Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P5420

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

P5420 (P5420)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that these two properties should be merged with a slight preference for keeping the older property — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P5420 (P5420): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Needs to be merged to GS1 GPC code (P8957), which has a lot more metadata. I can migrate the values (the former has 122, the latter 45) —Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the new property has a slightly larger scope. Otherwise, I would have kept the earlier one. --- Jura 21:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose deleting P5420 (P5420) and  Support deleting GS1 GPC code (P8957) instead. It is better to remove the newer duplicate property than the older one, as it is more likely that the old property ID P5420 (P5420) is used externally in e.g. SPARQL queries posted on other websites. --Dhx1 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Post-close notes

[edit]

@Vladimir Alexiev: are you able to help migrate this data from one property to the other? And can you respect the preference stated above that P5420 (P5420) should be retained? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhx1, MSGJ: I can migrate the values but I do not agree to retain P5420 (P5420) because it's wrongly defined (GPC has a lot more than "bricks") and the other one is described more richly, including 2 MnM catalogs. Migrating all this info is more work than migrating the values.
Dhx1, can you provide any evidence that P5420 (P5420) is used is SPARQL or anywhere else? If you want to delete GS1 GPC code (P8957) please make a RfD and promise that you'll migrate its metadata and values --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get MSGJ closure either, see Wikidata talk:Properties for deletion/P5420. --- Jura 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1, Vladimir Alexiev: personally I don't think it is important which way the merge happens, but I was trying to accommodate the reasoned preference of Dhx1 in the discussion. Of course the scope of the other property can be altered at the same time of the merge. Shall wait a few days for Dhx1 to respond? Otherwise, thanks for your offer to help with this Vladimir Alexiev — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what is your view on the consensus in the discussion about the property listed for deletion, where three participants expressed a reasoned opinion on the question.
P8957 isn't listed for deletion.
If you seek to express your own opinion, please do not do so by closing property for deletion requests. --- Jura 20:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion about these properties. I have never come across them before and I have never used them before. Please stop making ridiculous accusations. It is my role to interpret the consensus in the discussion. I have closed the discussion as merge, and we are now discussing how best to implement this. Like merging two items, it does not really matter which direction the merge takes place, as the end result will be the same. I do not care either way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of such things, but you seem defensive about the question. If the following are not relevant opinions, I suppose we can then ignore personally I don't think it is important which way the merge happens and trying to accommodate the reasoned preference from "20:03, 13 February 2022" and proceed with deleting the entity actually listed for deletion, i.e. P5420. There is no function to "merge" properties, we can just migrate values and then delete the property. --- Jura 14:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhx1, MSGJ, Jura1: I have transferred all values from P5420 (P5420) to GS1 GPC code (P8957) --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev, when you did this, you didn't copy references. Could you please copy references on P5420 (P5420) statements to GS1 GPC code (P8957) or self-revert edit group QSv2/76800 so that I can copy the statements over with their references? Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol: which references do you find useful? Please give an example --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev: Agh; this was an oversight on my part. I checked fortified wine (Q722338), beer (Q44), and vinegar (Q41354), the first three property examples, and all had references, so I assumed there would be more; apparently only those three statements had references, of which only one was useful. I've moved it over. I'm so sorry for bothering you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all remaining uses of this property, as claims have been moved to GS1 GPC code (P8957), and requested its deletion. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now deleted; archiving this discussion. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion/P5420&oldid=1623649958"