Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2020/04

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

How to use category combines topics (P971) in items such as Category:YYYY establishments in country

My question is about what to put in under the category combines topics property for items in the pattern of Category:Year establishments in country such as Category:1949 establishments in Japan (Q8143505) and Category:1948 establishments in Japan (Q8142959) Should the year and the country be two items under category combines topics or should it be one item year in country? For example:

Which is the best way? Does it make a difference? Senator2029 13:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

bot principles

[Disclaimer: I am not a bot operator on Wikidata, so I may be unaware of differences here with respect to the bots on the Wikipedias I'm more familiar with.]

It seems to me there are some principles all bots should be operated by:

  1. Bots should be making only edits for which there is broad consensus.
  2. Except under unusual circumstances, bots should perform any of their edits exactly once. If a bot's edit is later improved, the bot should not re-perform it. (And note that in some cases deletion can be an improvement.)
  3. Bots should never edit war.
  4. If at all possible, bot-inserted statements should always have references.
  5. Bots should always provide clear edit summaries.
  6. It should always be clear what a bot is doing and why, and where the data that is driving it comes from. If a bot is importing data on behalf of multiple contributors, there needs to be visible traceability (via edit summary or the like) between each edit and its original contributor.
  7. When a good-faith concern is raised about a bot's edits, the response should generally be to (a) stop the bot, (b) discuss the situation, and only when it is satisfactorily resolved (c) restart the bot.
  8. The bar for stopping or blocking a bot is low. If a bot does not have an "off" switch and so must be blocked by an administrator in order to stop it, this is an ordinary maintenance action, and does not carry any of the stigma which a block of a human editor might entail. (In other words, the bar for blocking a bot, e.g. to perform step 7a above, is low.)

I bring these things up (and at risk of unnecessarily restating things well-understood, perhaps at Wikidata's own bot page) because on two recent instances it didn't seem like these principles were necessarily part of the immediate consensus. —Scs (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • This sounds too much like enwiki.
Wikidata is a data wiki, accordingly, users should try to use a script or a bot whenever possible. --- Jura 22:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I sympathize with Jura's view, but I think it only (strongly) applies to principle (1) above. Bovlb (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There are many intrinsic differences between en-wiki and wikidata that makes some of principles above less relevant. Specifically to avoid #2 and #3 I need to create infrastructure that can cache hundreds of millions of individual statements. This task alone is significantly more complex than the rest of the bot code. From the practical view, bot edit war is not that bad here. If human disover edit war, it can contact bot operator and (hopefully) resolve issue.
I personally have no problems with #8 (and was blocked once for this reason), but just want to emphasize that ~1/3 of top50 contributes are not "officially" bots. I can imagine that other people on that list might be more sensitive to this topic. Ghuron (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. There is a related discussion at Wikidata_talk:Bots#Unattributed_proxy_edits. Bovlb (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a broad consensus that bots should be making edits on wikidata. And one of the great things about wikidata, so far, is the absence of the mountains of wikipedia-style policy / guideline bollocks. Let's keep it that way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree that bots are an absolute necessity for the highly mechanical sort of editing we do here.
Wasn't trying to discourage bot use. Sorry if I seemed to. I'll stop now. —Scs (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I think you've misunderstood the intent of the first point. It doesn't say that bots shouldn't be used. It makes a statement about what kinds of edits bots should be doing. If there is wide consensus for a certain kind of edit, then anyone can do it, either manually, with a script or with a bot. However, bots and editors should not be making edits against consensus. If an editor shouldn't be making a certain edit, then a bot shouldn't be making that edit either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Scs: Perhaps you can combine this with Bovlb's proposal on unattributed edits and we can run a formal RFC on whether we need to update or better enforce the bot policy in these areas. It would probably be helpful if it was clear what we need to change in current policy or procedures. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to combination (although the problem of unattributed proxy edits appears separable, and it is sometimes easier to fix one smaller problem at a time).
I do share some of the concerns expressed by Jura and Tagishsimon above that we want to encourage automation here, and hence we do not want to impose burdensome prior constraints. The flip side, however, is that we need to find better ways to respond to emergent problems with automated edits. A human editor is expected to stop or slow down if concerns are raised about about specific changes, and they are strongly discouraged from edit warring. We need to find the best way to apply those principles to automated edits without losing their benefit. Currently we tend to have one bot account performing many different tasks, and blocking is a crude tool for responding to a problem in just one of those tasks.
Ghuron makes a good point above that there are problems of scale in preventing a bot from edit warring. One simple approach might be to avoid revisiting the same item. Alternatively, could a bot check its notifications to detect that it was reverted? Bovlb (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note of support, Arthur, but at this point I must decline. I had written, "It didn't seem like these principles were necessarily part of the immediate consensus", but based on the swift response here, it's clear that these principles are most definitely not part of the consensus, if anything there's good consensus for the opposite of these principles. So I won't be taking them any further, although of course anyone else is welcome to. —Scs (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I read a lot of solutions, but if they are listed here looking for a problem, we're not doing it in the right order. What problem do we want to solve? Edoderoo (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem that bots add bad data, or adding data inappropriately, which is cleaned up by editors, only to have the bots add the same bad data again. We ask the bot owners to help, they refuse. Or they say they'll change the bot, but nothing gets fixed. Bot owners currently have license to do whatever they want once their bot is approved, with no obligations or limitations. Bot owners should be responsible for controlling their bots. We need a clear statement to which bots and their creators can be held accountable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. But since I managed to send a very different impression when I started this thread, let me say loudly and explicitly that (for my part, at least) any such clear statement does not mean that we have anything against bots, or bot operators. We appreciate and absolutely need bots and bot operators -- it's only bot-injected bad data we're objecting to. —Scs (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Rollback all changes from 2001:56A:7790:C900:E9BA:C7C0:D7FC:87B6

