Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Requests for deletions

high

_{~162 open requests for deletions.}

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}

None at the moment

if this list is out of date.

Requests

Please add a new request at the bottom of this section, using {{subst:Rfd |1=PAGENAME |2=REASON FOR DELETION }}.

Wikidata:Autobiography

(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

The page gives the impression that it presents a official Wikidata guideline but it's author deletes attempts to include the template for proposed guidelines. The author also reverts edits of information where he clearly has a conflict of interest through his institutional ties. I don't think we should have pages like this that give the impression of presenting an official guideline, especially if it's author doesn't try to seek consensus (and additionally reverts edits where he has a COI). --ChristianKl (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a bad faith nomination, made after I removed the nominator's inappropriate {{Proposed}} tag from the page (which is not intended, as that template claims, to "become a policy or guideline"). Furthermore, I have already pointed out to the nominator that the page has no pretence of being a "policy", and does not bear a {{Policy}} template. I have also asked for evidence of a supposed conflict of interest and none has been forthcoming. The page is intended to be an easy guide for lay people who have never edited Wikipedia, much less Wikidata. The nominator makes no suggestions for its improvement, or indeed replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's ridiculus to claim that I made no suggestions for improvements. I suggested two improvements. I actually added two improvements through edits. You are the person who doesn't want to accept them and revert them. One of them despite the involved COI. ChristianKl (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of your edits were improvements. Once merely continued the edit war started by another editor; the other falsely tagged the page as being something it is not: "proposed [to] become a policy or guideline". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete This is nothing but a plug for the practice of the author. Encouraging self-promotion is against the goals of the Wikimedia project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "This is nothing but a plug for the practice of the author." Any fool can see that's patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Who started that voice intro project then? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right, that was me. It's largely why I was given the honour of being made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and presented with an award by Jimmy Wales on the main stage at Wikimania 2014. It's why I was interviewed on prime-time National Pubic Radio (on their most-listened to show) in the USA, and why we got coverage, mentioning me, in press articles in about fifty countries. So to suggest or imply, after all that, that encouraging the people on whom we have items might to contribute valuable open content as part of that project (as well as pictures and data), without mentioning my involvement in it, is somehow my trying to get "self-promotion" is beyond deluded. But if we are going to prevent anyone who innovates from ever mentioning the things they've developed again, we're going to have to stop Magnus from telling anyone about the tools he develops, and as for all the great things done by Lydia Pintscher and her team... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
        • „It's largely why I was given the honour of being made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, ...“. Thanks for this. --Succu (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
        • When Lydia Pintscher and her team communicates about their projects they generally don't engage in edit wars. I also don't remember Magnus engaging into edit wars to promote projects towards which he has ties. ChristianKl (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Your argument is circular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
            • What's circular about it? That I think having an edit war about a topic in which one has a COI is very bad? ChristianKl (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
              • Your claims of COI remain as false now as when you first made them, and then failed to provide evidence when challenged. Are you going to retract your other false claim on this page, as requested? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
                • There's nothing false about it. If you publish a paper at a scientific journal and you received money from a company that has a related interest, COI policies require you to disclose the interest, even if you wouldn't have changed anything about your article if you wouldn't have had that institutional affiliation. That's how COI policies generally work. ChristianKl (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
                  • "If you publish a paper at a scientific journal" is a complete red herring. You are making and repeating demonstrably false claims. Desist; retract; and apologise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete This promotes COI editing, which is not what we want. --Rschen7754 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It does? Then please point out which part of which policy it conflicts with, and suggest improvements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but the COI editing is inherent. The purpose is to encourage people to contribute to their own Wikidata items. That is not what we want. --Rschen7754 19:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • So, no policy, at all, against the kind of editing suggested. You're wrong about the purpose, by the way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep we were using {{Policy}} everywhere e.g. Wikidata:Notability

User:Pigsonthewing didn't use such template in the first place, addition of {{draft}} implies this is a draft of a policy. It wasn't even close after his edits

Minor wording should be fixed, no reason to remove page, even it was copied from other projects with little additions.

We never had many special agreements on Wikidata to represent them at "Wikidata item about you". Special version for Wikidata [different from other projects] is not that necessary. d1g (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Mr. Mabbett why did you titled this page as related to autobiography (Q4184) (as Project:Autobiography (Q4657322) and not to project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309)? --Succu (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep simple and useful help. I don't see it "promoting COI editing". Why "draft"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks strange to my: helped by Mr. Mabbett?! --Succu (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing is employeed by ORCID. The page promotes ORCID and tells people to register ORCID addresses. Two people made edits to remove the promotion of the company that employs Pigsonthewing, and he reverted them despite his COI. ChristianKl (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "Pigsonthewing is employeed [sic] by ORCID" No I am not. @ChristianKl: Please retract and apologise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @ChristianKl: You have now edited this page twice since I pinged you. Where is your retraction and apology? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • https://orcid.org/blog/2016/01/15/meet-our-wikipedian-residence-andy-mabbett suggest that you have an institutional tie to ORCID. One that you failed to disclose in this discussion. If you fail to describe exactly what that tie entails, I think I'm well warranted at assuming it's employment. ChristianKl (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Your claim is "Pigsonthewing is employeed [sic] by ORCID" and "promotion of the company that employs Pigsonthewing". Both are false. My interests are fully and openly declared. Where is your retraction and apology?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • ORCID, Inc. (Q19861084) is not a company, but a non-profit organization. There is no conflict-of-interest with mentioning ORCID. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Whether or not it's a non-profit organization, is generally no criteria for whether something is a conflict of interest. ChristianKl (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • What conflict of interest? Andy has already stated he's not employed by ORCID. Where's the conflict of interest? You've been asked to retract your false statements. Why have you failed to do so? If you don't think that suggesting to possibly notable editors that they should register an unique identifier is a good idea, take it up on the talk page. Same for any of the other content that you don't like. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep: Bad faith nom in a fit of pique because unhelpful suggestions are not being accepted. ORCID is a nonprofit, universal standard. This is like saying delete an article with an ISBN because the editor has affiliation with ISBN or something. Patently absurd. Montanabw (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Ideally Wikidata:Living people should be revised so that it is in fact accessible to "lay people who have never edited Wikipedia, much less Wikidata" while having the force of established policy. Mahir256 (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep dispute of the contents is not grounds of deletion of the whole page. this version does not advertize ORCID.--GZWDer (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• If we delete any reference to specific ids we can keep it. We must keep only: "We like to have a record of unique identifiers that disambiguate you from other people with the same name." If it isn't accepted, I'm for deletion. I prefer serene environments and this complicate the situation without adding any value --ValterVB (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• It's fairly easy to read it as a "[Welcome to Wikidata] we hope you [..] stay and help us [by writing your autobiography]".
  Compare with Wikimedia in general:
  • "Il est déconseillé d'intervenir sur les articles concernant les sujets dans lesquels vous êtes personnellement impliqué"
  • "Para prevenir disputas prolongadas sobre el significado, precisión de los hechos o la neutralidad del material en temas en que usted está personalmente vinculado, es una buena idea esperar hasta que otros usuarios de Wikipedia hayan trabajado en él antes de crearlos o modificarlos."
  • "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy."
    
