Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Addbot 5

If you ended up here because you clicked the edit summary and wondering why the bot is doing this: Before 2015-06-26 the calendar model defaulted to Gregorian see phab: T105100.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Approved. You see that there is some (actually, significant) opposition to the task; please be very careful, take criticism into account, and stop the bot once there are objections--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot 5

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T105100

Addbot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Addshore (talk • contribs • logs)

Task/s: Mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

Code: php, not written yet, using addwiki framework, will be on github.

Function details:

This task will be fulfilling the Phabricator task https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100
This task will run using a list of claims that have been generated using https://github.com/wmde/wikidata-analysis/pull/9
- Current sample lists can be seen here and here
- 13,600 + 117,000 = roughly 130600 statements / edits
The task will add a qualifier to the statements "instance of: Wikidata date needing calendar model check" (I new item will need to be created for this)

--·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 09:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, sounds good to me! Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already suggested it, but now ask: Will the dates be marked as deprecated as well? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Or at least that is not in the 'current plan'. If everyone feels they should be I am happy to also mark them as deprecated. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have suggested, when a client wiki uses some data, these are not usually deprecated data (well, there aren't many such statements), so marking them as deprecated can "hide" them. Of course, checking for this qualifier pair is possible as well. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose using qualifiers to track meta-information. --Ricordi samoa 23:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Folks, we _really_ need to get this done. It sucks. It is not ideal. But we need to fix the data and this is the best way we have right now to get it over with quickly. Let's please move it forward. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us try again. What are the major issues with the request? Are they fixable?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Addshore: I see the Phabricator task has stalled. So also has this request, apparently. Has this been abandoned (can it be closed)? Hazard SJ 19:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it still needs to happen - and we really should not let this stall any longer. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phabricator task has stalled because this request has stalled (not the other way around) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.