Can someone rollback all the changes for 2001:56A:7790:C900:E9BA:C7C0:D7FC:87B6? Thanks. Julián L. Páez (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

An explanatory sentence. —Eihel (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't need help anymore. I wanted someone with a tool to help me reverse anonymous user edits because those changes disorganized the data. But I found more edits on different pages with different IP, so I'm doing it manually. —Julián L. Páez (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox with no data

All subcategories in Commons:Category:Voormalige Sneltramhalte Amstelveenlijn have 'Wikidata Infobox' in the description. These are ex 'metro/sneltram' stops being converted into tram only stops.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Wikidata Infobox template has been added to the categories, but the categories haven't been linked to Wikidata items. If such items don't exist, they can be created. Ghouston (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems that they do exist: I'll try to link them. Ghouston (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Unclear automatic edit descriptions

How do I know what "ur" mean? I can ctrl+f but It's too much work and may be missleading. Can language names be added? Eurohunter (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Diff? --- Jura 20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: Updated. Eurohunter (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
      • These are based on international language codes (possibly ISO 639). The codes are relevant to every language, so an English speaking editor can check the list and see that ur means Urdu, while an Urdu speaking editor can look up the same code and find it represents اردو. Having the language in the edit summary written out in English may help some editors a little, but it will make the same summary completely useless for any other language editor. Also, I expect that having a list of two letter language codes is easier for bots to handle than first identifying the script of a written language and then translating/parsing it into a usable form. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
      • (e/c) Two separate issues here:
        1. The edit summary "Changed label, description and/or aliases in ur" is presumably configured here and used here. Presumably it could be changed to list language names as well, but that would require additional internationalization, and would make the resulting text longer, whereas this is clearly intended to be "short". Also, such a change would require propagation through the various localizations, would be moot when we fall back onto one of the other messages, and would not help users do not read (say) English. If you want to pursue this, you should Contact the development team, but I believe they would appreciate receiving a very specific suggestion.
        2. When viewing the diff, the field name is shown as "label / ur". This might be a good place to introduce a language name, either directly, or as a hoverover. This could also be done by the development team but, as an alternative, could also be fixed by a gadget on a per-user basis.
      Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's an improvement over "Changed label, description and/or aliases" we had not too long ago. Chances are if you don't know what language "ur" is it shouldn't really matter to you. "en" is English. --- Jura 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

notable work (P800) / order

I think we need poperty for albums (studio, video), official singles and promtional, music videos etc. or any other works like video games, films, books. Current notable work (P800) is messy and it's good example of mess in Wikidata and ocasion to ask why data can't be sorted (moved up, down) alphabetically, chronologically or custom? Someone told me Wikidata is only data base and it's enough if its items are sorted at Wikipedia or other project but I would like to say we are editing here and it should be better organised (try to manage 50 elements at notable work (P800) in random order, albums and singles mixed). @Moebeus: Eurohunter (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently at William Shakespeare (Q692) the bulk of Shakespeare's plays are individually "notable," but his sonnets are notable only in the aggregate, which shows how silly this whole thing is. I doubt anyone would read King John (Q661222) nowadays if it wasn't part of the corpus of work of someone known for writing far better plays; surely the 14 lines of Sonnet 18 (Q2527863) ("Shall I compare thee to a Summers day…") constitute a more important work.
There is no citation for King John (Q661222) being one of his notable works, and I actually defy anyone to find a scholar who would make that claim. - Jmabel (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • While I tend to agree that this isn't a property that really belongs in WD, using Shakespeare and similar super-famous creators as examples misses the point a little imo. The one use case I can see where it makes sense is the opposite scenario - the "one hit wonder", the obscure writer, painter, or musician where you're thinking "Why are they in WD?". The "notable work" property could be used to highlight works that might be more recognizable that their creators, the way Wikipedias often use "most famous for NNN" or "mostly known for NNN" in the bios. Moebeus (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

DPT vaccine

Guys, the interwiki links are mixed up in DPT vaccine (Q908600). It is mixing up DTP vaccine and DPT vaccine across the wikis. For example the Bulgarian Ваксина против дифтерия is DPT. I tried to unlink some of these but could not orient myself in the new wikilinks edit system here so maybe someone else can try. --Петър Петров (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There's also a DKTP vaccine on the Dutch link, maybe it's a speciality of the Netherlands. Ghouston (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
There are separate items for these: DPT vaccine (Q30314639), vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, and poliomyelitis (Q2363115), diphtheria-pertussis-poliomyelitis-tetanus vaccine (Q17640358) and Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis vaccines (Q58623891). Peter James (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
But some are just useless doubles. All those seem to come from some mindless bot-use. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
en:DPT vaccine is about a class of vaccines and en:DTP vaccine is a specific member of the class? It's a bit confusing. Ghouston (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Crowd funding qualifier

Would it be okay if i used total revenue (P2139) as a qualifier to indicate how much money a Kickstarter project have gotten? --Trade (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Do we have any items that represent Kickstarter projects (as opposed to companies or products that were funded via Kickstarter)? Or were you proposing to use this as a qualifier on Kickstarter project ID (P8019)? Bovlb (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I was proposing to use this property as a qualifier on Kickstarter project ID (P8019). @Bovlb: --Trade (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems OK to me. Some of the other external id properties, like for Twitter, also take qualifiers. Ghouston (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ghouston:Do you think this would be the correct qualifier to use for Kickstarter project ID? There's also operating income (P3362) and net profit (P2295) --Trade (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's better than either of those. Ghouston (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To have a rant

