Wikidata:Edit groups/QSv2/48740

Edit group QSv2/48740

Summary	{{{summary}}}	Author	Matthias Winkelmann
Number of edits	3,387 (more statistics)	Example edit	Q5885246

Discussion

@Matthias Winkelmann: why are you removing all these locations? Are they incorrect? MSGJ (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

MSGJ They are exact duplicates with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements in every case, and on items with instance of (P31) where located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is preferred according to the consensus (i.e. physical structures, not organisations or events). I've stopped it for now in case I've overlooked something, but I believe no information is removed, only redundancies. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You removed location (P276) from Connective Railway Bridge (Q548354) and now there is no P276 statement on that item. MSGJ (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean they are duplicates with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)? MSGJ (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I mixed those up, above. (Now Corrected) Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for removing P276 please? I have articles on Wikipedia which are now missing information because they were using P276 instead of P131. MSGJ (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at Property_talk:P131 is the most in-depth. I don't believe any sane policy would recommend having two entirely redundant statements on items, so it has to be either one of those. And this query shows how the two properties are used. I've chosen buildings and subclasses in China as an example because that seems to be among your areas of interest. The two rightmost columns show the relative usage of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and location (P276), with the former being dominant across the board. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at Property talk:P131. Could you direct me to the relevant section? In general I agree that using both P276 and P131 for the same value is redundant, but there needs to be some mechanism to prevent information disappearing from Wikipedia without editors there being given a chance to switch to the other property. Essentially you need to be really careful about removing claims which are in use by a project. Do you have any suggestions to improve this? MSGJ (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)