[10:02:26] Anybody there for a daily? [10:02:29] Amir1? [10:02:40] (If thats the right Amir.) [10:02:46] That's just me [12:35:59] DanielK_WMDE: Can you reply to my comment on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/384298/3/lib/includes/Changes/EntityDiffChangedAspects.php? [17:57:52] query.wikidata.org is giving me 502 Bad Gateway [17:59:44] Not here, edward. They just deployed new code, so might be a hiccup. [18:30:47] thanks [19:29:42] can someone tell med about the wikidata item P856 named in english as official website and how to handle that when the expressed url becomes a dead link ? Should we really just remove it instead of just marking it as a dead link. Since there are a possibility it can reappear or have been partially archived at some archiving service ? [19:33:32] Migrant: if it's the official site, it doesn't matter whether it's dead. IF it's no longer the official site, a new statement with the new URL should be added, and marked as preferred. [19:34:05] I'm not sure whether there is a convention for marking dead links, or referencing archived versions. qualifiers could in theory be used for both purposes [19:34:46] but generally speaking, ranks (normal, preferred, deprecated) are used to handle obsolete information. [19:37:17] Not much discussing. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P856#what_should_be_done_with_dead_links.3F [19:38:41] 298 qualified with P1065, 158 with end date. [19:39:43] DanielK_WMDE : Thanks for your answer. So this edit https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q719580&diff=next&oldid=554699621 would rather be better to mark as deprecated then instead of removing it. [19:41:48] Migrant: yes, i believe so. sjoerddebruin knows this better than me, though [19:42:14] [citation needed] [19:43:05] hehe [19:44:12] hehe... well according to your answer i made this double-edit https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q719580&type=revision&diff=583239345&oldid=582933391 [19:44:43] would that be okay... or should i have done otherwise [19:44:48] Hm, is it logical to add "no value" to official website if the organisation was defunct before the internet? [19:46:47] sjoerddebruin: logical, but not very useful. [19:47:11] sjoerddebruin: you could also add "no value" for offical website for most species of fish... [19:47:23] (I'm sure there is one that *has* an official website) [19:48:44] I mostly do it if it is included in the suggestions, so if it is normally expected on such a item. [19:49:05] Now let me find the item for "unique fish" [19:49:14] you know that the way suggestions are generated is a bit... strange?... [19:49:23] Finding Nemo ? [19:49:27] Migrant: i'm not sure about the use of P2315. ohterwise, it looks good to me! [19:49:30] thank you! [19:49:36] I know how the suggestions are generated. :P [19:49:48] yea, you do [19:50:14] Migrant: fictional fishes don't count!?! [19:50:29] I've created the item for fictional snail recently though... [19:50:59] Hey DanielK_WMDE , I guess you're coming to the Wikidatcan? [19:51:02] *con :P [19:51:29] of course! [19:51:47] It seems like there is no real fish atm with a official website. [19:52:25] DanielK_WMDE : any suggestions on another use to express it ? and what about Free Willy although it is not a fish but a whale but at least it was real not fictional [19:52:49] We do have a goat with a Twitter account. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41239734 [19:53:41] oh! does @sourcegoat follow it?... [19:53:59] No. [19:54:47] Migrant: don't know. I think there has been talk of havning a constraint that checks for dead links, and is evaluated lazily... [19:54:53] but afaik that was just an idea [19:55:01] But outsiders will never understand https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property%3AP410&type=revision&diff=569125586&oldid=568904316 [19:55:57] sjoerddebruin: Just add an exception [19:56:10] But there are multiple goats! [19:56:23] I still have to add more.