multiple languages without the copyright holders' permission doesn't infringe Japanese copyright law and therefore the Berne Convention? ( ) My point was that there is a way to legally host a scanlate website (or any other types of derivative works). It is not difficult to receive a permission from copyright holder to publish your own translation under well defined conditions: non-commercial (optionally providing additional details to help copyright holder to verify that translator are not seeking profit with translation) and only on specific website. Actually, I did it multiple times (not for manga, but it does not matter). Consider that all mindful translators received a permission: it is called ""presumption of innocence"". The links you provided mentions that some time ago a fan group that has been coloring the Boruto manga used official scanlation, which resulted in DCMA takedown. Such types of uploads are not allowed on MangaDex: Scans of physical official releases or rips of digital official releases/webcomics from official sources, such as original releases (raws) or officially translated releases, are not allowed to be uploaded. ( ) A single proof that Mangadex hosts illegal content and does not respond to DMCA requests? ( ) The website is literally designed to host illegal content, like said above: it's at its . The mere fact that their domain reseller and/or Cloudflare had to kick them away because of the number of DMCA requests they were getting is a strong indicator ( ). One of these requests was from VIZ Media, which is owned by two major Japanese publishing companies (Shueisha and Shogakukan). Now, please enlighten me how a website hosting full manga releases translated in multiple languages without the copyright holders' permission doesn't infringe Japanese copyright law and therefore the Berne Convention? ( ) My point was that there is a way to legally host a scanlate website (or any other types of derivative works). It is not difficult to receive a permission from copyright holder to publish your own translation under well defined conditions: non-commercial (optionally providing additional details to help copyright holder to verify that translator are not seeking profit with translation) and only on specific website. Actually, I did it multiple times (not for manga, but it does not matter). Consider that all mindful translators received a permission: it is called ""presumption of innocence"". The links you provided mentions that some time ago a fan group that has been coloring the Boruto manga used official scanlation, which resulted in DCMA takedown. Such types of uploads are not allowed on MangaDex: Scans of physical official releases or rips of digital official releases/webcomics from official sources, such as original releases (raws) or officially translated releases, are not allowed to be uploaded. ( ) The website is literally designed to host illegal content, like said above: it's at its . The mere fact that their domain reseller and/or Cloudflare had to kick them away because of the number of DMCA requests they were getting is a strong indicator ( ). One of these requests was from VIZ Media, which is owned by two major Japanese publishing companies (Shueisha and Shogakukan). Now, please enlighten me how a website hosting full manga releases translated in multiple languages without the copyright holders' permission doesn't infringe Japanese copyright law and therefore the Berne Convention? ( ) My point was that there is a way to legally host a scanlate website (or any other types of derivative works). It is not difficult to receive a permission from copyright holder to publish your own translation under well defined conditions: non-commercial (optionally providing additional details to help copyright holder to verify that translator are not seeking profit with translation) and only on specific website. Actually, I did it multiple times (not for manga, but it does not matter). Consider that all mindful translators received a permission: it is called ""presumption of innocence"". The links you provided mentions that some time ago a fan group that has been coloring the Boruto manga used official scanlation, which resulted in DCMA takedown. Such types of uploads are not allowed on MangaDex: Scans of physical official releases or rips of digital official releases/webcomics from official sources, such as original releases (raws) or officially translated releases, are not allowed to be uploaded. ( ) My point was that there is a way to legally host a scanlate website (or any other types of derivative works). It is not difficult to receive a permission from copyright holder to publish your own translation under well defined conditions: non-commercial (optionally providing additional details to help copyright holder to verify that translator are not seeking profit with translation) and only on specific website. Actually, I did it multiple times (not for manga, but it does not matter). Consider that all mindful translators received a permission: it is called ""presumption of innocence"". The links you provided mentions that some time ago a fan group that has been coloring the Boruto manga used official scanlation, which resulted in DCMA takedown. Such types of uploads are not allowed on MangaDex: Scans of physical official releases or rips of digital official releases/webcomics from official sources, such as original releases (raws) or officially translated releases, are not allowed to be uploaded. ( ) Delete - per legal concerns. Under Japanese copyright law, it is a violation of copyright law to link to a site that is known to copyvio. Links