    --- Jura 08:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not to anyone literate. Your quote is about Wikipedia, not "Wikimedia in general". And this is not, as we keep being reminded, Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep I think the guidelines are notability are clear enough that this page does not promote self-promotion; in fact, the page is very clear in adding independent sources. I don't see why adding independent information by people should interfere with the general Wikimedia guidelines. If people feel someone is self-promoting to the level in violation of notability, the latter should be the reason to object, not this page, which merely encourages good practices. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Conflict-of-interest editing, which this promotes (creating an autobiography inherently entails a conflict of interest), is not something we should be advocating.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Conflict-of-interest is something relevant if there is something to gain (not every interest is a conflict-of-interest): I really don't see how someone who is marked as notable gains unreasonably by adding (sourced) facts. If an article should be created is already covered by Notability. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Egon Willighagen: There's a good chance that a page like this leads to some SEO people to think coming to Wikidata is welcome. This likely does lead to edits that we don't like and review work. ChristianKl (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • More FUD. The page - deliberately - opens with the text "If you meet our notability requirements, then there could be a Wikidata item about you.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • [ec] I asked above (and have done so previously) for a citation to a policy which supports this claim; none was forthcoming. Perhaps you can provide one? But even if it were true, the correct response would be to reword the nominated page to advise item subjects of how to correctly supply data in accordance with such a policy; not to delete the page, leaving them without advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: Is your position that we shouldn't worry about conflicts of interest because we currently don't have a policy page that expresses an explicit policy against COIs? ChristianKl (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep and move to the Help namespace. I've made some edits today that I believe improve the general neutrality of the page, but I think it does belong under "Help" as a guideline for users on what to do when there's an item about them. We do have millions of people in that situation. The name perhaps should be changed from "Autobiography" to something more wikidata-relevant, perhaps "Help:Item about me". ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete until the relationship to en:Wikipedia:Autobiography (=project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309)) is obvious. --Succu (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The relationship is already perfectly obvious:

• en:Wikipedia:Autobiography ←→ Project:Autobiography (Q4657322) ←→ Wikidata:Autobiography
• en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ←→ project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309) ←→ [no Wikidata policy exists]

So your statement "en:Wikipedia:Autobiography (=project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309))" should be "en:Wikipedia:Autobiography (!=project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309))". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

From en:Wikipedia:Autobiography: „Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged.“ In your adaption (or whatever it's meant to be) the word conflict is absent. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a Wikipedia policy. Is it a Wikidata policy? Citation (asking for the third time in this discussion) please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL, thats why we discuss not only about your ORCID recommendation. Your text encourages users to self-presentation. For me is omitting any hints to project:Conflict of interest (Q4663309) intentional. --Succu (talk)

