On 29.05.2015 13:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:

The problem that users face is that they experience the merging of items
to difficult or didn't know that that was possible. They understand
(with much annoyance) that they can only add a sitelink to one item.
Therefore they delete a sitelink on one item, and add it to another item.

Personally I think that an afterwards merge would be recommended here.
Would it be possible to have a bot 1. determine what the original
sitelink was that has been removed from the item, 2. see if this
sitelink is added on another item, 3. check if the statements of both
items match (otherwise: a list for humans/tool to check if it is the
same), 4. if the same: automatically merge both items.

I think it would be good to have more things being automated as much as
possible.

That's an important situation too, but I think in the example I gave something else happened: the sitelink was not moved, but the Wikipedia article that it was pointing to got deleted. So it's not just the link that vanished: all information about the item that might have been found on the deleted Wikipedia page is also gone. It's therefore quite hard to find out what the item might have been about.

Regards,

Markus

2015-05-29 13:23 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch
<markus@semantic-mediawiki.org <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>>:

    Hi all,

    I just noticed that we have a number of "orphaned items" which were
    created and imported from some Wikipedia article that then got
    deleted. The result is an item with almost no data, no sitelinks,
    and all references claiming "imported from X Wikipedia".

    Example:
    https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9386774

    Here is what happened:
    https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q9386774&action=history

    It would be good to have a process for dealing with such cases. I am
    not saying that we must delete such items immediately, but it seems
    obvious that they need some special attention to become
    self-sustaining even without Wikipedia articles associated.

    Things that would be important to keep such items:
    * Links to other external datasets that confirm the existence of the
    thing.
    * Links to authoritative web sites that confirm the existence of the
    thing.
    * Proper references for all data (we always want that, but here it's
    even more critical: "imported from Wikipedia" is never great, but at
    least it leaves some hope of finding proper references if the
    Wikipedia page still exists).

    In cases like the above, deletion seems to be the most reasonable
    solution (the little data that is there can easily be added again if
    needed in the future). It seems that one could automatically collect
    such candidates for deletion (pages that are not used as property
    values, have no site links, have no identifier properties, were not
    edited since more than a month, an have less than, say, ten
    properties+labels+descriptions).

    Regards,

    Markus

    _______________________________________________
    Wikidata mailing list

    Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata




_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata