Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2023/01/05

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

Q112333026

Q112333026 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q115087972 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q113192440 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q115095004 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q115095339 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q115094914 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q113956711 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q105429923 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q115298112 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

MediaWiki special page doesn't meet Wikidata:N. No links as well. Midleading (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

They don't meet it in regards to #1, but that doesn't mean they don't meet #2 or #3. They should be looked at individually. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I created the items 2-5, my reasoning being that MediaWiki (Q83) and Wikibase (Q16354758) are very much notable and that there thus is a structural need. E.g. I think Wikidata should contain the answer to: How can you create a Wikibase item (Q29934200) or a Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771)? How can you move a MediaWiki page (Q15474042)? Sidenote: We have 2,836 instances of MediaWiki extension (Q6805426) and 714 instances of MediaWiki hook (Q21674818) and they are interlinked with MediaWiki hooks used (P2377). I'd argue that MediaWiki special pages are just as, if not more notable than MediaWiki hooks, since they're user-facing, whereas MediaWiki hooks are more of an implementation detail. --Push-f (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I also agree WD:N#1 shouldn't exclude special pages. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 05:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No I think it's fine that #1 excludes them, they still certainly meet #2 and most of them probably #3 as well. Sidenote: We even have 73 instances of MediaWiki database table (Q22802898) and 147 instances of MediaWiki maintenance script (Q22713195) ... all of them apparently legitimized by a sitelink to mediawiki.org. --Push-f (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You probably meant sitelinks. The items very much have links to other data items (but yes I know that this alone does not make them meet WD:N). --Push-f (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean backlinks. Ideally the backlinks should have references to serious sources. Midleading (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Delete Items on special pages do not meet notability criteria. Special pages are explicitly excluded by criterium #1. Clearly #2 is not met, as the items don't describe a clearly identifiable conceptual of material entity - to understand this, try to imagine what Special page items are about without site links. As part of wikidata, items about special pages do not fulfil a structural need, so #3 isn't met either. Lymantria (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course special pages are clearly identifiable conceptual entities, saying they're not is absurd. And they can also be certainly described with serious publicly available references. E.g. Q115087972 is described by Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/Documentation#Interface, Q113192440 is described by Help:Items#Creating a new item, Q115095339 is described by Help:Moving a page (Q395887), etc. --Push-f (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@wd-Ryan, Push-f Why not use applies to name of subject (P5168) instead? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how applies to name of subject (P5168) is relevant at all. How would you use it? --Push-f (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Just type the text-only "Special:RecentChanges", "Spoecial:MovePage", ...etc. can't you??? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Former discussion about Q105429923: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2021/04/21#Q105429923, ping @DannyS712 for advice. Stang^★ 15:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding #6 Q115094914, Currently used in a property proposal. --Midleading (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's now also used for Wikimedia username (P4174)uses (P2283)Q115094914, same for Q115298112, see this query. --Push-f (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

this topic needs probably wider discussion. I recommend to move this RFD to Wikidata talk:Notability under the new section "Notability of Wikimedia Special pages" Estopedist1 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep When articles get their interwiki links through Wikidata, why should function pages them not too?--Bukken og havresekken (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep We should de-function em, As they can only result flooding of AbuseFilter logs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete Can only be used for spammers. We should instead consider changing WD:N§2/3. Boldly listed 3 likely items. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid I don't understand what you're talking about. What can be used for "flooding of AbuseFilter logs"? What can be used for spammers? What are you talking about? --Push-f (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this relates to spam at all. The special page names are often times different for other languages, this is useful to find them. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 20:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Useful? Assuming that you're really interested on translation names of special pages, Why not use translatewiki.net to check instead? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I don't see the difference between linking content pages and linking these pages, both share the same use case. And you should really clarify the "Can only be used for spammers" comment. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 05:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Means, you need an example? If so: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nipponese Dog Calvero (Q12646551) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
How exactly would this make it easier for a crosswiki vandal? If being able to find the equivalent page on another wiki for content one wants to vandal is enough, then remove interwiki links entirely. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 05:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 05:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a vote?! Then let's cease discussions here, as there are no ways to try altering the opposites' opinions. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I already said my reasonings above, just never put a vote in. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 05:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete The interwiki links for special pages should be handled by Cognate, not by Wikidata. Excluding site links as per Notability policy, it doesn't look more notable than special pages on Google, YouTube, Twitter and countless other websites. Should we create one or more fabrication method (P2079) claims for every websites with user accounts on Wikidata (Google Account (Q913902) for example) linking to items about the signup page? Midleading (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how Special pages wouldn't give notability, but any Wikimedia-site policy page does. Just because things like Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (Q4656211) have items doesn't mean we need one for the cookies policy of Instagram. Also, this is your deletion request, I'm not sure if this vote counts. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia-site policy page count as valid sitelink per Wikidata:Notability, while MediaWiki special pages are excluded. That's the only difference between Wikimedia site policy and site policy for other websites, an important difference though. Midleading (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what we're arguing about here. I don't think there is good reason for it to be excluded by WD:N. Perhaps we should move this to Requests for Comments or Wikidata talk:Notability. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 04:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete; difficult to maintain, and the English original title works everywhere. If Special pages should carry interwikilinks in projects, there should be a Wikimedia-wide decision, and a Cognate-alike solution should provide these interwikilinks rather than Wikidata items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even with sitelinks on Wikidata, the language links don't appear on the page's sidebar. Just to clarify. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