• Wrong venue This is a spiteful nomination, made simply because the nominator hasn't got his way in a content dispute. The only engagement on the relevant talk page has been: "There's a chance that a lay person who reads the page thinks that it represents accepted Wikidata policy. The template [{{Draft}}] informs them that it isn't." Editors really ought to be raising any genuine concerns on the talk page, not playing games like making frivolous nominations. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Eminently useful, sage, well written. Seems to offer only good advice. I think we should have pages like this to assistr interested newbies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Wildly inappropriate, a tone of voice and approach that is oft-putting and quite frankly rude. Does not engender collegiality -- and this information is found in better form in other places. I'm mystified the author thinks this is something that anyone but he thinks will be helpful. It made me want to run screaming AWAY. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @BrillLyle: "quite frankly rude" Which words, precisely? Does your view relate to your comments on the page's talk page, "Again, working on large dataset donations, etc. this constraint will make doing this very difficult"? Which "constraint" is that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrillLyle: Although you have been actively editing, you appear to have overlooked this question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @BrillLyle: Huh, rude? Are you looking at the same page I am? Please do give examples. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It's the usage of "you" throughout the entry -- it's very jarring. Policy should be written in a much more neutral way. I like what ArthurPSmith did to address this but I still stand by the initial feedback and statement I made. Strip this entry of the inappropriate "you" references and it might be more useful. And not present such tonal issues. But I also question how one person, Andy Mabbett, can make such impactful assumptions and statements without consensus. This is not Wikidata according to Mabbett, even if that might be how he see it. Honestly I don't want Wikidata to turn into something similar to what I experience on Wikipedia, where editors dig into corners, can't have positive, collegial discussions, and don't respond to major concerns. BrillLyle (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
      • "Policy should be written in a much more neutral way" The page under discussion is not a policy. I doubt that anyone would agree with you that the use of a second-person-singular pronoun (examples: "We hope you will make use of Wikidata"; "If you are not satisfied..."; "if you think they are wrong, please raise the matter at Project chat"; "Wikidata can include a link to a photograph of you ") is "rude", non-neutral, or renders the page less useful. And please stop personalising content issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I am probably out voted here and this will go forward without further objection, but I also have the right to express concerns and provide feedback, don't I? So that is what I am doing. I am only one editor, here, so do what you will. I am positive Andy Mabbett will do what he wants and will disregard anything I say or any objections I make, because that is the consistent response he has provided to me in multiple instances in the past, accompanied by an unpleasant tone and aggressive approach. But I want it clearly stated that brute force of personality actions doesn't mean something is okay or right. I refuse to be afraid to speak up in the face of that. Just saying. Wikidata and more importantly Wikipedia is something I do for fun and this experience makes it the opposite of that. If I am going to contribute free digital labor and take the time to provide feedback, it would be really great not to have to debate and defend to the extent it is being asked here. I don't see others' statements being questioned and being told "oh yeah, prove it!" like mine was. BrillLyle (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I know nothing of previous discussions between people. I value it very highly that people feel free to speak up. Though, I have to see, from the root comment in this subthread it was not clear to me at all that the use of 'you' made you upset. Honestly, I have never heard that before (I learned something here), but also sounds like a very simple fix. I'm not a native English speaker, but replacing it with 'one' sound very feasible, and maybe a few eloquent speakers can find even better constructs. Sounds like a great way forward to me!--Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
        • The use of "one", especially in this context, would be awful - very overly formal, dated, and stilted. See, for example (emphasis added) [1]: "In modern English the use of one as a pronoun to mean 'anyone'... is generally restricted to formal contexts, outside which it is likely to be regarded as rather pompous or old-fashioned. In informal and spoken contexts the normal alternative is you". And once again, this is a content issue, not a good reason to delete an entire page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

We should also look at precedent. The word "you" (or ("yours") is used in English text (emphasis added):

• twelve times in {{Welcome}} (Which opens "Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! ... you can go to any item" - emboldening in original)
• in {{Autosign}} "place your signature... add your username")
• in {{Uw-articles}} and others in that family of user-warning templates (e.g. "In case you didn't know... If you have any questions, you can...")
• in the header of Wikidata:Project chat ("to see if your question has already been answered"; "the first time you mention an item")
• eight times on the main page of this project (e.g. "Work with other volunteers on a subject that interests you"; "Learn how you can retrieve and use data from Wikidata.")
• seven times in the notification under every edit box ("By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License... You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution..."; "Sign your comment...; "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...")
• six times in the header of this page (e.g. "If the item you are nominating is quite empty... you can check...")
• In the footer of every page on this site (" By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.")

Tell me again why we shouldn't use it on Wikidata:Autobiography? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep but  move to the Help namespace. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 02:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Q27949739

Q27949739: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q27949739

Should use deprecated rank for this. Not meaningful in its current, circular, use as a "reason for deprecation" qualifier. --Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to An:dy; Andy's edits 10:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep useful to hold the text and its translation. Not really a useful value for P2241.
  --- Jura 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Since when do we have random instances of label or definition for Wikidata statistics (Q21281409) to "hold text and its translation"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep we need labels about Wikidata model as part of Wikidata. We also need statistical dimensions. They are not organized as of now. Perhaps more properties would make them less arbitrary. d1g (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Q21973878

incorrect value (Q21973878)

incorrect value (Q21973878): Wikidata reason for deprecation: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Used solely as a qualifier for reason for deprecated rank (P2241); we do not need an item for every type of incorrect property, a single "incorrect value" should suffice (though a more specific explanation is always desirable). --Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Likewise incorrect value (Q27533685):

incorrect value (Q27533685): Wikidata reason for deprecation: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I agree with the reasoning and final state but I do not think we need to delete anything. Lets just change the label of incorrect value (Q27533685) and incorrect value (Q21973878) to "incorrect value" and merge the two. Pinging @Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick, Sjoerddebruin: who created those items. --Jarekt (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Maybe we should have an item per Wikibase datatype. Item per every property is far more demanding than "incorrect value". d1g (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It like these items, it is a value given by a website but we have the proof it is not good, so we directly say "it is not good". Interesting when we found a such error on different websites. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment when the qualifier is used, we already know the rank and incorrectness of the statement. Merely adding "incorrect statement" wouldn't really help. If the users wants to provide a more detailed explanation, there isn't really any harm done by using these items.
  --- Jura 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Constraint templates

• {{Constraint:Commons link}}
• {{Constraint:Conflicts with}}
• {{Constraint:Contemporary}}
• {{Constraint:Diff within range}} (also sandbox)
• {{Constraint:Format}}
• {{Constraint:Inverse}}
• {{Constraint:Item}}
• {{Constraint:Multi value}}
• {{Constraint:One of}}
• {{Constraint:Qualifier}}
• {{Constraint:Qualifiers}}
• {{Constraint:Range}}
• {{Constraint:Single value}}
• {{Constraint:Source}}
• {{Constraint:Symmetric}}
• {{Constraint:Target required claim}}
• {{Constraint:Type}}
• {{Constraint:Unique value}}
• {{Constraint:Units}}
• {{Constraint:Value only}}
• {{Constraint:Value type}}
• {{Constraint:Taxon}}
• {{Constraint:Person}}

