Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2018/10/25

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q5710406

Helsing (Q5710406): family name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Xwiki attempt at self promotion, not notable, not encyclopedic and out of literally every projects scope Praxidicae (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: This is an item about a family name/surname. Surely you have a specific person in mind with this last name that's actually self-promo? Mahir256 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done See above. If this wasn't the item you intended to propose for deletion, feel free to make a new request for the one you meant. - Nikki (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Q19167362

Q19167362: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is nothing. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak german. But it looks like a bot is trying to add a book or a book's author.Lazypub (talk)

It contains a link to a German Wikisource article: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Der_Wilde_Mann -- numbermaniac (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done Has a valid sitelink - Nikki (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Q57491551

Qatar Airways (Q57491551): state-owned flag-carrier airline of Qatar: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is a duplicate of Qatar Airways (Q208033) I cannot merge it, because of a Commons duplicate Germartin1 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: Can you help? - Nikki (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by Jheald, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The relevant thing was to rescue the sitelink from c:Category:Qatar Airlines on Commons, which I had to remove from Qatar Airways (Q208033) to make way for the merge. Fortunately we already had an item Category:Qatar Airways (Q9900737) that it could be added to instead. I have now connected that and Qatar Airways (Q208033) together with the relevant category's main topic (P301) / topic's main category (P910) statements, which was what was needed so the infobox at c:Category:Qatar Airlines now continues to work. Jheald (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Q27882203

lead (Q27882203): chemical element with symbol Pb and atomic number 82: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Nonsense duplicate of lead (Q708). Do not merge. Leyo 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The links may be fixed to lead (Q708). --Leyo 15:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Egon Willighagen, Sebotic: Just to let you know as you contributed to this item. --Leyo 12:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it should likely not be merged, but isn't lead (Q27882203) simply not the substance lead, rather than the element lead, which is lead (Q708)? Please hold of deleting lead (Q27882203) until we confirmed it is not a sustance consisting of lead. Looking at all the identifiers, it might just be that... but I need 15-20 minutes to inspect the situation properly... (I hope to find this time today...) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead is just a chemical element, not a substance. I checked several other chemical elements and none has an item as a substance. --Leyo 20:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the delay. But I now had time to look into it. Following some of the identifiers, it suggests this item can be the substance, aka "bulk lead". Wikipedia has both of them (element and the bulk) described on the same page. I suggest to keep lead (Q27882203) as the bulk compound lead. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Was is a bulk component supposed to be chemically? Are you referring to the lead(II) or lead(IV) ions? --Leyo 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is broader than this particular element. On various WikiProject Chemistry pages we tried to establish a model for chemical elements and there were proposals that we should have e.g. two (or more in some cases) different elements for every chemical element: one for 'simple substance' (portion of matter composed of only particular chemical element atoms/homonuclear molecules) and the other about 'chemical element' (all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus) or 'chemical element atom'. We haven't reached any consensus in this matter. Wostr (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To me such a distinction does not seem to be useful or needed. --Leyo 09:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just link to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Proposal:Models in case you or someone else would like to take part in discussions about problems related to this request. Wostr (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Leyo: We need 2 items to distinguish the concepts of chemical element from chemical compound/simple substance. A chemical element has no boiling point, only one chemical compound/simple substance can have some physical properties. A chemical element is the set of atoms, without any interaction between them. A lead atom in a lead piece and a lead atom in the car battery as PbO2 have similar properties as chemical element but not as chemical substance/simple substance. The 2 items are necessary to avoid properties mixing and wrong inferences. Snipre (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What the heck? Chemical elements surely have a boiling point (see e.g. en:List of elements by boiling point). --Leyo 08:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Leyo: Wrong, dichlorine has a boiling point, not chlorine. You mix 2 concepts, chemical substance and chemical element. And if you have some doubts, just try to provide the electrical conductivity of carbon as element: what is the correct allotrope to choose define chemical element's properties ? Snipre (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you found two exceptions. There is no similar thing for lead. --Leyo 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's give the question back: what is the electrical conductivity of carbon as a chemical compound? It depends on the modification.

Sorry, but obviously chemical elements have physical properties. Item lead (Q708) for the element lead already includes all properties of the bulk material, like, density, melting point, boiling point,... so there is no need to have another item lead (Q27882203) for the bulk material. Does Wikipedia distinguish between lead as an element and lead as bulk material? No, properties of the bulk material are within the article for the element. As Leyo said there is no need to distinguish between chemical element and chemical compound and have 2 Wikidata items. regards --Bert (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bert.Kilanowski, Leyo: Wrong, physical or chemical properties of the bulk can't be applied to other forms of the chemical element involved in molecules with other chemical elements.

