Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/04

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Georgian speaker needed

Someone that speak Georgian or Russian or Ukrainian can explain to user:GiorgiXIII that delete sitelink like he done it's problematic? It's all the day that I revert his edits. --ValterVB (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I left them a message in Russian. If they continue just block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Q866 protection

Please semi-protect YouTube (Q866) again - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Q10737 protection

Please semi-protect suicide (Q10737) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done --Lymantria (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Q855

Fnaq (talk • contribs • logs) commits edit warring, replacing ru-description by an inappropriate version: [1] [2] [3]. --Яй (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Discussion, кусок идиота. What is inappropriate in this version? This field is intended for a BRIEF explanation. See Leonid_Brezhnev and Nikita_Khrushchev. — Fnaq (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Admins, please note, that user has turned to clear abuses. --Яй (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Пожалуйста, обратите внимание на реплику участника. --Яй (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Я не вижу особенной проблемы с правками, а за реплику в следующий раз заблокирую.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: спасибо за урок. Теперь понятно, почему в этот проект потянулись все те, кого в других местах научили себя вести долгосрочными блокировками. --Яй (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Не очень понимаю, почему Вы решили мне нахамить, видимо, в русской Википедии теперь так принято, но дело Ваше.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Видимо, не стоило обещать админдействий за продолжение нарушений, если вы не собирались их предпринимать. Особенно любопытно, что именно в моей реплике показалось вам хамским, при том, что продолжение откровенного хамства на моей странице обсуждения вам таковым почему-то не показалось. Так что дело скорее ваше, чем моё. --Яй (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ip address used by LTA and created User:Favonian MechQuester (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@MechQuester: Should be dealt with now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. MechQuester (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:, you might want to see the talk page. MechQuester (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dealth with again, thanks for reporting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Damien2016

User:Damien2016 has added category of Dravida to Bahun (Q13183983) at wikidata while adding alias "Pahadi Mongol". He mentioned two different origin for Bahun which is an example of intended misconduct. Please provide serious reprimand to him and ban him if necessary. Airkeeper (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Damien2016:, @Airkeeper:, please, both of you come here and let me help you mediate. MechQuester (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. The edits made by Airkeeper have been mainly unsourced and involve large amounts of puffery e.g. "Aryan Khas people". Also based on pseudo-science. The sources I had for my edits to the wikidata were contained on the article itself and were repeatedly removed by Airkeeper. It's clear that English is not his first language and it's interfering with constructive editing. Damien2016 (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There were no any sources in Bahun article that relates Bahun to Chinese people. User:Damien2016 had been sweating hard to connect Bahun to Mongolian & Chinese people. But there were few phrases that related Bahun to Aryan and Khas. "Bahun is colloquial term for local Brahmin" as mentioned on article. Thus I reverted his baseless theory on the wikidata. I never removed User:Damien2016's content edited on Bahun wiki article. If he has simple intelligence, then he wouldn't do it repeatedly. There are no single research or any anthropological work that says Bahuns are Chinese people.

Also, I would like to point that Damien sometimes links Bahun to Dravida race people (like he did 3 hours ago) and sometimes to Chinese people. I don't know what is in his mind? I only need clarification for this that why did he edited Bahun to two completely different race Dravida and Chinese?? Why??Dravida?? Chinese?? Nepali Bahun?? How on earth?? Airkeeper (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Airkeeper (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lets start with the core issue. It is not vandalism nor its disruption. It is a content issue and thus does not require admin tool use. Let us look at the sources first. MechQuester (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete and protect Q27923765

Greetings. I'm relatively new here so please bear with me if I'm on the wrong page. That being said, User:SingkawangTELADAN had been creating hoax pages on Wikipedias in various languagesw about a person «李和星 / Astro Liecharlie» who totally does not exist. I'm therefore requesting that Q27923765 be wiped off Wikidata and be protected from further re-creations. Thanks you. 【粵語文學大使殘陽孤侠】 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: I can't delete it now because it currently meets WD:N, since the article itself hasn't been deleted yet. We cannot create-protect titles except by using abuse filters, because each new item has a different number. What I suggest for now is to warn him, and if he creates more hoax items, report him back here so he can be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Archwayh (talk • contribs • logs)

