Talk:Q1193907

This page has a problem with the wikipedia interlinks. The concept in English describes the process of link rottening, while in French, it is the result of this process. Lepticed7 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reason for deprecation?

@ArthurPSmith, Jean-Frédéric: in the discussion WD:Project chat/Archive/2022/02#Dead external links: normal or deprecated rank?, you told me that "Entries should only be deprecated if they were never correct; a website URL that was the correct official website for that entity in prior years should remain normal rank". However, when I deprecated the statement instance of (P31)Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (Q27949697) for this item, link rot (Q1193907), User:Eihel undid my edit. So should this item have that statement or not? Is "link rot" a reason for deprecation? --colt_browning (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Colt browning , For the example (even if it's not external links, but it doesn't change the principle), here is a case that I also treated recently. No value is preferred or "deprecated" over another. There, a change of rank is not justified: each value must be set to normal since they are all currently valid "examples of..." (P31).

For your first question, you can simply refer to Help:Rank: The deprecated rank is used for statements that are known to include errors (i.e. data produced by flawed measurement processes, inaccurate statements) or that represent outdated knowledge (i.e. information that was never correct, but was at some point thought to be). It is often useful to indicate the reason for a deprecation with a reason for deprecated rank (P2241) qualifier. This does not apply to correct historical information, such as previous values of a statement, as long as they represent accurate information for the indicated time period. Such statements should instead be annotated with the appropriate start time (P580)/end time (P582) qualifiers.

For your last 2 questions above, the fact that I expressly add an edit summary already gives you the reply: This is not exactly what was discussed on Project chat. Its presence in P2241 gives a violation by your modification in each item where it is present.. Your modification is an interpretation of what ArthurPSmith replied to you: The first approach - preferred rank for the current value - is the correct model here now., please, notice the words "here now". It is not a question of correcting a statement in link rot (Q1193907), but of correcting the values ​​in the Items containing link rot (Q1193907). If you have a date that specifies that the link no longer works (or any other qualifier allowed by the resulting property), you can leave the normal rank and add end time (P582). On the other hand, if you are unable to know the "why and how" of a deprecation by a qualifier, an external link can be put in "deprecated" rank. A change in rank cannot be made on a vague preference, but must be the result of logical reasoning (instead of removing value). For example, something like: « an external link no longer works. Can I add a closing date of the old website from the new website or from the metadata or from a WHOIS? No. Can I add another qualifier allowed by the property to say that this link no longer works? No. So, I put the value in deprecated rank, because it is no longer relevant. » If a date specifies that a value is no longer valid, there is no need to put this value in deprecated rank. If someone writes to you that a date indicates that a value is no longer valid, this does not mean that we should no longer indicate that this statement can no longer obtain a deprecated rank.

Following your edit and my edit summary, this is what happens:

official website	www.example.com edit reason for deprecated rank link rot 0 references add reference		value-type constraint Values of reason for deprecated rank statements should be instances of Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (or of a subclass of it), but link rot currently isn't.
		add value

I give you an another example of a completely false qualifier which gives the same result of violation. link rot (Q1193907) is allowed because:

1. reason for deprecated rank (P2241)property constraint (P2302)one-of constraint (Q21510859)item of property constraint (P2305)link rot (Q1193907)
2. reason for deprecated rank (P2241)property constraint (P2302)value-type constraint (Q21510865)class (P2308)Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (Q27949697)
3. list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174)has part(s) (P527)link rot (Q1193907)

Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Eihel :) Thank you for the kind and detailed response.

I agree that my edit indeed wasn't the exact topic of the Project chat discussion, as you point out. Also, I somehow overlooked that this item is a member of list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174) and incorrectly claimed (at the Project chat) that it wasn't.

However, I am not convinced by your reasoning in favor of the statement if you are unable to know the "why and how" of a deprecation by a qualifier, an external link can be put in "deprecated" rank. Why don't we use end time (P582)unknown value with normal rank instead? colt_browning (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Colt browning ,
Please also consider my sentence above: If a date specifies that a value is no longer valid, there is no need to put this value in deprecated rank. This is an advantageous reply, no? Which does not mean that link rot (Q1193907) or any other entity should be modified in parallel, one does not imply the other. This item can still be a case of depreciation. On the other hand, if another link comes to replace a dead link, requests or sister projects are no longer cluttered with an erroneous value by putting a deprecated rank (even with a qualifier). Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reason for deprecation (again)

@Gymnicus: Link rot is just not a valid reason for deprecation. The value used to be ok and now is not. It should have an end time (P582) (possibly set to unknown) but should not be deprecated. Every use of this as a reason for deprecation is wrong. See Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank. It's pretty unambiguous. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I see it differently and that's why I reset your edit. For me, a broken web link is a valid rejection reason. The rejection reason indicates that the page is currently unavailable. However, this rejection can certainly be reversed, for example if you find the page archived in an Internet archive and add this archive URL. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If the broken link was valid at some point, which is what happens with link rot, deprecating the value is incorrect: "[The deprecated rank] does not apply to correct historical information, such as previous values of a statement [...]". Instead a preferred rank with reason "most recent value" should be used. Haansn08 (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)