Succeeded by constraint statement. (This is a controversial request, please reach a consensus before deleting)--GZWDer (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment if these are deleted, edit history of property talk pages (i.e. property documentation) gets much harder to understand (at least for most people).
  --- Jura 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• On hold The new system does not print SPARQL queries yet. I think it's useful to keep the patterns until a new way to print them is developed. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment What if we use "archive" namespace to keep historic track? d1g (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There're objection about having a specific place for this.--GZWDer (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think moving it elsewhere wont work for page history. It needs to stay where it was to remain accessible. Are there any downsides to this?
    --- Jura 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Wait for some time and then delete, there is no need to archive dozens of unused templates. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• "Taxon" and "Person" could be deleted. I don't think they were much used and were meant to be substituted.
  --- Jura 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's safe to delete "Taxon". --Succu (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Q28031601

Q28031601: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item no longer accuratly describes that process Andrawaag (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andrawaag: this request requires special knowledge, so can you please provide more details? Do you mean that this is superceded knowledge (deprecation might be possible then)? What about the existing usage in other items? —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andrawaag: Could you please answer MisterSynergy's question and take care of the links? Otherwise we'll probably have to keep the item, which wouldn't be good if it's now incorrect in some way. --YMS (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Country-related property

Handled by Module:Property documentation. Probably need a bot to remove transclusions.--GZWDer (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please give the item ID. --105.112.36.250 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The page nominated for deletion is a template, not an item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

GZWDer This template in on a lot of talking page. Do it realy for delete? it is not in use anymore? - yona b (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So probably we need a bot to remove transclusions.--GZWDer (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: can you do this, or ask at Wikidata:Bot requests for such a job? One would probably have to check whether the property already has the corresponding country item as value of a country (P17) claim before removal of the template from the property talk page. Once this is done, we can proceed here and decide whether it should be kept of deleted. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• @MisterSynergy: I have removed all transclusion. These pages can also be deleted:

1. Category:Properties to add P17:Q142
2. Category:Properties to add P17:Q159
3. Category:Properties to add P17:Q17
4. Category:Properties to add P17:Q183
5. Category:Properties to add P17:Q212
6. Category:Properties to add P17:Q28
7. Category:Properties to add P17:Q29
8. Category:Properties to add P17:Q30
9. Category:Properties to add P17:Q55
10. Category:Properties to add P17:Q79
11. Category:Properties to add P17:Q794
12. Category:Properties to add P17:Q801
13. Category:Properties to add P17:Q8646

--GZWDer (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. @Matěj Suchánek: this functionality is now fully covered by {{Property documentation}} and Module:Property documentation in a way that it takes P17 values from the property and adds it to the doc box, right? If that is the case, I don’t see any reason to keep the template and the nominated categories any longer. The deletion comment for the template should contain instructions about the new way to relate properties to countries. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I did my best to implement it properly and also localize. I am not sure whether we want to keep it and mark as {{Outdated}} or so, still there are some translations that could be migrated. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Something like Template:Deprecated template (Q6480967) would fit better, but we don’t have a copy of it at Wikidata yet. To my opinion this would be a good idea for the nominated template to guide users what to do instead. We should still delete the maintenance categories, since they don’t serve any purpose any longer. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I now added a simple {{Mbox}} to the template page. If someone finds a suitable category for deprecated templates, it would be worth to add it to the deprecated template.

@SJK: you’ve created most or all of the categories nominated for deletion above. Is there any template other than {{Country-related property}} which fills them? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy:. I don't think so. I just created them because they were red links, but I don't really know (I didn't come up with the idea, just saw a bunch of red links and made them blue.) If the template which generates them is being deleted, I don't see a problem with deleting them. SJK (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I meanwhile figured out that those categories come from Module:ConstraintCheck, which seems to be no longer in use as well. If this assumption is correct and @Jura1 as the only author of this undocumented module doesn’t object, I would delete it as well in the next days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Q1557066

Hummelsheimer Hof (Q1557066): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Deleted article, irrelavant Bigbossfarin (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? According to the statements it's a monument. Mbch331 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Efectivamente. O bien me equivoqué al hacer yo el pedido, o bien hubo cambios que eliminaron la sección que efectivamente había quedado vacía, así que yo ahora encuentro todo normal. Tal vez en el momento que estaba haciendo mi pedido, un bot corrigió el desarreglo que yo estaba observando. Muchas gracias por vuestra verificación. --AnselmiJuan (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't speak Spanish, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this an answer to my question about this item? If so please answer in English. Mbch331 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no obligation to write in English (if one does not know the language). You can use bing/Google translate or wait for someone who speaks Spanish. --ValterVB (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep see heritage status. --- Jura 16:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Please see comment by Pasleim below.
    --- Jura 08:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Hummelsheimer Hof (Q1557066) is not a monument, only a boundary stone on the area of this building is a monument [2]. --Pasleim (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Q34352885

Hovås Oxsjöväg (Q34352885): road in Gothenburg, Sweden: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. All the road/street are notable only because they exist? ValterVB (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vesihiisi: you have created a lot of these items. --ValterVB (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say that all roads which can be clearly identified with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or coordinate location (P625) do meet our notability criteria. --Pasleim (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Existence is not a criterion, all the living or dead persons can have a item? What is the difference? --ValterVB (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's supposed that a reference may be added.--GZWDer (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What kind of reference can support the notability of a street? In this case is a simple street and there are thousands of items like this. They are in Wikidata only because they exist or they existed (perhaps). --ValterVB (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Keep of course all streets are notable because of point 2 of Wikidata:Notability. All streets are clearly identifiable conceptual or material entities and could be described by serious and publicly available references. There's no need for a refernece to support a notability, it must only describe the street. --Balû (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"can be described using serious and publicly available references", wich kind of reference you think is suitable in this case? --ValterVB (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: in developed countries - recent street signs. In other countries is much difficult indeed, but shouldn't remove item without clear understanding as incorrect and impossible. d1g (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I miss something in you answer, but the question is "wich kind of reference is suitable in this case?" I don't think that the existence it's enough. --ValterVB (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There are official documents like street directories, there are tourist guides, special books which describes street names in communities and also maps and atlases, which all are serious and publicly available references. --Balû (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 structural need in streets Each street is important to get list of streets. d1g (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To meet the third criterion: "It fulfills some structural need..." the item must be linked, it isn't this case. --ValterVB (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: it is?

⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ road (Q34442)    ⟩

⟨ subject ⟩ located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) ⟨ Gothenburg Municipality (Q52502)    ⟩

d1g (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think. --ValterVB (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Q29848066

Q29848066: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Replace with Q4167836 and category combines topics (P971)
--- Jura 08:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support. However, there are 3758 claims of the type instance of (P31) Q29848066 to be repaired before this could be done. Who’s volunteering? —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I would do, but I think we should decide about deletion first.
--- Jura 09:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support more standard --ValterVB (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I started replacing the ones that already have P971 and adding Q4167836 to the others. Once more P971 added there, Q29848066 could be removed from these as well.
  --- Jura 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support several claims are more appropriate than one rare sentence in this case. Shouldn't use P31/P279 just for every claim. d1g (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment item is no longer in use and can be deleted. I think adding P31:Wikimedia category (Q4167836) might also have helped these items get P971 statements from various bots that are adding them these days.
  --- Jura 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Q30337049

Q30337049: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. See also Talk:Q30337049 Infovarius (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If the usage in The law of reverse relations between the content and the volume of the concept (Russian) (Q4184865) and Q4184872 is correct, the item is notable. Otherwise it isn't. But in order to judge the proper usage I need to know Russian and that I don't. Mbch331 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler, Infovarius: item can be used but we don't have a good description of it. So it would be very difficult to reason how to apply such item and when to stop.

On contrast, we have some progress with causation properties Wikidata property for causes and effects (Q28746712)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Wikidata_and_causality.pdf

Help:Modeling causes d1g (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

causality (Q179289) (consists of cause (Q2574811)&consequent (Q261155)) - logic (Q8078). Q30337049 - one of manifestation of (P1557). We have some reasoning about how to apply and when to stop the set of "antipodal point (Q505356)" (abstract and concrete (Q18205125), wave–particle duality (Q193068), quality (Q1207505)&quantity (Q309314), cause (Q2574811)&consequent (Q261155), duality (Q735346), etc.)? In the language such process/result ambiguity is expressed by words which are in one case nouns, in the other verbs (in ru, for example, wikt:ru:Категория:Русские слова с суффиксом -ациj. Description: "system from the process and its result. There is no process without its result, nor the result without the process that generates it. Process and result of the process constitute a unified system". potential energy (Q155640) has effect (P1542) process (Q3249551) (of (P642) kinetic energy (Q46276)). potential energy (Q155640) + process (Q3249551) (of (P642) kinetic energy (Q46276)) = Q30337049. Very many philosophers have investigated the topic concerning the process and its result. --Fractaler (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

P31 and P279 cannot replace more than 3 relations

Question is not whatever philosophers were using them, but how they should be modeled in Wikidata or what is the best way of doing it. d1g (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

⟨ process (Q3249551)    ⟩ has effect (P1542) ⟨ result (Q2995644)    ⟩

(causality (Q179289)).

⟨ process (Q3249551)    ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ Q30337049    ⟩

and

⟨ result (Q2995644)    ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ Q30337049    ⟩

. Q30337049 is concept (Q151885) --Fractaler (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Keep probably we need this item for process (Q3249551) and result (Q2995644) d1g (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Identifiers

This page in Wikidata namespace only contains a small collection of lists, loosely related to identifiers. A page in Wikidata namespace about external identifiers could be useful, but in its current shape it seems better to delete it for a fresh start. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the page was created by User:Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Delete per Succu. Mahir256 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Delete better not to have manually updated copies of special pages and automated lists, especially when they add so little over automated solutions. d1g (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Keep page was absolutely lacking content, but now it is okay, including "Items about individual identifiers are exceptions and should not be created massively" and "Identifier items in Wikidata are disputed so there is no best practice by now!" d1g (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Delete It was Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment no consensus to classify individual identifiers using items in Wikidata or externally. This is an awkward solution to not a problem. Lexeme and phrases would be supported at much better level, we don't need to focus on P31+P279 solution as we almost have proper solution. d1g (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Judgement about whether a page to be deleted should not depend on who created the page. Anyway, I have started to fully rewrite the page, please have a second look! -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: 2nd and 3rd paragraph are useful, but we could present it at another page. Maybe Help:Authority control or another page from Category:Help d1g (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought the page to become part of Category:Help but I don't mind to integrate the content into other pages. There seems to be some confusion what people actually refer to when speaking about identifiers, so a page of its own may be helpful. On the other hand we have Wikidata:Glossary for this purpose. Anyway, please ping me before actual deletion so I can save the content for use elsewhere! -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The actual content might not be a final version, but it does outline some important problems when we talk about “identifiers”: this term does need some disambiguation. However, I also thought that the page in question would be particularly about the second and third aspect (which are related).