Can you block this user? They keep deleting statements from Wikidata apparently for cosmetic reasons.
--- Jura 15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks stale now. But looking into this, I'm afraid this is another clash of communities. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Protetct please

Q5460604. Ip keeps adding the entire contents of it. MechQuester (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done --eurodyne (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unprotect! Since when is adding information a reason for protection? User:MechQuester vandalized the item, and then asks for protection. 77.179.151.120 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

150.241.162.239

Apparently, this user juts makes vandalism according to his contributions (the last one is homophobic). Tubezlob (🙋) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, blocked for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

GerardM

At Warren Buffett (Q47213) User:GerardM is refusing to indicate sources for his edits and reverting instead.--Jklamo (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: I know you're going to dislike me for saying this, but at the very least, stop edit warring. That is a policy (per an RfC two years ago) and is thus nonnegotiable. It also shows your blatant disregard for the information on living people because "journalist" clearly does not describe Warren Buffet. I'm not going to take action because of my involvement in a separate discussion with you, but consider this a warning: if you keep edit warring and inserting dubious information, you will be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

the war started with jklamo indicating that he reverted because of a lack of sources. That is not a Wikidata policy, he could have asked. I already moved on. I do not care for a single mistake. I had a look and there are things where I disagree with the article. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

GerardM, you are stating „I have added hundreds of statements from the same source“ but you omitted to give a hint to your source. So what's your reference? --Succu (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Succu vandalizing Project chat and iawiki links

Project chat [4]
iawiki links ia:Allium cepa [5], ia:Solanum lycopersicum [6], ia:Arachis hypogaea [7] 77.179.151.120 22:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tamawashi trolling. --Succu (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

85.180.174.34 (= Tamawashi)

85.180.174.34 (talk • contribs • logs) - vandalism, look at Q12536. Thank you in advance. --Sintakso (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Other IPs used by this user:

85.180.255.40 (talk • contribs • logs)

78.48.218.9 (talk • contribs • logs)

77.179.250.184 (talk • contribs • logs) - already blocked

--Sintakso (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

hey Sintakso, that is not vandalism, nor it comes to it. It is a content dispute. In fact, both of you are correct. the addition or removal is a matter of preference. MechQuester (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Abbasid Caliphate is not a sovereign state, so statement "instance of-sovereign state" without a qualifier is just incorrect. The user discussed has repeatedly removed a qualifier from this statement, which I believe can be considered vandalism. He has also removed valid statement "instance of-former country" which is used widely and I believe there is a consensus on it's usage. --Sintakso (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"The Abbasid Caliphate is not a sovereign state, so statement "instance of-sovereign state" without a qualifier is just incorrect." - that statement by you is false. The whole item has P576 "dissolved, abolished or demolished" = 1258.

Albert Einstein existed 1879 - 1955. He was a P31 "human". The Abbasside Caliphate existed from 750 - 1258, it was a "caliphate". It was not a "former country". There aren't any items on humans having P31=former human. It is rubbish. Next you go and state "future country", because in the time before the existence it was future? There is no consensus and you have been invited to help with the clean up. And why do you leave transcontinental country as normal ranked statement? Shouldn't it be "former transcontinental country" and "former sovereign state" and "former legal state" and "former caliphate" too? You can just add "end time" for each P31 claim in case it stopped to be valid before 1258. Before 1258 it was not a former country. That's it. 77.180.40.174 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Sintakzo from project chat

Related to Q12536 he four times for P31 replaced the values

sovereign state
Islamic state
legal state
transcontinental country
caliphate

with

former country

He repeatedly removed the vandal warnings on his talk [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and refused to take part at Talk:Q12536. It was pointed out several times that he shouldn't remove vandal warnings [13] [14] and that his edits have effect on Listeria output [15] [16]

Additionally to vandalistic effects, four reverts within 60 min constitute edit warring [17] [18] [19] [20]