Hello,
I don't wanna be the villain, but following the RfC of ArthurPSmith Micru from 2 years ago already, nothing has changed. With 33 PC and all the sysops, we should not approach the 60 proposals ready for creation. All these people could only make 2 creations per month and we would be close to 0. I think at some point it was ZI Jony's wish when trying to motivate the troops with mixed success, since only the "active" continued. According to research from a long time ago, less than half of the PC was still creating. Wouldn't a large, colorful array of rights and users be helpful or even dissuasive if used with a TP message? Wikidially. —Eihel (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mind providing a link to the discussion? @Eihel: --Trade (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: Willingly, but what a link, what about ? —Eihel (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oups, RfC opened by Micru (and closed by ArthurPSmith). It was here. Sorry. —Eihel (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • One time offer: I will create one for each on User:Edgars2007/Dormant properties that is deleted. In the meantime, feel free to use described at URL (P973) for external-ids .. it was created for that. If there are property proposals with other datatype that need to be looked into, please ping me. --- Jura 18:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Thanks for the advice for P973, have i forgotten it somewhere? Where? —Eihel (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eihel: By my count, 94 properties were created in the last 4 weeks, according to the Wikidata weekly updates. So the backlog (if currently 60) is less than 3 weeks worth. Has it been growing noticeably? I think the big change was a few months ago when User:Pintoch unfortunately decided they could no longer run their automated property-creation script, which saved a lot of work for the rest of us... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    I am also sorry about the state of this property creation queue, but unfortunately Wikidata is no longer usable for me. Property creation is an activity that ought to be automated, but running bots is no longer feasible at the moment. Even simple import tasks run at the blazing speed of one edit per minute, taking one month to import 15,000 statements. If you ask me, the community should delete most scientific article items, and WMDE should recognize that the architecture will not cope with any growth rate the community imposes. We need clear guidelines about what can be imported without disrupting the service. − Pintoch (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    Yes ArthurPSmith, we are right: fortunately that there is active users… In any case, a BIG thank you for everything, Antonin. —Eihel (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

VIAF confusion

There seems to be some confusion between these two entities on VIAF.

Musee Charlier is at https://viaf.org/viaf/128822516/.

The record at https://viaf.org/viaf/294837635/ has some links to entities relating to Saint-Josse-ten-Noode (BNF and Wikidata), and some to Musee Charlier (all the rest).

Not sure what the correct thing to do here is, I have emailed VIAF, for clarification, though my email seems to be playing up in various ways.

It would seem a good idea to remove the VIAF code from Q272243 (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode) until this is resolved. Comments, suggestions, ideas?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

I think our contact has stopped updating, I haven't seen any changes in 3 months. The person I used to email no longer writes back. Does anyone have a new contact name? --RAN (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Minister part of a cabinet

Rex Tillerson (Q331401) -> position held (P39) --> United States Secretary of State (Q14213)

Which qualifier to use to connect with Trump Administration cabinet (Q27811470)? Maybe part of (P361)?

  • Seems kind of weird to try to relate Tillerson directly to the Cabinet. Tillerson was Secretary of State during the same period Trump was president; therefore he is a member of the Trump Administration Cabinet. I could see indicating what positions constitute the U.S. cabinet at different points in time (positions have come and gone), but not relating an individual directly to the Cabinet. - Jmabel (talk)
Sorry, I forgot United States Secretary of State (Q14213). I think is logical to have the cabinet as a qualifier to the position. He had the position "United States Secretary of State" at "Trump Administration cabinet". Or as "United States Secretary of State" was a member of "Trump Administration cabinet". Xaris333 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
As a qualifier for position held (P39)? I'd use member of cabinet (P5054). From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I added "member of=Trump Administration cabinet" as a qualifier, if you think it is improper, please delete it. I just want to show you a possibility. --RAN (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the most commonly used model is something like:
Person X holds Position Y
Position Y is part of the Cabinet in general (with start/end dates if eg it only became a cabinet post in 1973)
Members of "Cabinet Z" can be derived from looking at the positions that are part of the cabinet, and finding the holders at the appropriate times (so the Obama Cabinet is everyone who was in the cabinet from 2008-16, etc).
However, since that was developed, we've had member of cabinet (P5054) created. I think it makes perfect sense to use this as a qualifier on Tillerson's P39 statement like so, as this massively speeds up queries and can help with cases where eg the position isn't officially part of the cabinet, but the person attends in their own right. (Having a separate "member of" qualifier is a bit confusing when we have one designed for that purpose, so I've removed it again) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Trouble adding an interlanguage link

My first time here... I'm trying to add an interlanguage link so Wikipedia's en:Yousif Kuwa links to ar:يوسف كوة مكي. I went to Wikidata's Yousif Kuwa page, and tried to add it. I chose "ar" for the wiki, and pasted يوسف كوة مكي for the page name. But when I click "publish", it says "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed." Can anyone help me do this? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU: It's a very vague & unhelpful error message, sorry! But it looks like the reason you couldn't save is that the link is already in use on Yousif Kuwa (Q17388044), which means you cannot add it to Yousif Kuwa (Q12011048) - each WP page can only ever be linked to one WD item. There's two ways to solve this:
a) if the link is on the wrong item, delete it and add it to the new one
b) if both the items are about the same topic (which it looks like they are?), merge them - Help:Merge. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Andrew Gray, thanks for answering! I saw that Ghouston did the merge, thanks, that was a bit more than I was ready for today! --IamNotU (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying property creation criteria

Hey, I've started a discussion on this over at Wikidata_talk:Property_creators#Criteria_for_creation. Please feel free to weigh in over there if this is something you're interested in. 😊 --SilentSpike (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Converting a list item into a position item

