Wikidata talk:Properties for deletion

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Substitute labels[edit]

Please substitute labels of properties under deletion so as after deletion one (with no sysop rights) can see which exactly that property was. Infovarius (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --AVRS (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 and that means we need to amend the instructions which means that we are going to lose the labels and end up with this continued mess.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1, Apparently this still isn't done and it makes the archives of anything that was deleted confusing. Maybe someone smarter than me can add this to {{Request for deletion}} so it's included automatically. the wub "?!" 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

I propose to create two templates which are to be placed on property talk pages if their deletion is currently being discussed or has been discussed in the past. Something like:

This property's deletion is currently being discussed. Avoid using the property as it could be deleted soon. If you have any opinion on the matter please participate in the discussion here.

This property's deletion has been discussed and was rejected. The archived discussion can be found here. Please read the discussion carefully before you consider to propose its deletion anew.

Of course a little bit fancier with a nice picture and stuff, but I'm not into template coding. What do you think? —★PοωερZtalk 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for past discussion, but not for current discussion. In this case is better a tool tip when you add a property. --ValterVB (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, my English is not enough to understand your suggestion. What mean "tool tip"? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little window like this --ValterVB (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inform creator and people that participated in the discussion[edit]

The creator of the property and those people that participated in the discussion should be informed if an RfD is started. Does anybody else think this should be mentioned in the page header? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Absolutely. This is a very-much-needed bot task. Emw (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally such a bot would also add a link to the Talk page of the property being nominated for deletion. Emw (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most important - the creator and proposer can watch the page. Andrea Shan (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. Clearly. It would be nice to have a script for that, like in other Wikis. --Zolo (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Very useful. --Paperoastro (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support It seems to me that this failed for P107. --Sk!d (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support for too many obvious reasons. DGtal (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Makes a lot of sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support based on the above clear support for this, I am making this edit now. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Tobias1984, Emw, Zolo, Paperoastro, Sk!d, DGtal: Text in the page does not prevent users from not obeying - like me, I missed it. I propose to add two variables to the template: property_proposer = {{ping|...}}, property_creator = {{ping|...}}. Andrea Shan (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be not sufficient: people may have disabled this function. --Paperoastro (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages?[edit]

What about using a subpage per PFD, like pages on e.g. enwiki? That way you can watch a certain PFD without having to watch the whole page, and you can link more easily to an PFD. And proposals to delete properties require more caution than single items. SPQRobin (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive to talk page?[edit]

Could we start also archiving to each property's talk page, along with the archive in this page's archive subpages? Or at least have a general rule that a PfD archive should be linked to from the talk page (maybe with a template)? It's frequently difficult to tell where discussion of a property has taken place. --Yair rand (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A link would be a good idea, and we already have to many templates. KISS! -- Lavallentalk(block) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Template "Property for deletion"[edit]

Is it still required to use the template {{Property for deletion}} on the talk page of the suggested properties to delete? At the moment this template is only used 3 times: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Property_for_deletion&hidelinks=1 . --Zuphilip (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. I discovered that the most information about how and when to use a specific property is sometimes given in the discussion here (properties for deletion) or in some request for comments but not on the discussion page of the property. I would appreciate some more interlinking of the discussions (at least). Therefore, I like your template but the usage is very sparse:-( --Zuphilip (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform people of discussions here[edit]

I don't understand. There's clearly consensus from a few months ago in an above thread for informing people of discussions that take place here regarding properties they created or properties that are important to their task force, yet I was not informed of this discussion (and did not know about it until just a few minutes ago), and the roads task force was not informed of the discussion concerning one of our most important properties, transport network (P16). It's common courtesy to notify people of discussions in which the outcome could be deletion of something they created or something a task force still widely uses, so why isn't it done here? TCN7JM 05:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please add such notes to the Property_talk and task_force_talks. Running spambots to user_talks is not appreciated. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging relationship properties[edit]

I've opened an RFC regarding six "relationship" properties (mother, father, etc) at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Merging relationship properties - this is not a deletion request as yet but comments would be appreciated. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted properties in the Weekly Summary[edit]

Hello all,

@Rschen7754, Matěj Suchánek, Pasleim, Lymantria, ChristianKl:

Someone suggested to also have the deleted properties in the Weekly Summary, next to the list of new properties. It is something that is less easy to do by bot than the new properties.

Therefore, when you close a discussion and delete the property, it would be really useful if you can add this information in the next issue. Adding the label in English , the P-number and a link to the discussion is enough, I think.

Thanks a lot for your help, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like DGtal (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Deryck Chan (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to link subitems of this page?[edit]

How to link separate titles (items, sections) of this page, if they have not its specific subpages and the titles are internationalized, i.e. not stable? It was not a good idea to use internationalization templates in section titles. --ŠJů (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better just to use Pnnnn for the section heading and then put the name of the property with all the links in the name line. It would make the table of contents less useful, but linking to each section would be easier. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the template so it uses headings like Property:P1234 instead of using a template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would it be an idea to put each discussion on its own subpage. Then editors can watch the discussions they are interested in without having to watch the whole page. Would also mean there is a stable link, even when the discussion is archived. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was discussed and broadly supported at #Subpages? so I suggest we move forward with this idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each discussion is now on its own subpage. Question: why do we add new discussions to the bottom? Would it make more sense for new discussions to be most visible, and the historic ones lower down? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, did you really implement a proposal from 2013?
Given the low level of activity on this page, subpages just make it more complicated to follow. --- Jura 12:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the gadget adds them currently to the bottom of pages. [1] --- Jura 14:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archives[edit]

I suggest we archive these proposals at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/Archive/2022 rather than bundling them with Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. For past requests, the subpages are much more convenient. Thanks for doing all that cleanup on PfD. --- Jura 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Properties_for_deletion&oldid=1672434591"