User talk:Samoasambia

Question on edit

Could you explain this edit? https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q149566&oldid=prev&diff=2434736414 How is a school not a geographical entity? Without this tag, any attempt to add the OSM attributes, like OSM way, will result in an warning. EvanCarroll (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the really late response. The property instance of (P31) means that the item is an individual instance of something. middle school (Q149566) is a class of schools and not a individual school. It looks like the property constraints of OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) were recently edited so that OSM way IDs are now okay on school items. Hopefully this solves the issue. Samoasambia ✎ 12:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Lulu

Moi. Jätän nämä vain tähän jonkun muun pohdittavaksi: Q28779386, Q63164219, sama henkilö (esim. HS). --Anr (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Kappas, selvästi kyllä samat. Yhdistin kohteet. Samoasambia ✎ 17:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Boris Gersman

Hello, I have undone your wikidata merge: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q116951728&oldid=2446061405

The two items concern two very different people (different dates of birth and death, origins, and professions). This mix-up has happened a few times already in German wikipedia. Probably because one of the guys does not have any Wikipedia page. I think about creating a stub just for preventing this mixup. In the meantime: It would be helpful to check especially carefully when merging. It is not so easy to undo, I had to manually re-enter some data because of your mistake. Take care, thank you! Tartigradesinspace (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tartigradesinspace, thanks for unmerging my false merge. I think the items had exactly the same dates of birth and death at the time which lead to them to come up in this database report of possible duplicates. In the future you can add different from (P1889) properties to items that may be mixed up with each other. It blocks also merges. Samoasambia ✎ 23:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

depth (Q181591)

Not sure why did you unmerged Q16556573 and depth (Q181591). To me they are the same, or at least en and pl versions are. Can you explain? Jarekt (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, we have a guideline for disambiguation page items that states that each disambiguation item should only contain links to Wikipedia disambiguation pages with the exact same spelling with exceptions for special characters and transcriptions. I was inially concerned about a merge of a non-disambiguation item and a disambiguation item but now I noticed that depth (Q181591) was hijacked by another user and it was actually originally a disambiguation item. Samoasambia ✎ 23:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Impersonation

FYI, this user is also a prolific long-term abuser on the English Wikipedia (Andrew5), and any weather-related impersonators will almost 100% be them. Thanks for blocking. EF5 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info. I left a global lock request. Samoasambia ✎ 00:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

They’re back, can you create-protect my talk page? I’m not active on Wikidata anyways; the only reason I know they’re on my talk is via the email feature. EF5 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Asking help

Sorry, I was unable to make a merging between https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1293879 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q26160023. Please, help me in this case Noel baran (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Samoasambia ✎ 22:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Noel baran (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

[mul] label

Hi @Samoasambia, I saw your changes regarding the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group and the European Christian Political Party, and I am a little puzzled. You write that "The EU has 24 official languages and English is just one of them." But isn't the point of the [mul] tag that it is only used unless a local name is provided (such as in one of the EU's languagues)? In this sense, the [mul] tag doesn't take anything away. Additionally, the choice of English for the labels/aliases is not because it is a better language per se, but because that is the official name that these group/party have decided. They have names in other languages but that is the official name they chose. So I am trying to better understand why you would go ahead and remove this -- if it has been written in English in all language tags, I would have understood, but that is specifically not the case. Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy to get your feedback when you have a moment, @Samoasambia! Julius Schwarz (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Still interested in your feedback, @Samoasambia. Short of a strong reason, I really think this ought to be reverted. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Samoasambia, trying again to get feedback on this. Would really like to hear back. Short of this, I will indeed revert, but I remain open to discussing this when you have time. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Julius Schwarz. I'm sorry for the huge delay in reply. I was querying for EU-related items that have mul labels, and removed them from EU bodies because de jure the official languages of are co-equal (though de facto there is some kind of hierarchy among the official languages). But now that I thought about it a bit further, the European political parties aren't actually EU bodies but private organizations so I think they could have some language hierarchy. Samoasambia ✎ 11:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Language fallback chains on Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects are usually set so that the English label is displayed if the "native" label and mul label are missing on Wikidata. So I would avoid setting an English name as mul label just because it's nice to have an English name as a fallback. I think English should have some official position over other official languages in a multilingual organization to allow an English name to be the mul label here. Samoasambia ✎ 12:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I think it is less about an official position, and more about the fact that European parties very often use their English above national variants, even when they exist. For instance on social media, so English has a de facto different status. Do you confirm that, in their case, the English name does indeed display when the mul and native labels are missing? Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy to confirm this for sure when you have a moment, @Samoasambia. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear

Dear Samoasambia, please read my response here, as well as linked remarks on talk page. Don't fall for that manipulator's false accusations, his intentions are not clear. To repeat once again: if I wanted to make any POV, I would exclude the VOA Persian source and replace it with Iranian sources. However, I didn't do it, I just added the latter. Voice of America (VOA) is treated on Wikipedias as American governmental propaganda, and given the ongoing US-Iran tensions, should we remove it? I say let's not. Why? It still may be correct. What would I get here if I remove it and leave only Iranian Mehr Agency? Nothing. If it proves to be wrong, I would only ruin my reputation here on Wikidata, and hundreds of thousands of my edits may look suspicious. By the manipulator's "logic", this view makes me an US government propagandist, but I don't care about such ridiculous accusations.