In case of a deletion the contents would still be accessible by admins, and I'm sure we can hand it over to you in that case (or move it directly to an appropriate place). However, there is no need to delete if it turns out to be useful once. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please move to User:JakobVoss/Identifiers if there is consensus to delete the page. I further extended the second aspect about "identifier properties". Properties for Authority control are only a subset of these properties. The third aspect is the most controversial. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I agree the original page here was not terribly useful. I've also requested deletion of the 4 related pages created by the same IP addresses and linked from this page - these were just automatic listeria-generated lists of identifier-related items (not the properties) and I don't believe served any useful purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Could some admin please delete the following pages instead of Wikidata:Identifiers and mark the case as resolved? -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wikidata:List of classes of identifiers
• Wikidata:List of classes of unique identifiers
• Wikidata:List of instances of identifiers
• Wikidata:List of instances of unique identifiers

 Support this resolution from JakobVoss. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Q35986646

Moose Town Singers (Q35986646): first-nation Canadian traditional music ensemble: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

It is "highly doubtable" that this happened, apparently.

Does not meet the notability policy per previous discussion. I have restored this item. Item's creator has an objection to how discussion closed. I'm expecting them to provide relevant input to question of notability. -- H^akan·IST 11:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The current references on statements don't support the given claims (I can only check the news article, the other site is not working). The band was also listed as "participant" of Wikimania 2017. It is highly doubtable if you could see them as that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Like said the first time, I can see the existence, but I don't see why is notable. Maybe it's necessary add more info? --ValterVB (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see notability either. Only working source is a regional news website for one ethnicity of indians. That's not a heavy weight source. Mbch331 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as previously. They clearly meet our notability requirements. The suggestion that the claims are not supported by the cited references is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep please don't RFD too many local musical collectives. Their website is down, but not a reason to remove item instantly. d1g (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • {[ping|HakanIST}} d1g (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The request isn't because the site is brocken but because it isn't notable. --ValterVB (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: I don't understand this, they refer to real bands. We can have local collectives without own albums and any new songs. Majority of "folk" collectives are like this. d1g (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: *Keep I agree. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ogoorcs (talk • contribs).

Reasons to ping me? --ValterVB (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• @D1gggg: Check Wikidata:Notability on what makes the subject of an item notable. At first glance one might think of criterion 2, because of the Quora and MusicBrainz identifiers. But these are linking to empty pages. Therefore I cannot see any relevant notability. I will delete the item. Lymantria (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lymantria: MusicBrainz page is not empty - it is missing albums and tracks. MusicBrainz identifier is correct one. d1g (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@D1gggg: The MusucBrainz page is not giving any information apart from links to Quora and Facebook. But I forgot to take the source into account. My apologies: restored the page. Lymantria (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the MusicBrainz page is created by Pigsonthewing himself. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Q29102255

Q29102255: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q4346576 can be modeled as abstraction about real organism(s); "not a" classes aren't very applicable d1g (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: roughly same about Q29102814: it is an agent (Q24229398). d1g (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For example, fictional organism (Q30017383) is Q29102255 and is not digital organism (Q4346576).--Fractaler (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot argue, but it is more natural to claim fictional organism (Q30017383) as some "abstraction" over "not-biological abstraction". "not-biological abstraction" is not used is speech or in writing frequently. Compare: "not-mathematical abstraction" "not-physical abstraction".

We potentially can have many "not a" claims.

Better to use "part of" property for this or similar. d1g (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: e.g. "not-mathematical pyramid Giza" - very weird to hear. I doubt that anyone would write this way in any language. d1g (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899). Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899). We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? --Fractaler (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"all organisms that are not biological?"

Proper word is "abiotic"

"abiotic organism" is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification.

some item from abstract entity (Q7184903)

And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

wikt:en:abiotic: of inorganic matter. fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850)? What is individual organisms? --Fractaler (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Where would we state

⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576)    ⟩

? Only with programs.

Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: any difference between Q29102255 and fictional organism (Q1972868)? d1g (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

fictional organism (Q1972868): class of mystical, fictional and suspected lifeforms, excludes real lifeforms -> set digital organism (Q4346576) is not a subset of fictional organism (Q1972868). Set digital organism (Q4346576) is subset of the set Q29102255. --Fractaler (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: any example of digital organism (Q4346576) but not a simulation software (Q11121294)? d1g (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950. Running simulation software (Q11121294) (Q29956845) makes Q29875489 (Q29956950) - digital organism (Q4346576). So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576). And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872), for example, by =new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. --Fractaler (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621)). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? --Fractaler (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: in order to use it, it should be understood. I doubt that claims like

• ⟨ organism (Q7239)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102814    ⟩
• ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩

add any value if other users reject them over widely used abstractions

"non-biological organism" - where it was used before? d1g (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes,

• ⟨ organism (Q7239)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102814    ⟩
  ;
• (launched)
  ⟨ computer virus (Q485)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576)    ⟩
  ,
  ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩
  ,
  ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102814    ⟩
  ;
• ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩
  ,
  ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102814    ⟩
  ;
• And organism (Q7239) is the antipod of Q29102255.

opposite (Q1498321) is one of the old and well-known methods of describing the world. Many people use it (see, for example, TRIZ (Q631910)). --Fractaler (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the points mentioned by d1g:

I really oppose the statements

• ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩
  and
• ⟨ fictional organism (Q1972868)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255    ⟩
  .

These statements suggest that fictional organism (Q30017383)/fictional organism (Q1972868) are classes of organisms that consist of some kind of non-biological matter/are organised in some kind of non-biological way (or whatever).

It's not some kind of matter or way of organisation that characterises fictional organism (Q30017383)/fictional organism (Q1972868) and sets them apart from organism (Q7239). They're characterised by their mode of existence (fictional organism (Q30017383) - they don't exist)/ epistemic mode (fictional organism (Q1972868) - they're not known to exist (including being known to not exist)).

If instances of fictional organism (Q1972868) exist, they're organism (Q7239). If they don't exist, they're no organisms at all. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What is fictional organism (Q30017383)?

⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383)    ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239)    ⟩

. What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074)? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? --Fractaler (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576). So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works.
• ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383)    ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239)    ⟩
  means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239)".
• I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) --Fractaler (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot (Q36987817, for queries), and 2) for the person/human (Q36987233). tree (Q272735)-interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817. interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 --Fractaler (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Q26164462

Alois Biedermann (Q26164462): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy Cavaliere grande (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cavaliere grande: what about P860 claim - is it incorrect? d1g (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the source, Alois Biedermann is a normal locksmith who has emigrated to America and has made nothing else relevant. --Cavaliere grande (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

created through Mix'n'Match with e-archiv.li ID http://www.e-archiv.li/personDetail.aspx?persID=29180 - the point of Mix'n'Match databases is that they should be imported on wd. -- source for Lichtenstein Archives... --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Q38122125

Q38122125: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Some new term, not existed in sources Infovarius (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You said about space (Q472971): "exists in human mind, in its models". Then next my question was: "space (Q472971) exists in children's mind?". From your answer I did not understand: there is space (Q472971) in the child's mind or not. Can you here answer this question? --Fractaler (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your question is similar to ask someone Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Q605249). So what's the difference between your term Q38122125 and space (Q472971) used in mathematics, Fractaler? --Succu (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a space (~set) and objects of this space (~elements). There are basic operations (processes) on objects of the space: 1) creating an object, 2) editing an object, 3) deleting an object. So, Q38122125 is a space (~set) of mathematics (as a system), and space (Q472971) is the object (~element) that exists only in this (Q38122125) space. space (Q472971) (object) creates Q38122125 (object space, space of mathematics). So, if no space (Q472971), then no Q38122125 (no mathematics). Above I asked: "space (Q472971) exists in children's mind?". How do you think? This reasoning from the philosophy of mathematics, unfortunately I can not now give references to sources (I just remember the information from them). --Fractaler (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Q20116696

Q20116696: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Similar to Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q29848066, this can be replaced with category combines topics (P971) and Property:P31=Wikimedia category (Q4167836). Shouldn't have created this one.
--- Jura 09:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If we decide to delete this, I would replace them.
--- Jura 05:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Q38791127

Q38791127: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicating q7566 Infovarius (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Q38791127 is about the set "mather + father". Set parent (Q7566) about or subset "mather", or subset "father". --Fractaler (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Q32308261

Revet (Q32308261): island in Umeå Municipality, Sweden: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This place does not exist ℇsquilo 11:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold - has a valid sitelink. If this does not exist the article needs to be deleted on the cebwiki first. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Esquilo: You need to file a Deletion Request on cebwiki first. After the page has been deleted there, we can remove the item here. Mbch331 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Esquilo: I added possibly invalid entry requiring further references (Q35779580) to P31. I think this should solve it for Wikidata.
--- Jura 06:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Q35713413

Revet (Q35713413): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This place does not exist ℇsquilo 11:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold - has a valid sitelink. If this does not exist the article needs to be deleted on the cebwiki first. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Esquilo: You need to file a Deletion Request on cebwiki first. After the page has been deleted there, we can remove the item here. Mbch331 (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

cebwiki is unfortunately full of bot-generated articles about geographical objects that may or may not extst. Apart from svwp where articles like this are cleaned up, cebwiki does not have the manpower to do that. /ℇsquilo 06:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I added Q35779580 with preferred rank.
--- Jura 05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Several MediaWiki pages

• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/cs
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/de
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/en
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/es
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/fa
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/fi
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/fr
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/it
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/nl
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/pl
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/ru
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/uk
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/zh
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/zh-cn
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/zh-hans
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/zh-hant
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/zh-hk
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator-member/zh-tw
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/cs
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/de
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/fa
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/fi
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/fr
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/it
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/ja
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/nl
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/pl
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/ru
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/uk
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/zh
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/zh-cn
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/zh-hans
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/zh-hant
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/zh-hk
• MediaWiki:Group-propertycreator/zh-tw
• MediaWiki:Grouppage-propertycreator

Per gerrit:371796, these pages are no longer needed.--GZWDer (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't those message have been migrated first? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Q24924843

Nihan Taşyürek (Q24924843): Turkish TV series actress: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Turkish TV actress. Articles both in Turkish and now in Russian were deleted for lack of notability, no other interwikis left. --Tatewaki (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tatewaki: She is listed as having played in 2 notable tv-series. If she played in them, she is notable due to structural need, if she didn't play in them, the incorrect statements need to be removed before she can be deleted. Did she play in those 2 series (check her incoming links)? Mbch331 (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I just added these now based on what I found on trwiki.
--- Jura 06:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the notability criteria here in Wikidata include "whoever participated in notable series, is notable due to structural need" (whatever that means, just by presence in the roll call — yes, she did play named characters in two series — without evaluation of notability of such participation from reasonable secondary media coverage) - of course, keep it. I just know that neither TurkishWP, not Russian WP notability rules consider such "any participation in notable" as a basis of personal notability and neither of other language sections have any signs of ever considering to wikify her... Tatewaki (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If they appear on the credits, they are notable. Wikidata is a database. So notability criteria are different. If Wikipedia wants to generate a complete cast list, that information needs to be in Wikidata. That's what's meant with structural need. In order to be able to generate a complete cast list, the cast list on Wikidata needs to be complete and that might make people on Wikidata notable that aren't notable on Wikipedia. Mbch331 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete deprecated genes (bot requests)

• See Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2017/09/12#Delete deprecated genes (Part 3)
• See Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2017/09/12#Delete deprecated genes (Part 4)

The above lists of items were listed by ProteinBoxBot, with the explanation "These genes are deprecated by NCBI".