Hi. I spotted that list of national presidents of the Boy Scouts of America (Q6630210) is a Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) of position holders, when it is also the only article and entry we have for the position (Q4164871) itself. I started converting the item into a position but am now second guessing myself. I reverted my edits while I seek advice here.[1] Should I just overwrite the existing item with the position data or is there a better way to handle this? Should I create a new item for the position, populate it and then transfer the only link to the new item? The second option would leave a Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) with no list article to link to. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I think if you have a list of people holding a title it is worth creating an entry for that specific title. You should not have converted the list to the position, just created a new entry and linked to the list. I think we have a property called "has list". We do that for lists of mayors. Mayor of New York City (Q785304), then to find them you just have to click "What links here". If there is just one entry for a position, it probably isn't worth your effort to create it, even though our rules do not prohibit it. So create "President of the Boy Scouts of America" --RAN (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The general idea is not to repurpose items. So if it's an item for a list, it shouldn't be recycled into something else. --- Jura 23:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Wikidata RDF dumps into pieces

Loading the Wikidata RDF dumps into a triple store quickly generally requires splitting the dump into multiple pieces so that parallel loaders can be used. Does anyone have a method for nicely splitting the dump? I believe that the dump is created in parallel and pieced together afterwards, so maybe there is a method for splitting it into these pieces (and maybe uncompressing it in parallel as well). Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Addshore: did that, if I remember correctly. --Denny (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
It is covered briefly in a blog psot by me here. The query service code has a munge step that that among other things splits the dump into multiple chunks. This munge script is also mentioned a bit here ·addshore· talk to me! 12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Fictional wikias for real entities

@J 1982: I don't think they are notable. See:

  • Norway (Q20): memory-alpha:Norway, memory-beta:Norway, neoencyclopedia:Norway, turtlepedia:Norway
  • Italy (Q38): memory-alpha:Italy, memory-beta:Italy, turtlepedia:Italy
  • Moon (Q405): cowboybebop:Luna (with remove-and-back)

There are more examples. Should we prohibit this? --Infovarius (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but Soviet Union (Q15180) had Memory-Beta already before I started adding more links. J 1982 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree, this shouldn't be done. I've removed a couple from United States of America (Q30). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Is simple removal of them a wise course of action here? I suspect it is just tempting someone to restore them when you aren't paying attention later. Would it be better to create a "Representation of X in fiction" item and then dump all of the fictional IDs and any non-factual data there? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Not all of these are fictional representations - for Norway, memory-alpha and memory-beta are, but the others look like they are not. Peter James (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
From Hill To Shore, I'm not against that idea but I don't think it would prevent people from adding them to the main items. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the concept of 'notability' applies to entries in external identifiers. --Trade (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems not all of them deals with fictional incarnations, but also fandom. For example, an article about Sweden on a Star Trek Wiki may deal with both fictional appearances of Sweden in Star Trek, but also Star Trek Fandom in Sweden, and what television channels Star Trek aired over in Sweden. J 1982 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like an ideal job for a object has role (P3831) qualifier. --Trade (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Entry for an image

Are there any restrictions that would prevent me from making an entry for an image that is hosted at Commons. I'm thinking of images containing large numbers of people that are identified. Then listing the people with depicts from our end. --RAN (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what structured data on Commons was supposed to be for? - Jmabel (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a chicken and egg situation. Commons structured data points to Wikidata. You can't set a "depicts" statement on Commons unless there is an item here about the depicted subject.
In answer to the original question, I would only create an item for each person here if their presence can be justified under the Wikidata scope. For example, if one of the people in the image is the holder of a position held (P39) you can create a person item as a structural enhancement of the position item.
If the image is of an amateur marathon, and you have a list to match entry numbers on participant shirts to names, I wouldn't create a Wikidata item for each person. Instead, I would create an item for the event and set Commons structured data as depicting the event. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
How is that chicken-and-egg? Is something depicting the Commons-hosted image? The people could be added here if they merit items, but where do we need "an entry [I presume that means item] for an image"? - Jmabel (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Chicken and egg in that you can't use structured data on Commons without first finding or creating a target item at Wikidata. Directing someone to Commons structured data will just return them here once they find that Commons can't help them. Rather than a circular reference, we just need to discuss/advise on what an appropriate target would be for the depicts statement. However, I may have misinterpreted the meaning of your first comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikidata:Scope, I don't see any restrictions on hand creating entries on people, so long as they can be described by a reliable source, so we can weed out hoaxes. We have restrictions on entries for living minors. We have restrictions on mass uploads of people, only because of the current computational constraints, and our ability to usefully disambiguate them in the index. --RAN (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Sure. But images on Commons -- which is what you initially asked about -- typically do not merit Wikidata items of their own. - Jmabel (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I say even if it's technically "allowed", we shouldn't make it a habit. What would be the benefit (besides maybe personal convenience?) Is there a structural need or merely a structural want? Is the image itself described by serious sources, or just the subjects? Not all photographs are equal of course: the fact that a Renaissance painting or Pulitzer-prize winning photograph merits an item does not mean my snapshot of the 4th cousins of Elton John deserves the same treatment, or any of the gazillion photos of notable statues, buildings, landmarks, etc. It's not a path we should encourage. -Animalparty (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Reused item

Q6358981 should have been converted to a redirect to Pokémon type (Q1266830), but the item was reused. Should it be converted to a redirect or deleted? —Julián L. Páez (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have another problem. list of Pokémon in alphabetical order (Q11372212) was about the Pokémon list in alphabetical order, but was changed and the Japanese interwiki was moved to an incorrect item. What should be done? —Julián L. Páez (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
They have repurposed several items, including Pokémon the Series: Gold and Silver (Q7208768) more than once (I reverted the most recent, which had changed it to "Blue Orb", but it was originally about Pokémon Junior (Q55641470)). Peter James (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

full video available on Wikimedia Commons (Q89347362)

What do you others think about Q4115189#P10? I think it would make it easier to query for movies available on Wikimedia Commons. --Trade (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Avoid duplicate items associated by P460

Some fictional characters are the same but in different religions or mythology. For instance, Hercules (Q240679) and Heracles (Q122248) are the same and this logical duplicity is linked by said to be the same as (P460). Under the point of view of one of the items we have full and correct information. However, Alkmene (Q190543) is their mother and in its child (P40) show both sons items duplicate. Similar situation could happen with depicts (P180). Is there any experience in similar situation ?. How should we handle this situation ?. May we use a qualifier (the P460 itself) to help to understand the duplicity ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me by copying a template over from Meta?