Best regards from Small Wikipedia Watch Team - that actually USES Wikidata in Wikipedias. But "former"-nonsense replacing actual values is really of no help. 77.179.250.184 16:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You should understand that disagreement does not allow you to call it vandalism. MechQuester (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

But vandalizing does. 77.180.40.174 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I might have overreacted in this case, but I would like to point out that the user discussed was the first to call my edits vandalism. The user has reverted the page 6 times and continued to do so even though three different users clearly opposed his edits. The statement "instance of-former country" is used 2190 times on Wikidata, so there is a clear consensus on it's usage and it shouldn't be removed without discussion. --Sintakso (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As this is apparently not considered a case of vandalism, I am withdrawing my request. Apologies for my misunderstanding of the policies. --Sintakso (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sintakso, there is no clear consensus. 2190 - you know how many items exist in Wikidata? No single human that is dead uses "former human", it is rubbish. And you, you even added it as "preferred rank". 77.179.57.8 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is not much former countries, so I believe the number 2190 is quite big. I apologise for my former attitude towards you - I have done everything I could to fix it. I have removed the vandal warnings from your talk page, I have withdrawn my request and I have apologised. I am no longer involved in this conflict and I have let you revert the item Abbasid Caliphate (Q12536)  

another three times without any action from my side. So, could you please stop putting vandal warnings on my talk page and instead focus on the discussion ongoing at the project chat? --Sintakso (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no opinion on this discussion, but on the general issue of P31 for something that existed in the past, I do tend to agree that the present state does not make the use of P31 regarding a past state invalid. I've added P31 statements on defunct organizations to indicate that they were, when they existed, instances of universities, nonprofit organizations, etc. I don't think it's helpful to duplicate every non-immortal class in our hierarchy with a "former" version of itself. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The only correct value is "former state". What kind of state it is, when in its timeline is secondary. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

GerardM, you talk rubbish. It was not a former state during existing. You go out and tag all humans that are dead as "former human"? 77.179.57.8 20:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating "type of reference" and "suicide rate"

It seems like the majority of properties are currently created by me and the rule forbid me from creating properties I suggested. There are two properties I suggested that have to support votes and no opposition votes:

Can someone create the two? ChristianKl (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Usuario vándalo

El usuario anónimo 187.199.61.45 se dedica a vandalizar el ítem Q3163141, como puede verse en el hitorial y en las contribuciones del usuario. --Jcfidy (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They reverted everything back.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Es insistente Ymblanter. --Jcfidy (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Protegió por un ano.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Q3856077

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T163144

I erroneosly deleted this item and for whatever stupid reason I can not restore it. Could an administrator please do it for me? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I can't either. Looks to be a bug.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will report it to the developers now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Could be a side-effect of phab:T108138. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I left it with the development team anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Esther Afua Ocloo Q5401133

Please protect this page for a bit. Repeated ongoing vandalism (and racial slurs on en-Wiki) probably due to current Google Doodle. 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, one week. --Epìdosis 18:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Commander

Please create the proposed property, as there is no objection for ~3 weeks. Thanks, Eran (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done yet.... Also no support so not enough comments for an admin to decide. Multichill (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

AbuseFilters

Hello.Please Prevent the user from performing the action in question (vandalism 1 2) or at least Trigger these actions after giving the user a warning because these mistakes happen a lot --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Added warning to both and fixed a mistake. Please keep an eye on false positives. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Matěj Suchánek

Done yesterday.Greetings --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-WMF/WMDE harassment

It started with Topic:Tmgrtepf7yaupnm2 and then Topic:Tnhanu1u8bhw2eh6 and now Topic:Toujd4axb3e4b4m4. Can someone do a proper action about User:Jura1? Amir (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth telling us what the later two have to do with WMF or WMDE. Especially as Ladsgroup affirmed the contrary in the past.

In case, I don't think Ladsgroup should use their admin access to protect editorial pages about development projects they are leading or involved in. It would obviously be even more problematic if they were paid contractors of WMDE (something Ladsgroup mentions as their role on their phabricator profile). Maybe we should ask WMDE for more transparency about the later.