I temporarily moved them to the archives as these broke the Requests for deletions page. I suppose a random sample like Q20773608 can probably be discussed for any of those. ProteinBoxBot doesn't seem to be authorized to dump items on this page.
--- Jura 19:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment. Wouldn't we generally keep this? Items have multiple identifiers and people might rely on Wikidata to be stable.
  --- Jura 19:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Andrawaag, Sebotic: Mahir256 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you check any of the Identifiers on the random item (Q20773608), you can see that they have all been either removed or deprecated by the official sources. Often times, Identifiers are moved onto other items, which causes conflicts (multiple items with the same identifiers) and so I think it is best to just remove these items. (Note: I am on the ProteinBoxBot team and have generated these deletion requests) Gstupp (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q28709959

Jonatan Svensson Glad (Q28709959): researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q30147473

Martin Falbisoner (Q30147473): German Photographer, Archivist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q28709819

Moheen Reeyad (Q28709819): Bangladeshi graphic artist and writer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: What makes the items for @Moheen Reeyad: (and @Emijrp: somewhere else on this page) any different from other Wikimedians with Wikidata items whose presence you are not contesting? Mahir256 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I recently read Wikidata:Notability and when I noticed cases where people create wikidata items for themselves, I tagged them. I am not aware of other Wikimedians with Wikidata items. If people are allowed to create items for themselves often without any external references, than we should add it to the Wikidata:Notability criteria. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Consider, then, Wikidata's first director, Wikidata's product manager, our bugwrangler, the man behind Research Bot, GerardM, and Pigsonthewing. (@Denny, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), AKlapper (WMF), Daniel Mietchen, GerardM, Pigsonthewing:) Mahir256 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mahir256: I'm not sure why you pinged me. If you have a specific question directed to me, feel free to explicitly ask it. Thanks. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q39583840

Q39583840: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q17227845

Q17227845: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q28469412

Subhashish Panigrahi (Q28469412): Indian-Canadian Wikimedian, author, documentary filmmaker: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q30564104

Emilio J. Rodríguez Posada (Q30564104): Spanish wikipedian: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete deprecated genes

These genes are deprecated by NCBI ProteinBoxBot (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q38186789

Q38186789: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Most (if not all) sitelinks are up for deletion due to self-promotion issues. The lack of non-"imported from" sources and non-self-promoting authority control identifiers is also suspect. Mahir256 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold - As long as the articles aren't deleted, the item meets the notability criteria. Mbch331 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Q39627308

Q39627308: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not exists Infovarius (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Where? Description said: "objects that make up the group; objects of the previous level of abstraction". Future objects, for example, exist? --Fractaler (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"object of a group without objects" by definition not exists. --Infovarius (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q39740816

Q39740816: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wiki Loves Monuments: The world's largest photography competition is now open! Photograph a historic site, learn more about our history, and win prizes. Page semi-protected from editing Shortcut: WD:N Wikidata:Notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Q19799445

Canticle of the Sun (Q19799445): Religious song: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Interwiki moved to correct item Candalua (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Q2065177

Pavlo (Q2065177): male given name (Павло): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Main element Q1242655 AlexKozur (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
Moebeus
Dcflyer
Looniverse
Aya Reyad
Infovarius
Tris T7
Klaas 'Z4us' van B. V
Deborahjay
Bruno Biondi
ZI Jony
Laddo
Da Dapper Don
Data Gamer
Luca favorido
The Sir of Data Analytics
Skim
E4024
JhowieNitnek
Envlh
Susanna Giaccai
Epìdosis
Aluxosm
Dnshitobu
Ruky Wunpini
Balû
★Trekker

Notified participants of WikiProject Names: Those are given names Pavlo (Q2065177) and Pavel (Q1242655). What’s the current way to organize given name items? I recently noticed a change in the organization of non-latin given namens, but I am not aware of the latest trends in your project tbh… Thanks for comments, —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Living people (draft)

GerardM has proposed this for deletion, without providing a reason in the template. On Project Chat he stated several things that might be interpreted as reasons, which I will transpose here:

• The basic problem has not been resolved and this cannot be found in this proposal. So it is imho a waste of time as it is pushing something that is not viable vis a vis our best practices.
• A policy that is unworkable is unreasonable.
• delete this goddess and address the issues first. Then we have a way of dealing with BLP that is workable.

However, in my personal view the page is useful even if incomplete, particularly as it provides (a) functional definition of living person items in wikidata, (b) specific lists of properties editors should be careful with for these items, and (c) some recommendations on handling sources and disagreements. While I'm sure it can be improved, and is clearly just a draft policy anyway at the moment, we should  Keep it and continue to strive for consensus on these issues. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is premature to publish a draft and thereby give it an officious status when it is fundamentally flawed. The basic premise of a BLP is: What is it there for and how can we, given the medium, have a workable solution. This is Wikipedia imposed policy it is item driven and there is nothing in there that addresses the strenghts of Wikidata to improve the all over BLP quality of all the Wikimedia projects.

So delete this bugger. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q25412879

Q25412879: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Was variety of Q2834371, the only stub page is merged now --Polarbear24 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q39681817

Q39681817: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No sitelinks, no references --HaeB (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: Empty pages

1. Q39892881 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q39892798 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

empty, syntax error in Quickstatements Jneubert (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata_talk:Κύρια_Σελίδα

(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Delete it --Greg Toumpel (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q10742464

Q10742464: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Deleted elsewhere Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q33820187

Marie-Pierre Vidonne (Q33820187): researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Person requested not to have an item on Wikidata; is not linked to any other items. Spinster 💬 16:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q32601135

Q32601135: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item. Deleted at arwiki. FShbib (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q32594373

Q32594373: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item. Deleted at arwiki. FShbib (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)