hey, lately I've working on a project for work that is trying to map historical figures that were honored with an ornamental grave. For the people that did not have a wikidata page, i made one with the intention of adding more information later on. However I've noticed they were all removed January 21st. For example Q123759716, how should I proceed?
User talk:MisterSynergy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Adapt your workflow.
I have reviewed some of the deleted items; they have all been created between December 11…13, 2023, with only an English label and description and nothing else. In this condition, they do not comply with the inclusion policy at Wikidata:Notability and qualify for immediate deletion.
Special:Contributions/Sablina Vis lists plenty of further items in a similar condition, but not (yet) deleted. Please bring them into an acceptable condition with regards to the notability policy, and I will undelete all the others as well.
Ah so that was the issue, thank you for explaining! I'll go fix the rest of them.
Thanks! When you are ready, please drop a note here and we will continue with the others.
Hello,
It took a bit longer than planned but I have fixed the list of historical figures that remained. I've added that they are human, their sex and other properties I have obtained from historical researchers here at 'Cultural Heritage Agency' (the Netherlands). How should I proceed?
Kind regards,
Sablina
On first glance it already looks much better than initially. Some data items such as Q123759786 could require more information, but most are okay and I'd be willing to undelete some of the deleted ones.
In total, there are still almost 200 deleted data items that you have created, and you have meanwhile fixed around 50. Shall I restore 50 more for the moment in order to fix those in chunks? You seem to be editing largely manually via the web UI, thus leveraging the power of automation is apparently not a thing to consider yet.
Thank you, 50 more would be fine, and it is correct that I'm not automating it as I was still figuring it out if what I was doing was sufficient. I might try automation for the next 50.
I will add more information eventually to Q123759786 (Helene de Montmorency wife of count of Bokhoven), such as who her husband was, but it might take me a bit of time.
You can find the first 50 restored items here: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=&subtype=restore&tagfilter=&type=delete&user=MisterSynergy&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&wpdate=2024-05-16&day=16&month=5&year=2024&offset=&limit=50
Once you have improved them, we can continue with the next chunk and see whether we should make it larger ;-)
Sorry to disturb, but could you please unprotect his page and or add my en.wikiquote addition there...
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.
Restored. Please add independent references for this one as well.
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.
Restored. Please add independent sources as well.
@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
Thanks, great!
Thanks, Konstin!
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!
Erledigt Danke für den Hinweis. Anhand seines Vaters eindeutig zuzuordnen.
Großartig, Dankeschön!