User talk:Ameisenigel

Hello, I changed the article Artificial Intelligence in Dutch version (nl:kunstmatige intelligentie), but I still need to do one more thing, but I don't have permission to do that. On Wikidata I have to rewrite the follow content “wetenschap die zich bezighoudt met het creëren van een artefact dat een vorm van intelligentie vertoont” into “een verzamelnaam om via algoritmen en methoden de menselijke intelligentie te evenaren”. Important to know: my amended text is part of reference 1 in the Dutch article. You may also translate from EN to NL, you will see, the changed part make sense. Would you be so kind as to change that for me? Thank you. Colitem (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have changed the nl description as requested. --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. Colitem (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It seems you forgot to delete property P7818 (P7818) (probably because it wasn't properly tagged). --Horcrux (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I have migrated that data as well. If there are no objections I will delete that one as well. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! --Horcrux (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P7818 still has 16843 uses; should it really have been deleted? I don’t see a consensus for it on Wikidata:Properties for deletion or its archive, at least (and the link Horcrux posted above now points to a deleted page, so I can’t see what happened there).

(Disclaimer: I noticed this while looking at some production warning messages which were caused by this deletion, hence me posting with my staff account. But that alone shouldn’t be a reason to undelete it, I think.) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion took place at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7829. There has been consensus to use one property for all Vikidia editions. All data has been migrated to the new property Vikidia article ID (P12800). --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7829 did not include P7818 (P7818) though, so it should have had a separate proposal for deletion. I don't know how you expected people to know that you were waiting for any objections to also deleting P7818 (P7818) when the proposal for deletion was already closed.

I also think it was inappropriate for you to delete the property, because you were the proposer of the replacement property and were therefore not impartial (see Wikidata:Administrators#Involved_administrators).

You should not delete properties that are still in use. There is a bright red warning on the deletion page telling you to make sure that a property is no longer in use before deleting it.

- Nikki (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact P7818 was listed on that page, although I agree that it would have been better to make a separate proposal. People should have been aware of the discussion because @Horcrux: has added the PFD note to the talk page of the property on 30 June.

I do not think that I was involved here. The proposal has always been to make one Vikidia ID for all Vikidia editions and not to have one for frvikidia and one for the rest. Hence I asked in the discussion if one of the existing properties should be reused or if a new one should be created. Again nobody raised any objections against using a new property. By creating the property proposal I just did what was needed to be able to migrate the Vikidia data. Anyway, if you think that this property should still exist you can just undelete it since I do not have any personal interest if this property is kept or deleted.

I have investigated this: The red warning only appears if you have the English interface. You cannot expect everyone to use the English interface, so I still believe that it would make sense to add this warning to WD:PFD and WD:DEL.

I will not work on any requests at PFD in the future. --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ameisenigel, you deleted Property:P7818 with the rationale "Consensus at Properties for deletion". I see no such consensus on the current page, and I don't find anything in the archives for 2024 either. Does that consensus to delete P7818 really exist? Regards, Edelseider (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, see the section above: The discussion took place at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7829, all data has been migrated to the new property. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, vielen Dank! Edelseider (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You say all data has been migrated, but slaughter of the suitors (Q117830676) red panda (Q41960), Adonis (Q163920), Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba (Q33200) (and many others)

This is crashing things including Pywikibot jobs as the entities are non deserializable.

Q-Items can not be deleted while still in use. I guess it's even worse for properties? Nono314 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All your examples have the data available with P12800 statements. --Ameisenigel (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they also still had P7818 (P7818)!

Result is that said entities were made invalid (non deserializable), thus for example crashing any job with a generator yieding one of those entities.

I see you have run a deletion job during the night, thanks for that. But the property should never have been deleted before all its occurrences have been removed. This breaks things and disrupts existing tasks. Nono314 (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the batch to remove the statements immediately when I deleted the property. Neither the intro of WD:PFD nor WD:DEL mention that the statements need to be removed before the deletion. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've ruined my watchlist... Why couldn't you do this with bot flag?? Infovarius (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody complained when I made the same amount of edits two weeks ago to add the statements with the new property. There are also many other users who are performing much bigger batches without a bot flag. Even if I would have had a bot flag it would not have been applied because QuickStatements does not support the bot flag in batch mode. Anyway I can use the browser mode and a bot flag for future batches. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find the applicable policy, but given the discussion on the above section it's known to be a dangerous move and warned against in red letters, but sadly inconsistently accross languages. On WD:RFD, most entries have On hold This item is linked from x others, so it clearly makes sense to also hold deletion of a property used in tens of thousands of items and this should be stated as clearly as possible. --Nono314 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. This should be stated as clearly as possible. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there're some errors for Vikidia article ID (P12800), don't know whether there's error in your program code. Take Philippe Pétain (Q5721) for example, it should be "Philippe_Pétain", but you added "Ur_(Mésopotamie)" in batch 233365, according to the history log of Philippe Pétain (Q5721), Property:P7818's value is correct. Maybe part of this job should be checked or redo, mayber only a small part, don't know how it happened. Kethyga (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will check if there are any other errors. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]