As for problematic bot edits, maybe someone else can tell me which of the 12 requests approved them.
--- Jura 11:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I asked several times why you think it's crap and you didn't answer. It's obvious WP:HOUNDING. Amir (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You asked once in return to a question I asked you, a question you merely answered by "read my user page" (as if this wasn't done). Clearly this is not helpful and apparently none else could determine when this action was approved.

Again, here you fail to explain the link between WMF/WMDE and the two topics on your userpage. Further, it's not clear why you link this to a discussion with a WMF employee about edits with their private account on topics they appear to be paid for by WMF.
--- Jura 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jura: Your behaviour towards user:EpochFail and User:Ladsgroup is not acceptable. Drop it. Multichill (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you consider inappropriate? I think it's legitimate to question admin actions when the administrator or WMDE contractor is involved in matter of different editorial views, or to question a bot operator about when their bot action was meant to be approved.
--- Jura 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Read en:WP:HOUNDING. Multichill (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it could apply to Ladsgroup's beviour, but I wouldn't really want to bear such an accusation.
--- Jura 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that I have any say here, but Jura, why were you asking about bot actions from years ago (2013)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think it matters either, but it seems there is a chance they repeat it: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Toujd4axb3e4b4m4&topic_showPostId=tow8k1kej5r7kh9t#flow-post-tow8k1kej5r7kh9t
  --- Jura 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In Jura's defense, a quick visit to the article in question shows that the producer, screenwriter, original author, and none of the cast of the film had anything to do with its direction. For this I have to agree that the edit is crap and that similar edits should be avoided in the future (and I'm sure this issue has been corrected in the past four years). I also understand the concern for impartiality with respect to administrator actions (why do ~~all Wikipedians in Residence need separate accounts for official business~~ but not all those working for the WMF and its chapters?) Unfortunately, Jura, not everyone is as attentive as you are to the detail paid to items modified by bots, so explicitly pointing out that 'Hey, none of these other people directed Public Cowboy No. 1!' harms no one. Demanding information from Lydia pertaining to Amir's connections with WMDE over an easily avoidable editing issue—just because your ideas on item quality don't get adopted automatically and you don't immediately explain them or defend them before changing criteria on your own—runs close to the sorts of behavior that the community tries to avoid and must still actively prevent. Mahir256 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahir256, I'm not aware that „Wikipedians in Residence need separate accounts for official business“. Could you point me to the requesting policy? --Succu (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting question indeed. Not that it really matters as Ladsgroup presented himself (also) as a WMDE contractor on his main account at the time when I commented on his talk page about it. I don't think there is a "WMDE contractor"-account either. This question is naturally unrelated to the bot malfunction.
--- Jura 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I spoke way too rashly; seeing the example of people such as James Hare, John P. Sadowski, and Emily Temple-Wood, all of whom work with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Q60346) and who have personal and official accounts, in saying this. There is definitely no such official policy for Wikipedians in Residence. I do not think my other points are affected by this, though. Mahir256 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here it would be about a WMDE contractor, not a Wikipedian-in-Residence.
So it's actually a legitimate question in a matter related to an admin account used in the protection of a WMDE-lead editorial project page.
Using a separate account wouldn't make its user acting as an impartial admin though.
--- Jura 04:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pax Deorum (Q7156458) x No label defined (Q766566)

Q766566 has no label, even if it contains the links to six articles named Pax Deorum (in Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan and Danish).

Instead, the label Pax Deorum is in Q7156458 which is described as a "Wikipedia disambiguation page". Actually it contains only one link (in English) and it is not to a disambiguation page but to a redirect page.

