Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/07/01

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

Dictionary entries

Are such items like Q30194708, Q30194711, Q30189424 notable and allowed in Wikidata? I don't think so. By me, they are much like wiktionary pages about words/definitions which aren't allowed in WD at the moment. What do other think? --XXN, 12:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: this discussion will affect thousands of similar items (the 3 items listed above are part of a series). --XXN, 12:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the general question may be if Wikisource is a good fit for Wikidata or if it wouldn't be served better by a Wikibase installation of its own. Other than that, there isn't really a big difference between these and other WS items.
--- Jura 13:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I've asked first the author about these items, then notified him about this discussion, but seems that he isn't interested to participate in this discussion, but keeps building such useless (IMO) items.[1]
If it's not very obivous to accept or not such items, maybe is the case to start a broader discussion at WD:PC, or even a RFC? --XXN, 19:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Update; this query shows that at the moment there are ~27000 items for dictionary entries originating from Russian wikisource (all of them part of this series):
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
WHERE
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q4423781 ;
        rdfs:label ?itemLabel filter (lang(?itemLabel) = "ru") .
  ?article schema:about ?item ; schema:isPartOf <https://ru.wikisource.org/> .
}
Try it!

XXN, 19:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Info There is Wikidata:Wikisource, and interwikis to Wikisource are also mentioned in Wikidata:Notability. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

They all seem to contain a legit sitelink to Wikisource. Wikisource can contain dictionaries, this seems like a good set of claims to indicate the entries of them. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Notability says: "On Wikisource [...] pages in the Index and Page namespaces are not considered valid. The status of subpages of mainspace pages (for example, individual chapters) is undetermined."
These Wikisource pages with dictionary entries are somehow similar to the pages in Page namespace which are not considered valid sitelinks in WD, and they are mentioned in the second statement from the quoted excerpt above (e.g.: ru:source:ТСД/Притомный is a subpage of a mainspace page). So their status still undetermined yet; the policy doesn't confirm their validity.
These 'undetermined' things in policies are so bad; until the community will decide to accept them or not, WD will be full of such items. These 27K items are part of a one single dictionary, but there are many other dictionaries in many other languages (and multiple dictionaries per language). Thus I'd say that accepting items for Wiktionary pages is a smaller problem than accepting items for Wikisource pages with dictionary entries, as in the first case there is a known (estimable) limit of possible pages (and items) which could exist, but in the second case there is unlimited number of possible subpages split from a multitude of existent and upcoming dictionaries. XXN, 11:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that such entries don't differ from other encyclopedic entries like Wasp (Q20978599). Infovarius (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Except of course that the content of the article linked by Wasp (Q20978599) contains a lot more text etc. Dictionary entries are typicly short. Lymantria (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't these items be moved to ru.wikt? And as the sitelinks of wiktionary are soon enabled on Wikidata, I lean to keep these items, but as wikt-items. Q.Zanden questions? 23:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
        • This is Explanatory Dictionary, not the orthographic. Doubt that it suitable for wikt, and no understand of this future technology. --Vladis13 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
        • @QZanden: a key moment here is that only sitelinks to pages from non-main namespaces (Category, Template, Help, Wiktionary, etc) will be accepted for now. For pages in main namespaces about words, a extension named "Cognate" will provide interlanguage links, so, I am not sure if there will exist ever items for words and definitions from wiktionaries. Maybe @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): can say more. XXN, 10:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
        • ... and we can't decide for other projects what they should do with their pages. --XXN, 11:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
          • We will describe Wiktionary-relevant data in a new entity type. They'll not go into items but into a new one called lexeme instead. The reasons are: 1) you need statements on two levels instead of one and 2) the data about a word is very different from the data about the concept. You'll make different statements about "tree" the word than about "tree" the concept and we really don't want to mix them up. Hope this helps. I can clarify more if you have more questions. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Deleting all items, including that earlier was created manualy, will mass break links and bibliographic templates to the dict in Wiki projects, which using data from WD. --Vladis13 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Толковый словарь Даля - один из фундаментальных трудов в части русского языка. Редкая научная работа в этой области обходится без его упоминания. Десятки тысяч ссылок на него с Русской Википедии является наглядным тому подтверждением и есть немало статей, где эту ссылку стоило бы поставить. Удаление таких элементов очень похоже на вандализм ибо явно противоречит основной задаче Викимедиа - распространению свободных знаний. Принцип непосредственно Викиданных в том, что если есть статья в любом проекте, она должна быть привязана к элементу Викиданных - для того они и были созданы. Мне сложно участвовать в обсуждении на английском, потому скажу просто: если эти элементы будут удалены, то моя работа в Викиданных на этом будет закончена. Я не стану участвовать в таком проекте, слишком это на русофобию смахивает, ведь никому в голову не приходило удалить элементы Британники или Научной энциклопедии Отто (кстати, если их удалят, то доже попрощаюсь), а тут вот внезапно озарило. Показателен и тот факт, что номинатор привел далеко не самые удачные примеры статей и это никак не похоже на случайность. Кстати, это я просил создать эти элементы, ибо вручную это делать долго и вместо спасибо - устроили тут судилище. Считаю номинацию нужно поскорее закрыть, дабы не позорить интернациональный проект национализмом. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Schekinov Alexey Victorovich: Ну не надо так "...похоже на вандализм...", "...на русофобию смахивает...", "...национализм...", и ультиматумы уходом из проэкта ставить. Не конструктивно это. Выше я объяснил почему начал обсуждение - в крацах, так как элементы для страниц про слов из викисловарей не допускаются в Викиданные, уж очень сильно похожи на них эти страницы из викитеке и не уверен я что им тут место. Тем более что словарей - море, и заполонить Викиданные элементами для слов - нужно ли нам это? К тому же в WD:N написано что и элементы для страниц викитеки в пространстве "Страница" не допустимы, и снова эти страницы про слов сильно смахивают на те страницы ПДФ-ов. Не нравятся примеры которые я привел ? Ну что поделать; если честно я много страниц и не расматривал, это случайные примеры попавщийся под руку в момент когда решил понаблюдать над страницу свежих правок которую зафлудили конкретно к тому моменту. А если и были и другие страницы из той же серии, не думаю что это бы что-то меняло, всё равно в элементах P31:Q4423781 и они бы привлекли на себя внимание. Кстати про этой заливке элементов, было бы неплохо если бы она обсуждалась предварительно так как она вполне объемная и как видете неоднозначна. Может при предварителной обсуждении кто-то бы упомянул и про схожеству со страницами слов викисловарей и тех из пространстве "Страница", которые недопустимы. Кстати заливающий залил элементы с устарелым original language of film or TV show (P364) - тут тоже я виноват? Про элементов страниц Британники и энциклопедии Отто, наверное тоже может иметь место обсуждение, но я бы не смешал всё в одну обсуждение тут, так как не совсем идентичны они по сути. XXN, 11:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Викисловарь не является АИ, как, впрочем, и Википедия. А вот словарь Даля является. И огромное количество утверждений может подтвердить именно он. Это не просто странички о словах, это энциклопедические статьи о значении слова. Кстати, в английской Википедии очень много статей которые по объему не дотягивают до ТСД, а изложено в них ровным счетом тоже самое. Что до обсуждения заливки, то обсуждать надо спорные ресурсы, вроде "Энциклопедии Конопли", а академически признанные источники давно уже являются элементами желанными по умолчанию. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question @XXN: Is your concern here that we are having subparts of a work that are individually entered and referenced? Or is your concern more specific that these are dictionary words that are individually split out?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by billinghurst (talk • contribs). 13:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect properties added to items

