@fkv, I think you have made a mistake - v75 only adds wikidata ID. It does not change name or ref. name was changed in v74 - changeset/49087662

Hi, please add wikidata tags when adding wikipedia. JOSM can do it automatically using "Fetch IDs" in Wikipedia plugin. Also, please help with osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project if you can. Thanks!

Hi, please add wikidata tags when adding wikipedia. JOSM can do it automatically using "Fetch IDs" in Wikipedia plugin. Also, please help with osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project if you can. Thanks!

Hi, please add wikidata tags when adding wikipedia. JOSM can do it automatically using "Fetch IDs" in Wikipedia plugin. Also, please help with osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project if you can. Thanks!

Hi, please add wikidata tags when adding wikipedia. JOSM can do it automatically using "Fetch IDs" in Wikipedia plugin. Also, please help with osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project if you can. Thanks!

Hi, thanks for fixing the link! Please add wikidata tags when adding wikipedia. JOSM can do it automatically using "Fetch IDs" in Wikipedia plugin. Also, please help with osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project if you can. Thanks!

Hi, please add wikidata tags when adding wikipedia. JOSM can do it automatically using "Fetch IDs" in Wikipedia plugin. Also, please help with osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project if you can. Thanks!

I seriously doubt Wikidata in itself would benefit from OSM, but OSM data consumers already heavily use Wikidata. Please take a look at the latest brand:wikidata discussion on the talk mailing list - it could really use some fresh opinions. Also, I started a cleanup project: osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Improvement_Tasks

Hi, i'm removing duplicate wikipedia tags on the ways, because they are already set on the relation

Hi, i'm moving dup wikipedia/wikidata info to parent relation, as described in osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Improvement_Tasks#Duplicate_tags_on_a_relation_and_its_members thx!

I agree, and this will be part of the overall cleanup as described at osm.wiki/Wikipedia_Improvement_Tasks#Duplicate_tags_on_a_relation_and_its_members - lets discuss it there on the talk page, because discussions on changesets are harder to track and consolidate.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data:Sandbox/Yurik/OSM_objects_pointing_to_disambigs.tab&action=history -- every revision had entries that community fixed. There are many other places, but this is the easiest to show. Lately, people fixed it directly from my service. When first ran, disambig count was near a thousand, it dropped to 400, and later raised back to 800 with the newly discovered errors. I believe this is more than plenty of proof, but you are welcome to create a list if you want.

Your second argument has been refuted and explained ad nauseum on the @talk in multiple discussions of why this is a bad idea by multiple people. Not going to explain it again.

Thanks, this is a valid feedback. I should make my comments more detailed.

SomeoneElse, I cannot guarantee anything. Ever. I can only attempt to find existing errors in the data and expose them. So far, thanks to my efforts, thousands of major errors have been corrected. As I numerously stated, and you chose to ignore -- wikidata ID is simply a more permanent wikipedia ID, representing the same article. The wikidata item does not have to have ANY statements. None. And it would still be a valid ID, because it represents the same WP article. If it has an instance-of, it is a bonus. In some cases, there may be a more precise wikidata ID, but having a more generic one is not an error. At this point, I feel we are having endless debates over a non-issue. If you feel otherwise, lets set up a video hangout, possibly with others, and attempt to resolve it, rather than talking past each other.

SomeoneElse, I think you are not being fair or impartial. I have reviewed every single change in this edit - they are done manually, one by one, not mechanically. This is very different from massive wikidata tag upload.

Please be consistent. I plan to fix it as requested in the original comment. The fix is semi-mechanical - I will find all objects that fit criteria, review them and edit them. You are welcome to re-read the talk and participate in the discussion. Also all concerns were answered, with the possible exception of "this can be easily done another way, but I won't say how" comment, to which multiple people already said that we can't think of a better way.

SomeoneElse, I posted about it to the @talk about an hour ago, please take a look. Once community agrees that this is ok, I will fix them all. Without it, it would be a partial fix for just a few instances.

Hi, you added https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainbuche as a website to tourism=information objects node/4252910796 and node/4252878004. Could you double check what they should be?

I do not, and this might have been a mistake. I will contact the original authors to find out.

2) same logic - bus stops should have neither wikipedia nor wikidata tags, but use network:wiki* tags instead. Same thing - now that these objects are trackable, they can be converted to network as well. Performing just one task is much safer for the stability of the data. I can move all bus stops for a single network in one swoop, verifying data more meticulously.