Topic on User talk:Harmonia Amanda

I've linked English and Russian disambiguation pages containing lists of people named Yamagishi/Ямагиси. Please explain why you've reverted this.

You have linked a Russian disambiguation page to an English family name one. A disambiguation page is NOT a family name. The Russian disambiguation page has been correctly merged with the already existing disambiguation page.

The English item is not a pure "Family name" article. There is a list of people named Yamagishi and a section called "See also" containing other meanings of the same word. So it is a classic disambiguation page, in no way different, let's say, from the de:Yamagishi.

Except we don't care about that. We care about the data, and that mean the categories. The Russian article is categorized as a disambiguation page. The English one as a family name. That's what important. That's the rule in Wikidata since 2013.

Edit: That's because it's not Wikidatian place to decide for the Wikipedians what the item is about. We follow their choice, the categories.

You mean that if the English item is re-categorized as a straight disambiguation page it suddenly becomes eligible to be linked to the other languages? Seems overly formalistic to me. Yes, we care about data, exactly, and breaking links between two identical pages that are only ''categorized'' differently is not in the best interest of readers

Well, if you want to change the way we function since years, you are welcome to launch a Wikidata:Requests for comment. In the meantime, if you want to change the purpose of a Wikipedia article, please ask in the Wikipedia project. We simply can't decide for the Wikipedia. The English one for example has thousands of entries exactly like this one ('family name') and a disambiguation page of the same title. We can't sometimes respect the Wikipedia wishes and sometimes not.

Well, technically you are right - Wikidata should not bend rules of local Wikipedia segments. But if there is an error in a local entry (and there are, indeed, thousands in English Wikipedia) then shouldn't go one step further and _correct_ the error? Categorizing English entry containing just a lost of name bearers and a movement of the same name as a "family name" article was clearly an error, so I've corrected it by replacing the wrong template with the right one. Should we wait for some reaction in English Wikipedia or go ahead and restore the link?

It's so clearly not an error! The English Wikipedia decided two years ago to separate articles about family names and disambiguation pages. I'll wait for you to be reverted on the English Wikipedia instead, it will take less time.

And even if the English article was a disambiguation page, the merge would still be wrong. Because the item is about a family name, which is not the same thing as a disambiguation. We would move the link but certainly not do a merge.

May I ask where would you move it? Japanese, Russian and German entries are all linked together, and there are no entries of a similar content (at least none I'm aware of) in other languages. Furthemore, would you care to explain how a simple list of a name bearers plus an organization of the same name thrown in is "about a family name"? No etymology whatsoever, no dialect variants - this is as far from a standard anthroponimy entry as it gets.

Seriously? You just have open the Wikidata item and look at the properties. All is linked. Your hypothesis is that the English Wikipedia spent months separating disambiguation and names, changing the templates and the categories, on thousands of entries, by mistake. Mine is that if they did it, it's because they wanted to.

If you want to debate if the English page is about a name or a disambiguation, the correct page is the discussion page of the article, in Wikipedia. If you want them to undo all their work, ask them on their project. Here, we will still respect their choices.

I do not intend to undo ''all'' of their work. But if I see a clear error (in this case categorizing a more-than-just-surname disambig as an article about name), I correct it. If it is reverted in the English Wikipedia, I will engage in the discussion there, but for now it is not.

"All is linked" - yes, ALL is linked, with a single exception - the English entry. So everybody considers it a general _disambig_, while in the English Wikipedia it was for 2 years categorized as a family name _article_. So there is no other place to move it - only to link it to other languages.

I'm tired of repeating the same thing. If you don't agree with how a Wikipedia handle things, talk in this Wikipedia. If you want to propose a major change of policy, discuss it on the appropriate Wikiproject and then open an RfC. I gave you all correct links to do that.

In the meantime, I will still clean up the data, because you know, that's what we do here.