There have been incorrect properties added to these items. One such example is located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), which contains dictionary entry (Q4423781), which is obviously wrong. I have made a QuickStatements script to remove them. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 02:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Find them
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
WHERE
{
  ?item wdt:P131 wd:Q4423781 ;
        rdfs:label ?itemLabel filter (lang(?itemLabel) = "ru") .
  ?article schema:about ?item ; schema:isPartOf <https://ru.wikisource.org/> .
}
Try it!
The query finds no results and the batch have been run by PokestarFan so I'm marking this as  Resolved.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by QZanden (talk • contribs) at 18 June 2017‎ (UTC).
Apparently the bot doesnt recognize {{Resolved}} as done so now:
✓ Done. Q.Zanden questions? 23:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The batch

[...]

I deleted the batch to free up space. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 12:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Q31254666

Q31254666: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Created by error Fralambert (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Eurodyne (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q224236

Beauty and the Beast (Q224236): Wikimedia disambiguation page: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The item is blank. --Elialbert94 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eliablbert94: You mean to say: I blanked the item. Seems like you did some kind of a merge? Please explain yourself, and in the future do not blank items before nominating here. Lymantria (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Elialbert94: Sorry, typo. Lymantria (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lymantria: The article it was referring to already existed in other item so I deleted it. --Elialbert94 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Elialbert94, Lymantria: I merged the item with Q15105725, but Elialbert, it is normal to do a merge in such a situation. Q.Zanden questions? 23:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Qzanden, thanks. --Lymantria (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q31098654

Q31098654: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item Rlevente (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q6991125

Q6991125: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Were two not-notable redirects Infovarius (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Delete Merge is not possible. Q.Zanden questions? 23:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
✓ Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q18920850

Q18920850: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not used, link is dead Gstupp (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q23908196

Q23908196: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item Rlevente (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

good or bad?