So I suggest to move the label Pax Deorum from Q7156458 to Q766566 (also providing an adequate description). Is it possible?--Yone Fernandes (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you need from administrators? Is there anything you cannot do yourself? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I could move the six links from Q766566 to Q7156458 by myself but I don't know how to edit the description of the page. Sorry. --Yone Fernandes (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't move the six links, it isn't correct. Link in Q766566 aren't disambiguation pages, but Q7156458 it's only for disambiguation. --ValterVB (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. So what could be done about the label of Q766566? --Yone Fernandes (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current state of both items is correct. I can't see any problem. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks to Jklamo, Q766566 is not untitled anymore. Yone Fernandes (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Tourist attraction

This IP has spread a lot of instance of (P31)tourist attraction (Q570116) for nearly 100 monuments in Turkey ... is it possible to rollback them massively? --Epìdosis 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is that wrong? (Not obvious to me.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: All the beaches, museums, places of worship etc. could potentially have instance of (P31)tourist attraction (Q570116). Why only those items and not others? And, mainly: do we really need these statements? Without any reference giving the amount of tourists? --Epìdosis 17:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

SELECT ?item ?date { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q570116; schema:dateModified ?date } ORDER BY DESC(?date)

Try it!

There had been more such statements before. So I would either delete them all, or none of them. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Q254 protection

Please semi-protect Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Q254) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

vandalism

Please block 2001:56A:F6FE:BA00:8440:8AB4:62BE:D7C8 (talk • contribs • logs), already blocked on enwiki for vandalism. Thanks. Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a day.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Q8605 protection

Please semi-protect Simón Bolívar (Q8605) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Done semi-protected for 1 year. Pamputt (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

please block User:80.73.153.80 for spamming

spamming of Q34253 - perhaps semi-protection required... Thanks--Hsarrazin (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Brya's editing

Hello. Could somebody take interest at user:Brya. He is clearly disrupting interwikies about plants. I have found various cases (like Q23485, Q37383 or Q23501) where he, imagining himself as solving sort of confusion, being lost of any common sense makes total chaos trying to split insplitable - tomato and tomato as an example. From Q23501 which lists all the wikipedia articles about tomato he managed to split (Q20638126) - an article of "tomato fruit". And listed there all interwiki links which are in small languages, exotic, ruling them out because "My impression is that most pages are on the fruit/vegetable, with varying degrees of material on the plant/species included." (from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q20638126). So, judging by his impression, user:Briya for example splited like ru:Помидор and tyv:Помидор being about the same or worse lt:valgomasis svogūnas and bat-smg:cėbolė being exactly about the same (I speak both languages as native and have written bat-smg:cėbolė). What are the mottos of Wikipedia being simple, easy to conduct and understand while in fact one user try to implore (and others silently agree) some kind of obscure and totally ilogical system. Instead of founding all iw links about tomato, peanut or onion in one place, an user now needs to navigate between two identical interwiki sets (one for "real" languages and other for "barbarians with their hyerogliphs who off course could only write about food and anyway nobody cares about all these zulus and navajos"). This is his attitude because he do not understand these languages but simply sees page with strange text and tomato picture and has impression this is food. In fact, no wikipedia has different articles about tomato plant/food or onion plant/food and only 3 about peanut nut as different entity. I ask you to take this case seriously and use your own sense. Because interwiki links are vitaly important, especially for smaller languages. Splitting them from main interwiki set without any reason and understanding is vandalism against all wiki community. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hugo.arg: Can you please avoid labeling his edits as vandalism when they are not clearly in bad faith? That's absolutely not helpful at all. Can you also please resolve this dispute by discussing with him first? Unless Brya is not responding to your messages at all, this looks like a content dispute, not a user conduct one. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Jasper Deng Could you please explain this edit? --Succu (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: I guess it is related to this. Pamputt (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm, lol you didn't read the above section about my complaint about Brya. He came at me to say that I am the vandal as opposed to any explanation. (you might want to see his contributions on enwiki and nlwikitionary. MechQuester (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

With these fruits and vegetables there are three big topics:

the taxon (with details on taxonomy and details of the plant, like flower structure, etc),
the fruit or vegetable (how it is used in the kitchen, nutritional values, the history of its domestication, where it is grown, production figures, etc),
its cultivation (how it is tended, its diseases, etc). The last rarely gets its own page (or item), but the first two may well have their own page (or item): this varies from case to case.