Hi all

I'm working on some documentation about creating new Wikidata Tours and the instructions are getting pretty long (its unfortunately quite complicated). I want to split it into different pages similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FindingGLAMs/White_Paper however it seems like the template those pages use aren't available on Wikidata. Does anyone know how to copy it across? I'm really confused by the wikicode, it says it invokes a page but the page name is the same....

If anyone could help make the template available on Wikidata that would be really great.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The thing it #invokes is a module, you can find it at meta:Module:Portal navigation and copy it like a template. Ghouston (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Ghouston:, thanks, I copied things over and I'm getting a scary red message about Lua, any ideas? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Portal_navigation . --John Cummings (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like it needs another module copied, I'll try to fix it later. Ghouston (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I copied Module:Is rtl and there are no further error messages. Ghouston (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Ghouston:, let me know if there's anything I can help you with. --John Cummings (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control is failing to transclude all of its entries, presumably because there are too many. We can resolve this in (at least) two ways:

  • close (and implement where appropriate) proposals that have been open for several months
  • subdivide into, say:
    • Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control for people
    • Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control for works
    • Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control for organisations
    • Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control (other)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Or we could limit the number of property proposals allowed at a time. --Trade (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I suggest we start with a moratorium on proposals for properties about video game releases, fictional characters, or television releases. Or were you thinking of throwing other people's interests under that bus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw this as well today. Subdivide as proposed by Andy, please, as anything else is not a long-term solution. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support Subdividing as above. - PKM (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support Subdividing, I wonder if there are also ways of making the queues shorter by being able to process them more quickly, I'm unsure if there are delays because of e.g the number of people able to process the requests. Is it there are simply too many for the current system, or is there a backlog for other reasons? --John Cummings (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
We could certainly do with more - or more active - property creators. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion "authority control" is really a ill-defined term.--GZWDer (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"External identifier" would probably be better, yes. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole process is buggy. If an external identifier is worth to be created, than it should also have an item. But people already messed up "International Standard Book Number (Q33057)" which from its name is a superclass for ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. Now look closer:

  • instance of : publication identifier (which is subclass of : unique identifier)
  • instance of : ISO standard

a standard isn't an identifier.

  • subclass of : European Article Number

only applies to ISBN-13

  • subclass of : Uniform Resource Name

URN subclass of Uniform Resource Identifier; URI instance of Internet Standard + subclass of Internationalized Resource Identifier; IRI instance of unique identifier + subclass of RDF node; RDF node ... subclass of machine readable data ... ???

RE section name - How would "external identifier" be better? It would mean reorganisation? Currently external ids are also found at other pages, e.g. Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer, MisterSynergy: is there a way to see all proposals for external-ids and for no other datatype? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Alexey_Youssef.jpg

There're some controversy about whether images about a topic with Wikidata item should be allowed in Commons.--GZWDer (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's funny, there have been arguments on both projects about whether items on the other should be exempted from the "stuff on other projects is notable" rule. There's a valid point that you can potentially make anything notable by creating both a Commons category and a Wikidata item for it. Ghouston (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Undeleted and now archived at c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-03#File:Alexey_Youssef.jpg. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Help, should I add parents of all notable persons?

Should I add parents of all notable persons? Datariumrex (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You may add them if you can provide a reliable source that mention their name.
  • It's recommended to add the source after creation, though this is not required; however, your item may have a risk of being deleted, or nominated for deletion if you do not provide a source
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source
  • You should link someone and their parents both sides (father/mother and child)