Considering you're an admin here, I'll leave further editing to you. If you want, you can keep only an US source and remove an Iranian one. What will you get? Also nothing. If the girl is later proven to be alive, it won't look good for someone's NPOV reputation. IMHO it's better to keep both (as on Persian Wikipedia), so future will show that only reputation of one of those two outlets will be damaged. I don't personally claim it's either killing or misinformation, both may be correct. For sure it won't be the first time that either US or Iranian media published a biased misinformation. On Wikidata I'm focused on cultural heritage sites and I used Mehr Agency a lot as a reference (most recently for Kish Elite Palace (Q5891265)), their data generally fits fine with scholarly sources, therefore at the moment I disagree with your claim that it's not a reliable source. But still, I may be wrong. Take care, and please don't mind my previous reverts, it was all in good faith. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. For 2026 Iran massacres (Q137703947), a "political repression" is too vague as well as mild term. We have better, more precise items, like police brutality in Iran (Q106990988) and terrorism in Iran (Q7703934). The latter one isn't biased as it may also include state terrorism (Q623179). --Orijentolog (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Q764813

Terve! Can you please explain your edit in this item? As far as I understand the Finnish page w:fi:Pieni talo preerialla is a disambiguation page for things that are called "Pieni talo preerialla", or in English "Little House on the Prairie". Why shouldn't it be connected to similar disambiguation pages on other Wikiepdias? Mbkv717 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering Downstream Reuse in Wikidata Deletions

I’ve noticed that you are active in deletion work. I’d like to raise a concern about cases where items are deleted based on notability, even though they are used in data-driven contexts.

When an item is connected via maintained by WikiProject (P6104) to a project, notifying or consulting that project first could help assess structural or downstream dependencies. There is an example here showing the potential impact of deletions on downstream uses: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Salgo60#Deleted_unnotable_items_&_machine_translations

Because Wikidata items often function as nodes in a larger data graph, their value is not always visible from the item page alone. Good intentions alone do not always prevent unintended consequences when domain knowledge or downstream reuse is involved.

Wikidata functions as a data-driven platform, and currently we lack good tools to see how items are reused outside Wikidata itself (e.g., in queries, maps, or external applications - I see that as technical debt (Q1532172)). Because of this, applying notability logic without visibility into data reuse can sometimes cause unintended breakage for data-driven uses.

As noted in Wikidata:Notability, an item may be notable if it “fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.” This highlights that notability also serves Wikidata’s function as a data infrastructure.

• Because Wikidata does not provide strong tools to track when items are “needed to make statements made in other items more useful,” communication before deletion becomes especially important. In this environment, a simple “deletion-first approach” is often insufficient for current data-driven usage.

External reuse of Wikidata — such as in maps, data visualizations, and third-party applications — further increases the likelihood that deletions have downstream effects that are not visible within Wikidata.

Wikidata increasingly functions as a knowledge base that supports many downstream services, and its data is consumed by external applications, including Wikipedia features like maps. This makes item stability and predictability important for downstream users.

- Salgo60 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay in reply. I deleted the drinking water point, hiking sign and AED items based on the notability policy. My suggestion is that the fact that a particular place has a water point, a hiking sign or an AED may be modelled via has facility (P912) statement (possibly with qualifiers) on the item of the place, and this should be perfectly sufficient for modeling these services. If you encounter issues relating to data modeling in the future you may start a conversation with the community e.g. on project chat on what is the best way to model the data while respecting the notability policy.

The structural need criterion does not include use on third-party websites, and my user talk page is probably not the best forum for discussing whether or not the notability policy should be reformed on this point. A better forum for that would the ongoing RfC. I apologise that the enforcement of the notability policy causes you extra labour on your project. Samoasambia ✎ 12:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer the basic problem is that you delete without check if a project is connected maintained by WikiProject (P6104)

• the problem is not how its modelled with has facility (P912) it doesnt help us get it on a map at the correct point
• having drinking water, AED then you have
  • coordinate
  • Wikicommons picture and Wikicommon categories connected to that object
    • you navigate using a map between wikicommon categories so you can check pictures of the objects before hiking
  • if you hike a trail getting info that drinking water is along a 270 km trail makes no one happy you need a datapoint

"third-party websites" it is in a Wikipedia article en:Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail you have a map with less objects...

"I apologise that the enforcement" thanks I feel its more an indication that community open driven projects has big limitation... and also that the todays architecture of Wikidata need support software design pattern (Q181156) as Observer pattern maybe maintained by WikiProject (P6104) right used is a good start

- Salgo60 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Would you be willing to suggest an improvement of the notability policy to include all items currently curated by a WikiProject? So9q (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Best practices

Hi, I want to ask about the rules here since I'm not completely familiar with them. In a situation like the one in the example, how should I act? A user insists on adding a Turkish-English hybrid name, which they think is correct, instead of the title from the Turkish Wikipedia article. I don't want to violate any edit wars or revert rules, so I'm asking which approach is the correct one to follow. 𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the all corrections in Finnish. I use Automatic addition, and I probably used the wrong language form at the beginning, but the correct version has been in the list ( User:Pallor/autoEditLists.js) for quite some time now, and you have now corrected my initial mistake. Thanks. Pallor (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello! Could you please delete Q4806910. It is based on an false attack page related to the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack. I have linked the English Wikipedia article here. Out of all four suspects that have been jailed since, all of whom are alive, none is named 'Asif Iqbal'. The redirect for Asif Iqbal in the English Wikipedia, which was the only sitelinked entry at Q4806910, was deleted recently for being an attack page. EarthDude (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Samoasambia ✎ 16:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

AraBot

Hi Samoasambia! I read your messages today about AraBot — sorry about that; I usually only see messages on my page on the Aragonese Wikipedia. As I mentioned to EPIC, I thought that having a bot flag on the Aragonese Wikipedia meant I didn't need to request one here as well, which is why I didn't ask earlier. I have now opened a request at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/AraBot and hope to be able to continue working with the bot as soon as possible. Thank you and best regards! --Willtron (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)