It will vary from case to case how prominent these three topics are and how prominent these are dealt with in Wikipedia's. In general, the more prominent the fruit/vegetable, the more likely it is to have prominent coverage. In some cases, there is no choice as there will be separate pages within a Wikipedia. In other cases, it can be argued in more than one way. For the big topics, known to everybody, the question is not if interwiki's will be split, but when.

For "small" Wikipedia's, with "small" pages, there is no doubt that these are about the fruit/vegetable (Google translate is quite explicit). And this is just what is to be expected; the fruit/vegetable is what people know. It is the bigger pages that are confused (in differing degrees), and anything that is done with them will be controversial to some degree.

I see that User:Hugo.arg acknowledges that there are three Wikipedia's with separate pages on peanuts as a separate entity, but that he intends to ignore the needs/wants of the readers in those languages, and those in the languages of other Wikipedia's having a page on peanut (instead of Arachis hypogaea). So, if there is anybody making high-handed, arbitrary decisions it is he, not me. - Brya (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: If you do wish to continue on this path of separating articles on different topics, you may want to consult with speakers of those languages to determine which of the topics you mentioned is the main topic before performing the moves yourself (actually you should do this for anything pertaining to which some other active user has some competency), and also consider that there may be articles that are meant to cover both the plant and its fruit and possibly separate those articles into their own Wikidata item. Mahir256 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hugo.arg: If you are going to argue about problems with interwikis, what will you say to those speakers of Armenian, Uyghur, Tatar, Ladino, Emiliano/Rumagnol, North Frisian, ... who read an article in an alternative script and visit the item only to find (gasp) that there are no other links to pages there? Oh wait, there's permanent duplicated item (P2959), which they can follow to find more links, and thus more information, about it! There's thousands more properties that can link to items where the other 'missing' articles may be found, all of which carry more semantic detail than the one I mentioned. Exactly these links between items, likely using part of (P361) and has part(s) (P527), can be employed here. Mahir256 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB, Infovarius, GerardM: : you worked on or used Top1000 list, and here is Brya [21] 85.181.105.227 17:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The "should have" article is about the fruit lemon (Q1093742) and not about the taxon, Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's format ("fruit/vegetable") is Q28777989 (flat text, solid text, the connection between concepts is found by a person, model of the world - in the head of a person). Wikidata's format (fruit/vegetable taxon-source, fruit/vegetable taxon-result) is machine-readable data (Q6723621) (model of the world - in Wikidata, API-programms can use it). Small pages (exact concepts) in the Wikipedia environment do not survive, so they migrate from WP to WD. Therefore, the future (location of the model of the world) is for Wikidata (Q2013). --Fractaler (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment for this sort of "tidying/clarification/regorganisation" it would be really useful for the user to maintain a FAQ as user subpage or a specific project subpage. This way it can clearly state what is happening, how it is happening. Such plans for mass editing should be a consensus action, not solely a specific user's PoV. The thing to remember is that if the person's logic is not obvious and overt, then it cannot be replicated, and people continue to make the same mistakes/differences. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

property deletion discussion

Hi, could an admin please close WD:PFD § daily patronage (P3873)? (Per the discussion, property labels should probably be transferred to daily patronage (P1373).) Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Local gadget configuration fixes required

Would someone please update MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition to address the issues in the gadgets loading twice. From my view, I see at least two that need resolving.

Gadget "PrimarySources" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/MGU#Gadget_type>. Template:Navbox:135:45
Gadget "DuplicateReferences" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/MGU#Gadget_type>.

Plus as a general note, I am not certain why these two gadgets would try load in all namespaces, couldn't we be limiting them to main namespace? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Done That's a feature: if you have a gadget enabled, it's loaded everywhere (but on Special:Preferences). The author has to make sure that the loading in other namespaces is no-op. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Q47499 protection

Please semi-protect International Workers' Day (Q47499) - temporary popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses. Shorter protection time may be sufficient.--Jklamo (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)