--GZWDer (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did not add reliable sources, only permanent links to Wikipedia page which again are no reliable as you just explained. In search of reliable sources I entered the English Wikipedia article for Temple Grandin (Q232810) and ref 4 links to a page on archive.org apparently a book I can borrow. Would that work as reliable or is anything more reliable necessary here? The name is simply "Eustacia Cutler" in this new reference I'm noting down here. Datariumrex (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Datariumrex: You can link to their entry in Familysearch which will have some primary documentation. If they are not already in Familysearch, you can create an entry in 30 seconds. Free registration is required to access Familysearch. Familysearch is not for living people, only dead ancestors. Currently there is no restriction on concatenating from an existing Wikidata entry, to any member of their extended family. The only restriction is entries for minor children, to protect privacy. You can also link to Wikitree and/or Geni and/or Findagrave. Some of these had bots to match in the past, but I am not sure all are running at this time. --RAN (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If we consider that being the parent of a notable person makes the parent notable, then that will continue back to Adam and Eve (or whichever alternative origin-myth you believe in). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Surviving written records only go back to about the year 1600 for most ordinary people, noble families may go back further. The first census in the United States to name all people wasn't until 1850. The state of Pennsylvania did not start recording births and deaths until 1905. Our own Wikidata:Notability allows concatenating people with no restriction on how many, so long as we provide a reliable source. The most current United States census online is the 1940 census. So anyone born before then can be sourced to an entry in Familysearch. Familysearch is able to host 1.21 billion entries for people, with instant searching. --RAN (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Well don't do that, then!" —Scs (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you may create it if a reliable source describes them, whether they are parents of someone or not.--GZWDer (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Like phone books, or old censuses? I didn't think we went that far. Ghouston (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing no a related person to a notable person doesn't get notability status. Alice is notable, Bob is Alice's father who is not notable. To make the Wikidata item about Alice more complete, my idea from the beginning, add father and mother of Alice: Bob and Carol. I can think of Wikidata:Notability number 3. as 'make Wikidata items more complete when they are a notable person'. ie. Temple Grandin (Q232810) notable. Her father Richard McCurdy Grandin (Q88987186) who is not notable, her mother Eustacia Cutler (Q88986059) who is not notable. My point being: Make Temple Grandin (Q232810) complete as per notability guidelines. Don't make Richard McCurdy Grandin (Q88987186) and Eustacia Cutler (Q88986059) complete, but only add information that is relevant to Temple Grandin (Q232810). Maybe it would be better to not create separate Wikidata items for mother and father, but to only add their names in plain text?(like I see in many scholarly articles, where researchers don't have their own Wikidata items)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Datariumrex (talk • contribs).
In my opinion adding names as text is a bad idea as it does not encourage (or even make difficult) 1. finding the item 2. adding more information and 3. use in client.--GZWDer (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
As per GZWDer, once you have committed to creating a new item, it should be populated with as much information as possible. I've been able to link a lot of items together through parent/child records. For example, where I see a notable person has "Henry John Watkins (1824-1901) born in Leeds" as a grandson, I can sometimes find another notable person has "Henry John Watkins (1824-1901) born in Leeds" as a father. I can then link the two notable people together with structural items. If the Wikidata item for "Henry John Watkins" only held a name, we would never be able to create the link as there would be no dates or locations to confirm they are the same person. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's a bad idea to add relatives if you have some actual information about them -- minimally, in my opinion, at least one of birth or death date, plus a place of residence (exact date of residence not required). Not only do an inordinate number of powerful people come from powerful families, making it useful to be able to show how they're connected to each other, but artists are often relatives of artists, writers of writers; having all of their relatives, even those who didn't themselves get into the history books, makes it possible to build family trees. The problem is only with sketchy data (like all that stuff from The Peerage, augh) which makes it impossible to recognize people. Levana Taylor (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata should at least store all information found in Wikipedia. WP articles frequently store information about parents. So add this to WD. It is not going to Adam and Eve. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I disagree strongly. Wikidata should not even attempt to "store all information found in Wikipedia". I can barely even imagine the work it would take to formally model even a typical medium-sized Wikipedia article. - 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata is certainly not restricted to what individuals can imagine. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Alright, so maybe despite many years of experience in data modeling I'm a stupid person with a weak imagination, but given that Wikidata seems to be struggling to do much simpler modeling than that, I believe that formally modeling the entirety of Wikipedia would be a poor choice of goals. - Jmabel (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What is the relationship between "Years of experience in data modeling" and "a stupid person with a weak imagination"? RE "Wikidata seems to be struggling to do much simpler modeling than that" - that would be great, but I don't see such struggle. Modelling is broken, software is broken (Wikidata talk:Property creators#No longer creating properties with my script). MariaDB - no graph database? What is WMDE doing with all the money? There might be struggles of individuals to fix issues, but then, there are others adding new problems or preventing fixes. No coherent policy. The imagination to model all Wikipedia in Wikidata could unleash forces. But people like you give up and talk about being stupid... MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I see that your own contributions here consist of these remarks on the chat page, one remark on Wikidata talk:Property creators, and, today, contributing content to one item. So excuse me if I don't take very seriously your assessment of the project, what the team working on it has proven capable of, and what do and do not constitute reasonable goals based on what people have and have not shown themselves capable of achieving.
    • As to what "years of experience in data modeling" have to do with it: I'm pretty confident in considering myself roughly a peer of the people who built Wikidata. I've met several of them. Maybe they are also "unimaginative" by your standards; they strike me as a solid group of developers, occasionally even inspired, who have bitten off roughly as much as they can chew. It's easy to "imagine" almost anything, in very rough form, if you have almost no information about the reality of the situation. Based on my own moderate involvement in Wikidata the last two years, and about four decades of experience in software development including a lot of data modeling, I am comfortable in saying I have a fairly good ability to judge what the group here can and cannot accomplish, and I am as close to certainty as I can be that they/we have about as much chance of formally modeling the entirety of Wikipedia as I have of winning a Nobel Prize. - Jmabel (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How can I merge two Wikidata items that describe the same person, only the name being spelled differently?

I am new to Wikidata. There are currently two different items related to the slovene lawyer, philosopher and politician Jožef Krajnc, each with different spellings of the name:

The first one is Q18082056, and it is linked to the Slovene and the Czech wikipedia article on the person, the second one is Q87066342, linked to the German and the English wikipedia article.

The second wikidata item came into existence when I created the German wikipedia article on Mr. Krajnc, under the spelling Josef Krainc, not knowing that there existed already an article about him in Slovene, and not knowing that the spelling Jožef Krajnc is more common.

How can I merge the two items? Can you please help me? --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Cannot set iterwiki towards Commons

Hello,

I am having an issue with Induction box-MHS 738 (Q89202434): I cannot seem to see the Commons interwiki to commons:Category:Induction box-MHS 738 (hence the category displaying an infobox for another object). Does anybody know why that is and how to overcome the issue?