that may violate laws should not be kept. The server for this site may not necessarily be located in Japan, but it should be sensitive to the law. The server for this site is not necessarily located in Japan, but I think it should be as sensitive to the law as possible. ( ) ;edit – The preceding comment was added by ( • ). Delete - Link to a site that is a violation of copyright law. -- ( ) [MASK] As far as I am aware: 1. MangaDex acts in full compliance with U.S. law under the DMCA act 2. MangaDex has never faced charges for hosting what they do. (they have been subpoenaed once, but that's very much not the same thing) ( ) @ : One of their staff literally that . Speaking of DMCA, . ( ) @ : One of their staff literally that . Speaking of DMCA, . ( ) Delete the copyright problem alone is enough to delete (in itself and because this make this website less likely to be perennial). In addition to that, I see that this property is use only on ~2800 items and ~25000 references, plus in most cases there is other identifiers and others references. It's maybe a ""gold mine of information"" but it's clearly not the only one, deleting these data would mean only a negligible lack of information in the end. Cheers, ( ) "" in most cases there is other identifiers "" a lot of those identifiers have been imported from mangadex. as far as i'm aware, mangadex is the only site other than wikidata that maintains links to other manga sites in this way. ( ) It is possible to correlate titles with their MangaDex IDs but it would require maintaining a database of MD ids and other IDs linked to MD and then regularly updating this database both with new titles and if existing titles change their IDs. ( ) There's already a bot that does all of that, besides changing IDs, which happens approximately never. ( ) Yea, that's me, I wrote the bot that does that ( ) Yeah I wondered as much, but I figured someone wouldn't write a bot then act like it didn't exist. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) "" in most cases there is other identifiers "" a lot of those identifiers have been imported from mangadex. as far as i'm aware, mangadex is the only site other than wikidata that maintains links to other manga sites in this way. ( ) It is possible to correlate titles with their MangaDex IDs but it would require maintaining a database of MD ids and other IDs linked to MD and then regularly updating this database both with new titles and if existing titles change their IDs. ( ) There's already a bot that does all of that, besides changing IDs, which happens approximately never. ( ) Yea, that's me, I wrote the bot that does that ( ) Yeah I wondered as much, but I figured someone wouldn't write a bot then act like it didn't exist. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) It is possible to correlate titles with their MangaDex IDs but it would require maintaining a database of MD ids and other IDs linked to MD and then regularly updating this database both with new titles and if existing titles change their IDs. ( ) There's already a bot that does all of that, besides changing IDs, which happens approximately never. ( ) Yea, that's me, I wrote the bot that does that ( ) Yeah I wondered as much, but I figured someone wouldn't write a bot then act like it didn't exist. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) There's already a bot that does all of that, besides changing IDs, which happens approximately never. ( ) Yea, that's me, I wrote the bot that does that ( ) Yeah I wondered as much, but I figured someone wouldn't write a bot then act like it didn't exist. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) Yea, that's me, I wrote the bot that does that ( ) Yeah I wondered as much, but I figured someone wouldn't write a bot then act like it didn't exist. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) Yeah I wondered as much, but I figured someone wouldn't write a bot then act like it didn't exist. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) The current problem with said bot is that it only adds stuff from given properties. Basically, it won't try to approximate a MangaDex ID from just the MAL ID, but it will add a MAL ID if there is a MangaDex ID because MangaDex lists a MAL ID for that entry. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) finding the mangadex id is fairly easy with animanga-db-matcher . however, this tool does not work well (or at all) for several other sites that often have their identifiers listed on MangaDex. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) Yea that would be my bad, I wrote that tool as well but I had a very limited understanding of React and I found it easier to work on the auto-import bot than the finder. The reason it's not as effective is because I designed it for items that had no identifiers whatsoever, and at that point title searching was the only way to find potential IDs. I could make a future update that looks up other identifiers as well. ( ) [MASK] it is just a platform, its not obvious if or when copyright is broken, it a grey area, I'm inclined to give benefit of doubt, and consider it legit. ( ) [MASK] per Lockal & Simonc8. Additionally, as mentioned by VIGNERON, there are currently items with the property, but I unlike VIGNERON I would not discount it as ""gold mine of information"", the metadata available is quite robust. They have their own API you can use with the ID and unique info such as an independent scoring system. ( ) [MASK] it's still a useful database. – ( ) Delete There is numerous comic databases without copyright violation. ( ) ###Output: ",deleted