User talk:D. Benjamin Miller
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Welcome to Wikidata, Editosaurus!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
- Introduction – An introduction to the project.
- Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
- Community portal – The portal for community members.
- User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
- Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Commons link
[edit]I don't really feel like getting in an edit war over it. So please don't add it back until the deletion request is dealt with. Then I'll add it back myself if the entry ends up not getting deleted. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- That seems entirely backwards. You are of the opinion that there shouldn't be a Wikidata entry for the Commons category, but surely so long as the Wikidata entry exists, then the Commons category is what corresponds to it. It's one thing to say that the item should be deleted, but it's another thing to "correct" the item by removing the association within it. After all, this practice runs against the entire principle of deletion requests to begin with. You assert that it's "ridiculous" to allow for an item to exist for a Commons user category (although a number of such items exist), even though Fralambert mentions that the item fulfills a structure need on Commons and so qualifies under WD:N point #3. Now, you might go argue that Commons-only cateogry items should not be allowed on WD in some RFC, but in the meantime, I don't think you can reasonably unlink the item, because that's just disrupting its use on Commons. (In other words: you've made your request for deletion, but a request for deletion is not a reason to remove the links on an item; if the item were deleted, it would no longer be linked by virtue of no longer existing, but the item does exist.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I reported you for the edit warring. Someone else can deal with it. Just an FYI, the problem is that they won't delete Wikidata entries that contain interproject links. I could really care less if it contains a link to a Commons category or not. Except that it gives an out from the entry being deleted. It's not like you couldn't just make the same arguement on Commons' side if I tried to have the category deleted either. "Oh, well, there's a Wikidata entry for me. So what's the issue with having a category?" or whatever. Wikidata's side is just the one I choose to deal with it at first. I'm not going to play a game of interproject ping-pong just so you can make excuses about why you should have a Wikidata entry when your clearly not notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- You say this is a "problem," but it's only a problem following from the axiom that the entry should be deleted. Yes, an item being in use is an impediment to it being deleted — but that's by design. As for deleting a Commons category, I have no idea what you're on about — the Commons category definitely should exist, because it is used to store many photographs (and photographs are regularly organized by photographer on Commons). By contrast, I don't think any Wikidata entry should necessarily have a Commons category — surely, the plethora of Wikidata entries for items of which there are no free media don't need a Commons entry — but this is irrelevant, because Commons is not to Wikidata what Wikidata is to Commons. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that justifying the Wikidata because of the Commons category is circular. I can't have the Wikidata entry because of the link to the Commons category and there's no way to get the category deleted first because you'll make the same arguments if I try and there's zero standards for when people can create categories anyone. So the existence of the category is just a fait accompli way on your part to never have your entry deleted even if you aren't notable and it doesn't follow the notability guidelines. It's not like if you were a PROMO SPAM account all you'd have to do is create a category on Commons and then blam no one could stop you from having a promotional wikidata entry. That's not how it works. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- On Commons, categories have to actually be in use (not just be empty), and contain files that are realistically useful for an educational purpose. The type of situation you're talking about — for files that have no business being on Commons, with a category created for them — is not one that is allowed on Commons. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that justifying the Wikidata because of the Commons category is circular. I can't have the Wikidata entry because of the link to the Commons category and there's no way to get the category deleted first because you'll make the same arguments if I try and there's zero standards for when people can create categories anyone. So the existence of the category is just a fait accompli way on your part to never have your entry deleted even if you aren't notable and it doesn't follow the notability guidelines. It's not like if you were a PROMO SPAM account all you'd have to do is create a category on Commons and then blam no one could stop you from having a promotional wikidata entry. That's not how it works. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- You say this is a "problem," but it's only a problem following from the axiom that the entry should be deleted. Yes, an item being in use is an impediment to it being deleted — but that's by design. As for deleting a Commons category, I have no idea what you're on about — the Commons category definitely should exist, because it is used to store many photographs (and photographs are regularly organized by photographer on Commons). By contrast, I don't think any Wikidata entry should necessarily have a Commons category — surely, the plethora of Wikidata entries for items of which there are no free media don't need a Commons entry — but this is irrelevant, because Commons is not to Wikidata what Wikidata is to Commons. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I reported you for the edit warring. Someone else can deal with it. Just an FYI, the problem is that they won't delete Wikidata entries that contain interproject links. I could really care less if it contains a link to a Commons category or not. Except that it gives an out from the entry being deleted. It's not like you couldn't just make the same arguement on Commons' side if I tried to have the category deleted either. "Oh, well, there's a Wikidata entry for me. So what's the issue with having a category?" or whatever. Wikidata's side is just the one I choose to deal with it at first. I'm not going to play a game of interproject ping-pong just so you can make excuses about why you should have a Wikidata entry when your clearly not notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)