Thank you very much in advance. Rama (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: The sitelink is already in use on Celestial globe-Berteaux-MHS Geneva (Q89202381) - possibly an error? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I managed to fix Induction box-MHS 738 (Q89202434), but now I cannot seem to correct Celestial globe-Berteaux-MHS Geneva (Q89202381). How do you get the list of Q-Items that use a given sitelink? Thank you very much for your help! Rama (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rama: the easiest way is to go to the sitelinked page itself (commons:Category:Induction box-MHS 738) and look in the sidebar for the "Wikidata item" link (or whatever the local language renders it as). This will always take you to the linked Wikidata item, if there is one. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, then I must have had some sort of freak caching issue that seems to have sorted itself out. Thank you very much again and good continuation! Rama (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Linking the same given or family name with two variations of spelling

Hi. I spotted that we have given names Bolivar (Q43374753) and Bolivár (Q834072). We also have family names Bolivar (Q37055803) and Bolívar (Q41210448). What is the best way to link these pairs together? Should they remain as distinct items with a property mentioning the other, or should the pairs be merged and recorded as variations of spelling of the same item? From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • How would you go about "recorded as variations of spelling of the same item"? --- Jura 14:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Possibly by recording them as aliases of the same item or having multiple native labels. I've not found two variations of a name before that are distinguished solely by accents on different letters. I am seeking advice here as I have no idea on where to start. My initial comment was just an example of the random ideas on how this could be handled but the purpose of this thread is so I can get advice on the preferred method. There is little value in getting me to explain in detail an idea which is probably wrong. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation of "deprecated" awards

Hi,

I've got a question about the item award subsidiary in rank to later award (Q41787617) created by Billinghurst, which is use for deprecated rank value for out-of-date awards. It's seems to me to be incoherent with the habits and the documentation like Help:Ranking and Help:Deprecation.

I've asked Billinghurst first, but I'm still confused. Could anyone make it clear why there is - what seems to me to be a - strange exception. Ane maybe improve the documention Help:Deprecation#Outdated statements and 'end date'.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There's definitely a lot of misunderstood rank use in Wikidata which does not match policy suggested by the help page (and reason for deprecation items which are invalid reasons for deprecation). I think perhaps the case here is that the reason for deprecation aligns with the first bullet point at the top of the help page "superseded (as opposed to "outdated"; see note on 'end date', below)" if an award higher in some hierarchy supersedes a lower award (i.e. in obtaining award A, award B is obtained by default?). Not sure about that one though.
I'm also not convinced by item/value with less precision and/or accuracy (Q42727519) listed there, as surely the correct action would be to only set preferred rank on the higher accuracy value? (Assuming the values are all sourced). --SilentSpike (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
If the "lower" award is revoked or superseded by the higher one (which I'm assuming it is), then it feels like it would be better to model this as ending (with an end time if possible) and being replaced by the new one - perhaps keep it at normal rank with end cause (P1534):award subsidiary in rank to later award (Q41787617)? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternate release title for films (Q11424)

What is the most appropriate qualifier/property to indicate that a film was released under a different title in a different country?

This is something I am very interested in as it was common practise for US-releases of Australian films prior to 1980. valid in place (P3005) seemed like an excellent candidate, but it is being flagged as "not a valid qualifier for title P1475" (my trial case was "Wake In Fright"/"Outback" Q7961003.

The further complexity here is that "Outback" was only used in the US for the original release in 1971, subsequent re-releases used the original Australian title (eg Scorsese refers to the film as "Wake in Fright" in the "reception" section of the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_in_Fright)).

Should this be resolved with a combination of valid in place (P3005) and valid in period (P1264)? Or should I instead be looking to resolve this whole issue by requesting an "Original Release Title" property with added country qualifier? Pxxlduchesne (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pxxlduchesne: I've altered the qualifiers on one of the entries at Wake in Fright (Q7961003). Looking at the Wikipedia article though, it suggests the alternative name was used in France and the UK as well in 1971. Are you sure about the scope of where and when the names were used? If in doubt, I'd remove the qualifiers and let a future editor fill them in if they can find better references. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore:Thanks for the quick reply, could you just unpack what "part" the applies to part (P518) refers to here? Is this USA as "part of" the world? Or the "Outback"-titled prints as "part of" the films initial release? I do believe that "Outback" was used for all international release, but further research would be required to figure the scope. A seperate question which I was meaning to post separately, but we seem to have nicely segued into anyway is how I should go about referencing data I am pulling directly from an original (film) object? I work for a film archive, which means I work with original film materials which should be considered more reliable than other sources (eg IMDB, etc). As a concrete example: IMDB and Wikidata (although sourced from IMDB) lists the director (P57) of Crystal Voyager (Q3698921) to be David Elfick (Q5233328). However the credits on the original negatives explicitly say that the film was directed by Albert Falzon (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266572). Is there a way that I can provide a "reference" that I have personally viewed strong evidence to make a counter-claim, or would I need to provide a link to an image of the credit itself as my reference data. Pxxlduchesne (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pxxlduchesne: You don't need an image of the credits of a film to cite them any more than you need an image of a page of a book to cite that. - Jmabel (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pxxlduchesne: To indicate that you took the information directly from the credits you can use stated in (P248) <film> (e.g. stated in (P248) Crystal Voyager (Q3698921)) with qualifier applies to part (P518) opening credits (Q635115)/closing credits (Q1553078) in the reference section. (Maybe a qualifier publication date (P577) would be helpful, too, to indicate the version, as there may exist different versions of a film with differing credits) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: Thank you for this solution, this was exactly what I was after. Pxxlduchesne (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Have you already discuss that at Wikidata:WikiProject Movies?--Jklamo (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jklamo: I haven't looked into this yet, but thank you for directing me there. Pxxlduchesne (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
For "original release title" would a qualifier of has characteristic (P1552):original title (Q1294573) be acceptable? Peter James (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James: has characteristic (P1552):original title (Q1294573) This sounds like a good solution, with additional country qualifier? My only concern is that it could confuse what was the singular original release title (ie, generally from country of origin). However maybe this can be deduced via comparison with country of origin? I will amend Wake in Fright (Q7961003) to match this form. Thank you for all replies. Pxxlduchesne (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James: Digging through title subclasses I came across alternative title (Q4736562) which is exactly what I was looking for. Also interested to note title for Spain (Q27847754) which does set a precedent for 'specific-region-title' properties. Pxxlduchesne (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