Just an example: we create link between chemical element and the molecule using has part(s) of the class (P2670). Look at ethanol (Q153):

ethanol (Q153) has part(s) of the class (P2670) carbon (Q623)

ethanol (Q153) has part(s) of the class (P2670) hydrogen (Q556)

ethanol (Q153) has part(s) of the class (P2670) oxygen (Q629)

But the density of diamond has nothing to do with the one of the carbone involved in the ethanol molecule.

And by the way which physical properties do you want to add for carbon or sulfur as these chemicals have several allotrops.

According to IUPAC and this is the definition used for chemical element, a chemical element is a specie of atoms. And apart noble gas, all other chemical elements are creating some kind of structures which are the reason of their physical properties. Boiling point or electrical conductivity are not properties of isolated atoms but only of bulk. So we need to separate bulk properties from properties of set of atoms due to the fact we create links between items according to some definitions. I don't care of Wikipedia because WD is a different project with other goals: one of these main goals is creating connections between items by respecting rules and logic, this is called ontology. Snipre (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is only valid for the few elements that have allotropes, but not for all others. --Leyo 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leyo: And what's about the other arguments, the most critical as they are the base of links between items ? What is your concerns to consider in a different manner all atoms included the ones involved in compounds with others chemical elements and the ones which are forming a bloc of matter composed only of one chemical element ? The physical/chemical properties, like boiling point or electrical conductivity, of pure chemical element can be applied only to the second group, not to the former because atoms of different chemical elements linked inside one compound don't share those properties. Just explain me how you can consider that the chlorine in one molecule of sodium chloride can share in any way the properties of dichlorine ? So if we apply your system we should delete all links like the ones I described above for ethanol. Creating links creating association or inheritance. Snipre (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to have this discussion, but it is not true that there are only a "few elements that have allotropes". Every element has at least 3 distinct "pure substance" forms (solid, liquid, gas); additionally under different temperature and pressure conditions most solid elemental substances transform into different molecular arrangements and crystal structures (even hydrogen metallizes at high pressures). There are only a limited number of elements that have multiple stable forms at room temperature and pressure (STP) but that doesn't mean the other forms don't exist! Now, it's not clear to me that Wikidata needs an item for every phase and molecular arrangement or crystal structure of every element, the question is here whether we should have separate items for the element and the main STP phase (if there is just one). It might be ok to add properties like density (P2054) and melting point (P2101) on the element and just require qualifiers if there's ambiguity. On the other hand, having exceptions where those properties don't make sense on the element means we have an inconsistent ontology, which makes use of SPARQL etc. more difficult. That said, the present state of lead (Q708) and lead (Q27882203) is a mess, and should be cleaned up somehow! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitions get more specific with time, there might be a reason to keep both lead. Wikidata improves with more specific definitions.

Examples: rocksalt (rock), sodium chloride and halite (mineral); kaolin (rock) and kaolinite (mineral); aluminium (element), aluminium (native, mineral) and steinhardtite; arsenic (element), arsenic (native, mineral) and arsenolamprite; non mineral > valid mineral > polytypes
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leyo: Can we close the discussion now ? Snipre (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, right after deletion. --Leyo 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think it's either the same and can be merged or different and shouldn't be deleted. --- Jura 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This request has been open for a long time and I don't see any support for deletion here (other than from the proposer) so I'm marking this as

Not done. As was pointed out above, if it's the same as lead (Q708), it can be merged. If it's not, the item has multiple identifiers which are not present on lead (Q708) which seems sufficient to meet the notability policy. I suggest taking any further discussion to Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry. - Nikki (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Q32858142

Q32858142: Wikimedia project page: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

An anon user removed the sitelink commons:Commons:Bienvenido, which is a translation page of Wikipedia:About (Q4387616) if I get it right. This item would thus not be notable. Does it have any special need? @Nikki — MisterSynergy (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It have another one Q32858152. i don't really know if those item are needed or no. - yona b (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

we have many similar items, see e.g. [1] --Pasleim (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems I missed this. I don't think it should be deleted because it has a valid sitelink. The sitelink should really be on Wikipedia:About (Q4387616) but since that's not currently possible, we model cases like this using instance of (P31) Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) and permanent duplicated item (P2959), which links the items together and says that "Commons:Benvenido" is conceptually the same thing as "Commons:Welcome". Although Commons currently doesn't do it, it also makes it possible to fetch interwiki links from Wikidata (the Ladino Wikipedia does that). If it ever becomes possible to link multiple sitelinks, a bot can merge the items. - Nikki (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if P2959 is suitable when they are tooo many. I'd favor the approach at Special:WhatLinksHere/Q21450877. They need to have some statements, otherwise they end up in all kinds of places. I think plenty were taxa with links to wikispecies. --- Jura 18:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been over a week since my last comment and the only comment has been about how to model items like this (rather than whether the item should exist), so I'm marking this as

Not done. If people want to discuss how to model cases like these, Property talk:P2959 is probably the best place. - Nikki (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)