Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P6989
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hungarian National Namespace organisation ID (old) (P6989): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
The property IDs and the formatting URL have also changed. A new property (Hungarian National Namespace organisation ID (new) (P11685)) was created, which was added to all old (P6989) data with the new identifier. This property is deprecated and can be deleted. (Control query: https://w.wiki/8JmT) —Pallor (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep It is still valuable information. While the official website (abcd.hu) is no longer available, these statements can still help match IDs found elsewhere to Wikidata items (and through them, even to new MNN IDs). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Tacsipacsi Can you list the data that is available on the old form with the old ID but not on the new ABCD? (otherwise the abcd.hu site is available). So what data would be lost if we delete the identifier? Pallor (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Pallor: What we would lose is the fact that the MNN ID of the National Assembly (Q648716) using the old scheme is 204006. External identifiers are pieces of information themselves, not only references for other pieces of information. It may happen that third-party data reusers (or even ourselves) find a reference to an organization that uses this old scheme. Removing these statements would make it impossible to process that reference (at least without digging into item histories, which is probably not something one would want to do or want to write a program for). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tacsipacsi: By this argument, I think we could completely eliminate the deletion of external IDs for property IDs, since you argue that, whatever the topic, each ID carries information. But the practice is not: if the IDs do not lead to information that would be lost without them, then feel free to delete them. And these IDs do not carry any information, since everything that was on the page accessed with the previous ID is also on the page accessed with the new ID. Pallor (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, I generally don’t agree with the deletion of external ID properties unless creating them has never been a good idea (e.g. it is, and has always been, totally useless), or for technical reasons (including cases when a new property was created after a schema change for technical reasons, but the old ID can be algorithmically determined from the new one). I may be in minority with this opinion, though; if the vast majority of users who comment in this discussion are in favor of the deletion, I’ll accept the community decision. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I second all that Tacsipacsi wrote.
- I second all that Tacsipacsi wrote.
- Indeed, I generally don’t agree with the deletion of external ID properties unless creating them has never been a good idea (e.g. it is, and has always been, totally useless), or for technical reasons (including cases when a new property was created after a schema change for technical reasons, but the old ID can be algorithmically determined from the new one). I may be in minority with this opinion, though; if the vast majority of users who comment in this discussion are in favor of the deletion, I’ll accept the community decision. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tacsipacsi: By this argument, I think we could completely eliminate the deletion of external IDs for property IDs, since you argue that, whatever the topic, each ID carries information. But the practice is not: if the IDs do not lead to information that would be lost without them, then feel free to delete them. And these IDs do not carry any information, since everything that was on the page accessed with the previous ID is also on the page accessed with the new ID. Pallor (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Pallor: What we would lose is the fact that the MNN ID of the National Assembly (Q648716) using the old scheme is 204006. External identifiers are pieces of information themselves, not only references for other pieces of information. It may happen that third-party data reusers (or even ourselves) find a reference to an organization that uses this old scheme. Removing these statements would make it impossible to process that reference (at least without digging into item histories, which is probably not something one would want to do or want to write a program for). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Both opinions represent a point of view that could be added to virtually all properties for deletion ("keep it because it's valuable"), but they don't explain what the value is in an unused and unrecoverable identifier. Such a belief essentially makes cancellation discussions impossible, since it is too general and elusive to be considered as an argument and to respond to it in a meaningful way.
- As additional information, I describe that the database currently consists of 62,060 items, of which 35 items have been transferred to Wikidata. No data can be read back from any of them, on the other hand, the new identifier makes all data available. I still maintain my deletion proposal. Pallor (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)