###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q22302160: Q22302160 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Q22302160 is an attempt to make any item a valid unit for quantity datatype properties. However, according to the data model , quantity datatype with units represent physical quantities , thus the unit should be considered to be a physical unit of measurement (Q47574) as well. This directly contradicts the intention of the item Q22302160 , which aims to define entities such as sled dog (Q28997) , helicopter (Q34486) , or country (Q6256) as valid units. Instead of using arbitrary items as units, I suggest to omit the unit in the quantity datatype statement for dimensionless quantity (Q126818) , and to use a qualifier that describes the entities being quantified with the quantity datatype statement. Maybe we could use of (P642) as a qualifier, but I am open for other suggestions or a specifically designed new property instead. Here is an example from Q1044197#P1083 : The current situation is as follows: Q22302160 is used in only 15 items , which are used 2815 times as units (in mainsnak or qualifier). According to this query , there are in total ~30.700 uses of 590 different units which are not instances of subclasses of unit of measurement (Q47574) —out of 15.7M unit uses in total (i.e. 0.2% of all units are formally invalid in the physical sense right now, and only ~1/10th thereof actually makes use of Q22302160 ). Substantial amounts of wrong unit uses could be repaired automatically (which I hereby offer to write a script for). Ping editors of Talk:Q22302160 : @ Jura1 , Yair rand , Tpt , Sänger , Circeus ; there was a preceeding discussion at Wikidata:Forum (German project chat) yesterday. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 14:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC) The thing is, this item does not appear to be actually in use for its intended purpose (if it were, you'd think it would be on more than ca. 15 items!). And that's assuming that the example claim of ⟨ USS Ranger (Q1044197) ⟩ maximum capacity (P1083) ⟨ 86 aircraft (Q11436) ⟩ is genuinely a problem. Currently the software fails to register any error for this sort of stuff and actually allows (as far as I can tell) any item as a purported unit. I have used plate (Q17109349) and Roman-numbered page (Q56761382) too, for example, when documenting paginations, and the only thing that ever got in the way was bots. Circeus ( talk ) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Various approaches to cleanup are possible, but I don't think one gets around attempting to identify each item that is used as unit by a limited number of categories: Q22302160 is one of them. --- Jura 19:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Jura... could you please start by answering clearly: what is the purpose of Q22302160 ? Watever that purpose, how is that purpose actually accomplished ? Without these answers, it is impossible for anyone who wasn't involved in... whatever this is to comprehend what the hell is going on. And I include myself in that category! Circeus ( talk ) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC) I think a good assumption is that any item which is an instance of (a subclass of) unit of measurement (Q47574) is a sane unit item, and all others should be checked. This means that ~620 items which are used as units are okay (and they make up 99.8% of unit use), and the other ~590 items need to be checked because they are not okay (they make up only 0.2% of all unit uses). Complete unit use can be queried fortunately, thus we do not need categories such as Q22302160 to identify non-units which are used as units. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 21:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Jura... could you please start by answering clearly: what is the purpose of Q22302160 ? Watever that purpose, how is that purpose actually accomplished ? Jura... could you please start by answering clearly: what is the purpose of Q22302160 ? Watever that purpose, how is that purpose actually accomplished ? How long do such request linger here, before any action is taken? There was no such thing as any argumentative pro, there was never any comprehensible definition, this item ist plain and simple useless clutter. Why is it so hard to delete it? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ( talk ) 08:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)