Items are linked to each other, but not in use be other items (right now). A first discussion was started at Wikidata:Project chat#Fractaler's new findings. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment at least Q30126982 and Q30126973 could be used in war chronicles, "according to" property is missing (or I forgot its id). d1g (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

really? winning side will have one opinion, losers another. With the passage of time, what is the opinion of a desirable result?  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
War is not about loosers and winners, but about scenarios and actions taken by each side.
Every side has more than one action plan or scenario. Some of them are desirable, others - not. d1g (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Q30126982 and Q30126973 could be used in medicine or in engineering processes. d1g (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Wikidata was designed with pluralism in mind. This means that subjective but properly sourced claims could be added. Ranks could be used to make further clarifications. d1g (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I/we want; our mission; our goal; our plan; our intent are easily searchable. I don't understand FUD about vandals. d1g (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the existence of this item makes vandalism easier. If someone wants to add wrong claims they already have tons of options. With this option it's at least easy to see that vandalism happened. ChristianKl (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to ping, just now I've been informed about this discussion. About objectively/depends on many thingsrelativity (Q1047129): of course [2], [3], [4], [5], good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292) and so on - relative things/objects and subject (Q830077) on page said about this. For example, "Not useful" - for whom? It is relative things/objects, and subject (Q830077) says for whom is Q30126982/Q30126973. Or "objectively/subjectively" - for whom? For scientist (Q901), philosopher (Q4964182) or Q30049620? --Fractaler (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
to use them as items in object has role (P3831) and criterion used (P1013). d1g (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"good or bad" + "for its recipient" = no subjectiveness

Renamed: good/bad thing for its recipient (Q30126951/Q30127019) --Fractaler (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you some example of use? --ValterVB (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
we can take any autobiography (Q4184)  View with Reasonator View with SQID where opinions on the past are present, isn't? d1g (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
If you are answering my question I do not understand, sorry. I mean an example where we can use this item or what concept must explain this item. In this moment I can't translate label or description because I haven't the context of use. --ValterVB (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions?
We don't need to store every opinion; opinions of participants are often valuable than not. d1g (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Just for examples: 1) predation (Q170430), 2) espionage (Q165950)/military intelligence (Q4168000), 3) defeat (Q14631121)/victory (Q50000), 4) crime (Q83267)/punishment (Q186361) 5) law enforcement agency (Q732717)/outlaw (Q254508) 6) immune system (Q1059)/(microorganism (Q39833), cancer cell (Q4118072), 7) key/lock in "key-lock system", 8) wrongdoing (Q6765918), 9) tumor (Q133212)/medical treatment (Q179661), 10) altruism (Q167323)/egoism (Q238350), ... malware (Q14001), animal attack (Q19692224), wound (Q184753), damage (Q481609), failure (Q1121708)/success (Q7632586), loss (Q20888800), harm (Q15098235), leaf mine (Q27493024), goal (Q18530) ... --Fractaler (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 Delete I'm not happy with the proposed usage via subclass of (P279). If we want to store this kind of knowledge it would make more sense to have something like a 'beneficiary' property. ChristianKl (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
subclass of (P279) - it is just tools for example that I know and understand. I don't know about "'beneficiary' property". Of course If there is a better presentation tool, then we need to use it --Fractaler (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you claim to understand those tools means that you should know why it's a bad idea to use them in the way you propose. That doesn't help your case. ChristianKl (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, above I said about the duplication of function used by (P1535). Duplicates do not need us (of course). --Fractaler (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 Delete from me too. These examples do not seem very accurate to me. The world is not black and white and I'm not sure what the aim of trying to divide it into good and bad is (what you think anyone will do with statements like this?). If you have actual use cases, it would be much better to talk about those, how we can best model the data for them and where we will source the data from (I notice your examples are missing references). I don't think P31 is the right way to try and model something like this and I don't think the current statements are correct. A criminal is not the recipient of a crime and "good thing for its recipient of criminal" doesn't make sense. - Nikki (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
"These examples do not seem very accurate" - do the items good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292) have more accuracy? "The world is not black and white" - black (Q23445)/white (Q23444)? As type of color (Q1075)? "to divide it into good and bad" for whom? good for whom, bad for whom? "missing references" - I do not know how many examples are allowed for items to delete. I can give many examples to show the benefits of introducing a recipient into good/evil. For example - friction, epidemic, poaching, hacking - bad or good? For whom? About crime (Q83267). It is 1) process 2) result (of the process). outlaw (Q254508) commits a crime (process) and got a benefits (result). This result is a good thing for outlaw (Q254508). For victim (Q1851760) such result is bad thing. bad/good thing is dyad (Q29431432), Where one gives, the other takes. --Fractaler (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't let good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292) be superclasses of a broad domain. We don't try to use those concepts to divide the world into the two on Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 Delete still subjective and still depends on a PoV, even on the basis of a "reasonable person test". Goodness<->Badness is a spectrum, and where it sits depends on way too much for WD to classify. This person got seven years in jail; the accused thought it completely unjust he should have been found not guilty; the victim of crime through it terribly unjust and thought that they should die in jail.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
"We don't let" - how? What tools for this? --Fractaler (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
"depends on a PoV" - yes, good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292) depends on a PoV. Goodness<->Badness is relativity (Q1047129) notion (=used by (P1535)). punishment (Q186361) is bad for outlaw (Q254508). crime (Q83267) (result) is bad for victim (Q1851760), but good for outlaw (Q254508). As good/bad (without used by (P1535)) - of course "subjective and still depends on a PoV". --Fractaler (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fractaler: I have no idea what your argument is here. Good, bad, evil, ... relative or not, are all PoV and inexact, and none of it belongs here. Data is not points of view.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: My argument here is: good, bad, evil, ... is polysemy/ambiguity/relative/inexact (have not PoV, used by (P1535)). When pointing out the point of view, ambiguity turns into uniqueness. For example, "Data is not points of view": data for whom and from whose PoV (from your PoV, from WP's PoV, from ...'s PoV)? --Fractaler (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292)