One week passed. No consensus here. I personally think that given that there are not many Special pages in Wikiprojects, then these items can be retained. E.g. if I look Q112333026, then it can be useful to find/compare pages which may be protected in any language Wikipedias. If pro-deletion will become obvious then all members of MediaWiki special page (Q83378654) should be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Then please undelete these previously deleted items for special pages Q5995921 Q6293548 Q18962461 Q19844599 Q23840898 Q27115316 Q27806105 Q46607749 Q50077581 Q60647437 Q64665480 Q70209157 Q76965835 Q81280371. Midleading (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If consensus reaches Keep, then we can look at undeleting those too. Thanks for sharing. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wd-Ryan per WD:Notability we have to delete them (per #1, point 1). To reach ~~consensus~~compromise for keeping these items, we need to start request-for-comment and after that we can change a criterion at WD:Notability. I think we can close this RFD. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There is one from 2014, can I start another? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

good catch, @Wd-Ryan! This 9 year old RFC was started by user:Ymblanter. Current deletion policy says that special pages to be deleted. We also should delete MediaWiki special page (Q83378654) (plus incoming links) (created in 2020 by user:GZWDer who probably wasn't aware of this RFC from year 2013 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wd-Ryan before starting a new RFC about special pages, please take a time and examine this 2013 RFC Estopedist1 (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki special page (Q83378654) is intended to be used in MediaWiki page (Q15474042) so is still notable. GZWDer (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted not notable per WD:Notability, see discussion Estopedist1 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Q115944236

Q115944236: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not relevant Madamebiblio (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

invalid ID (L940507)

L940507: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) I created an item by mistake, so please delete it.--MaYuKo52 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Done by Mahir256 --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Q115917519

Gopro 15mm F2.8 (Q115917519): GoPro Hero built-in lens: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Kein Titel, keine Beschreibung F. Riedelio • talk 09:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It has the label and description in Catalan - you can add German (& English) description(s) all alone by yourself... Also it's notable according to WD:N#3 (a structural need satisfied). --Wolverène (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: Unneeded conflation items

Q86901233 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q86901477 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q86903638 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q86904133 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q86992560 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q86994444 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q86996512 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q87066628 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q87488948 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q89397824 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

I created these items to represent external identifiers that conflate more than one author. At the time I believed they met WD:N 3 because there was a structural need for disambiguation. After 2+ years of observation I have concluded that these items are no use. The owners of external databases have shown no interest in using these items to correct their own errors. Bots and batch edits have added more identifiers to these items, but some of these identifiers are not conflated and should have been added to other items, which creates more work in moving them to the correct item. @Vladimir_Alexiev: and @Kolja21: have opposed creation of new conflation items so I stopped creating any more. @Emu: has previously deleted a similar item, so there is a precedent for deletion. Most of the remaining conflation errors are in VIAF ID (P214). I have added these to the list at Wikidata:VIAF/cluster/conflating entities. I am watching items for individual authors conflated in the above items and will deprecate any wrong identifiers that are added to them in future. DrGavinR (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)