| Babel user information | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Users by language |
This page uses the Structured Discussions extension of MediaWiki (SD, formerly known as “Flow”). I think that we really need something like this instead of the classical discussion approach, but I am also aware of the fact that not everything works smoothly yet in SD.
If you struggle to use this discussion page perfectly, do not worry and just leave a messy or broken comment for me. You do not need to figure out how to write a perfectly formatted comment with lots of trial-and-error edits. I am hopefully going to figure out what is on, otherwise I am going to ask you. Thanks!
Btw. SD comments do not need to be signed, since the software manages all contributions and puts user names and timestamps above them. Experienced users might also like the wikitext mode of SD, to be actived in the lower right corner of the input field.
Previous discussion was archived at User talk:MisterSynergy/Archive 1 on 2015-11-09.
Hi @MisterSynergy, you have deleted this page due to the notability policy in 2022-04-27T10:43:30
The NT Emergency Service is an official branch of the Australian Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. link https://pfes.nt.gov.au/emergency-service
Would you mind giving it a look? Thanks.
Hi @MisterSynergy, you have deleted this page due to the notability policy in 2023-08-07T20:39:14
That is an oficial government entity, link https://www.ense-epe.pt meets the acceptance criteria no.2 of the notability policy.
Would you mind giving a look at it again? Thanks.
@MsynBot has been edit warring with @Github-wiki-bot on several software items that only have one version (e.g. Ordia (Q63379419)). Github-wiki-bot sets the latest version to have preferred rank (I think that some Wikipedia infoboxes that get data from Wikidata only display preferred-rank versions), but MsynBot then goes and changes it to normal rank if it was the only version. On RSSOwl (Q389413) I added another version so that they would stop fighting, but some software has only one version. Perhaps MsynBot and Github-wiki-bot can come to some kind of truce?
@Konstin: I think this should be fixed in your bot. There is no need for preferrred rank if no claims with normal rank are present, and users are often confused if this is set up incorrectly.
For background, the source code for my bot can be read here, and this task was approved in Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/MsynBot 13. It is a generic bot that operates on all of Wikidata, and there are no topical exceptions implemented to it.
Fixed in https://github.com/konstin/github-wikidata-bot/commit/8a37d95ba4ab9fce02ff0a0a7e12f38299dc96fb
Hi MisterSynergy, you deleted Q18284542 as empty. This item and the others were not empty at all, see the history. You should always check the history before doing deletions like this.
Thanks, seen.
I am usually looking for current and former sitelinks and what the current status of them is, in order to figure out whether this was an incomplete merger. In this case, a sitelink had never been attached to the item.
Bonjour, la page Q12949467 a été supprimé en la fusionnant vers Q112578102 alors que le contenu n'est pas le même (la page supprimée était une liste et l'autre une pour les catégories), pourriez-vous la recréer. Merci d'avance.
I have restored Q12949467 to the original list item form. Thanks for the notice.
This is one of the project categories of our current project Digi-Kunst.nrw, which has the goal to make the digital heritage of the art and music colleges in Northrhine-Westphalia long-term available.
An important destinction in ethnomusicologal discourse is the destiction between art music and folklore. Some music, like Turkish court music or Peking Opera, which always had as one of their main functions to be art music, can be categorized under this term - making these types of msuic distinct from other kinds, like millitary or sacral music. Addtionally, knowing this is an euro-centristic view, the term "Außereuropäische Kunstmusik" is widely used, especially in the German-speaking countries - much to the dismay of ethnomusicologist here, I can only assume. But, like mentioned, a very practical term for keepin things distinct.
A list of links to demonstrate this, can be found below. I would much appreciate if this item would be restored.
https://hfm-wuerzburg.de/admin/Bibliothek/Systematik/Systematik_Tontraeger_2021.07.pdf
https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/235860/2/235860.pdf
https://dasorchester.de/artikel/hier-klingt-wien/
https://www.booklooker.de/B%C3%BCcher/Au%C3%9Fereurop%C3%A4ische-Folklore-und-Kunstmusik/id/A02nM87C01ZZP?zid=hup80jkl4t5982ni3ofshhc7rb [One of the central works in that regard]
https://slub.qucosa.de/api/qucosa%3A37837/attachment/ATT-0/ [Page 2 - and old mention of the term that illuminates what makes it so difficult today]
Many other links can be fount mentioning the term.
Q123561622 is restored. Please expand it to make it formally compliant with the notability policy at WD:N.
On Alamo (Q3291137), in Special:Diff/2095240648, your bot removed the preferred rank, which undid another edit from a couple of months ago by another bot, Special:Diff/2064129806. That seems like it's going to lead to bots edit warring.
I don't think your bot should remove preferred rank if there are also deprecated statements. Without checking them manually, we have no idea whether it's the preferred rank statements or the deprecated rank ones that should be changed. Given how often people misuse the deprecated rank for old but correct values, I imagine it's more likely to be those (like it was for that item), not the preferred rank ones.
Thank you for the input. For context:
The situation does not get worse when my bot removes preferred rank when normal rank claims are absent, even if claims with possibly incorrectly assigned deprecated rank are present. In case someone reviews these claims with deprecated rank, ranks of all claims for the given property need to be checked anyways.
When I proposed this job half a year ago, more than half a million claims with an incorrect combination of ranks (unnecessary use of preferred rank) had accumulated and this regularly creates confusion for less experienced users. I'm afraid that if we wait for someone to review the situation manually, the backlog will again grow to large numbers.
Bei ihm hier: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94758178 handelt es sich um ihn hier: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15428865
Dahin (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94758178) bin ich über den Link gekommen: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/ADB:Coxcyen,_Raphael_van
Ist was zu tun? Was?
Kann ich nicht so richtig beurteilen, sieht aber nicht unplausibel aus. @Kolja21: was meinst Du? Viele Grüße!
This item page is already listed at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q124810749, so it will be dealt with over there. It would be helpful to provide some evidence why this is considered a hoax, though.
I have not received a notification, and thus not been able to see this revert earlier.
The situation seems identical to this one: Wikidata talk:Sitelinks to redirects#Commonswiki. These pages are currently not considered to be redirects and thus not equipped with the badge.
Similar, but not identical. Commons is not the only wiki with this category, there are 101 others. It's silly to not consider them to be redirects. Maybe there should be a badge for soft redirects?
Yeah, but then there are redirects to these templates, and other templates with a similar purpose in other projects. It's all a mess to be honest, and super difficult to consider with a bot. Right now the bot is looking for the redirect flag in the page table of the databases which is rather simple.
We currently do not have any other redirect badges except the two used ones you know about. If you manage to find consensus for a new one, I'd be open to consider it for integration in my bot as well. Everything else is not really feasible. The current implementation is already longer than 1000 lines of code.