Can anybody indicate, specify the recipient (for whom?) in good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292)? --Fractaler (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what you ask, but they are notable because they fall under the first point of our Notability guideline --ValterVB (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Progress leads to a decrease in ambiguity/polysemy and an increase in accuracy, uniqueness. I'm always for progress (though I have to experience problems - some people do not like clarifying inconvenient questions, it causes an aggressive defensive reaction:no answer, personal persecution, threats, execution). Now good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292) do not have a recipient (in WD), so they are bad things for the progress. To eliminate the ambiguity/polysemy of the items good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292), the items "bad/good thing for its recipient" were created, where the recipient was specified (ie, subjectivity disappeared and objectivity appeared).

But these polysemies (by the way, 2012 year of birth) haven't appeared at a forum, and have appeared unambiguity, and, for some reason under the heading "Fractaler's new findings" and the question "Should we now classify some (all?) Items into one of these 2 groups?"

Are ambiguity/polysemy in the knowledge base used?

"Bad/good thing for its recipient" = good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292)+recipient. good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292)-recipient="not useful, nothig is objectively, depends on many things, which is a bad, unless you are a Vandal, they are not manifestations of reality, but subjective judgment, where meaningful use cases are presented, too vague". Oh yes, they still have the immunity of "Wikidata: Notability". Let's also take a closer look, under a "microscope", we will begin to specify (see below) --Fractaler (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata's main goals, knowledge base (Q593744) and polysemanticism of items good (Q15290)/evil (Q15292)

Before, 1) Where can we find the definition of the term "Wikidata:Notability"? 2) Wikidata's two main goals: "a) to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and b) to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large". knowledge base (Q593744) - technology used to store complex structured and unstructured information used by a computer system. The ambiguity/polysemy (like good (Q15290) or evil (Q15292)) is a part of the knowledge base? --Fractaler (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, but surely they are in WIkidata because Wikidata "centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects" If the concept represented by good (Q15290) or evil (Q15292) are wrong, it's necessary work on Wikipedia side. If you find some data wrong in Wikidata side you can fix it but it's necessary keep in mind the interlanguage link. --ValterVB (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Lymantria (talk • contribs • logs) Discussion above reflects a consensus to delete. Lymantria (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q9010737

Q9010737: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disambiguation item where the only link sitelink is a redirect page Agabi10 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Q31368257

American English (Q31368257): set of dialects of the English language spoken in the United States: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q7976 created (by me) in error — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Redirect created by QZanden, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2017/07/01&oldid=511292114"