merge two items

Where can i do the request to merge two items? kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You can do that yourself via More > Merge in the top navigation. Make sure you merge into the oldest item. Good luck, Ecritures (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Before you can merge you will need to set it up on your account. See Help:Merge. Make certain that merging two items is the correct decision; if they are similar but unrelated items then they should be kept separate. Feel free to ask other editors here if you need a second opinion to see if merging is the correct action. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Worldometer a reliable source for Coronavirus stats?

Is Worldometer's data, available here, reliable? I personally think using WHO situation reports is a better idea. Ahmadtalk 21:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Honda Sports Awards

I've done queries before, but the process apparently didn't stick.

I'm interested in something mindlessly simple, a list of people who have won the Honda Sports Award (Q5892712). I thought I could modify one of the examples, but I failed. My guess is that there are not many, but I plan to add some, and I'd like to know how many exist now, and then how many after I add some.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I figured it out.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You can sort by year too, with a few extra statements:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel (year(?time) as ?year) WHERE {
  ?item p:P166 ?x.
  ?x ps:P166 wd:Q5892712.
  OPTIONAL {?x pq:P585 ?time}
  SERVICE wikibase:label {bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en"}
}
ORDER BY ?time ?item
Try it!

Ghouston (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.
I think I have added most of those. I'm about to add the rest.
Your query helped point out that I don't have the year for some of those, which I will add.
One more question:
Each Award has one of 12 sports associated with it, and I want to add that, along with a reference.
I started with Kathryn Plummer (Q83546604)
However, I see an error message:
"sport is not a valid qualifier for award received – the only valid qualifiers are:..."
Did I do something wrong?--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • My inclination would be to create a separate Wikidata item for each sport, e.g., "Honda Sports Award for Swimming and Diving". But maybe somebody has an alternative suggestion. Ghouston (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I can do that, but I'll wait a bit to see if someone has an alternative suggestion. Oddly, we edit conflicted when I was writing to say I can find a q-value for 11 of the 12 sports, but not for Swimming and Diving". If I create the new items, that won't be an issue. --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Items for the sports themselves? I suppose swimming and diving are generally considered separate sports? There's already an item Honda Sports Award for Basketball (Q30599288). Ghouston (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying that. I'll create parallel ones for the other sports. I agree that Swimming and Diving are separate sports, but the NCAA combines them, and the CWSA issues an award for that pair, just like they do for track and field. See this pageSphilbrick (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey that worked. I just completed a test run for 6 people, adding Honda Sports Award for Basketball (Q30599288) and the date. Given the specificity, I no longer need to add the sport, so I will create the other items. Thanks for your help--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm so close, but I'm missing something. I want to add a reference.

I tried a quickstatement: 

Q7128946	P166	Q30599288	P854	"https://www.collegiatewomensportsawards.com/archives/basketball"

but that adds a reference url to the award, but not to the reference section. What am I missing?--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Use S854. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! That worked.Sphilbrick (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Am I correct that you simply changed the "P" to "S" to indicate that the entry was a string?Sphilbrick (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
No, this indicates it's a reference (Source). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please help me to add a correct LCCN ID

For a book Q16706544 I need to add Library of Congress authority ID Library of Congress authority ID (P244)

Here is a LCCN Permalink https://lccn.loc.gov/2015384522

Please help me to add the property correctly --Perohanych (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Done! There are two LCCN identifiers one for people and places; and the other for books. The book one is called "Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) (bibliographic)". --RAN (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are changes in a Wikipedia infobox automagically propagated to Wikidata?

One more topic ;) I fixed the programing paradigm for wikipedia:Beatnik (programming language), both in the text and in the infobox. Will this change be propagated to Wikidata or do I need to update it manually too? Sylvain Leroux (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sylvain Leroux: No they are not. -Animalparty (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will make the necessary changes Sylvain Leroux (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. See Beatnik (Q23663311) Sylvain Leroux (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sylvain Leroux: Worth mentioning that sometimes data is copied over by bots if there's one with a task to import infobox data, but never a guarantee. --SilentSpike (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I think also worth mentioning is the fact that, yes, some infoboxes do auto-populate. I have no seen it on enWP. But in other languages. Quakewoody (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SilentSpike (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Using Jr. (Q19838175)

Is there any accepted way of adding Jr. (Q19838175), and similar postnominal expressions, to give complete versions of personal names? All the examples I have seen raise database constraint violations. In particular honorific suffix (P1035) is linked to suffixes associated with awards. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There's generational suffix (P8017), but it links to a form, not an item.--GZWDer (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I've implemented this at Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr. (Q704763) as an example. You link it to name in native language (P1559), which calls on sense item Junior (L252247). The sense item references Junior (Q19838179), which then states that it holds the same meaning as Jr. (Q19838175). It is a convoluted way to think about it but name in native language (P1559) and generational suffix (P8017) does tie it all together. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps From Hill To Shore's solution is OK for someone who is dead and who used the suffix all his life. But some people who use the Jr. suffix while their father is alive, but drop it when their father dies. So this complicates the situation for a person who's father is still alive, or if it is unknown whether the father is alive or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: As a small correction, it isn't my solution. I just provided an example and explanation of how the property mentioned above is implemented. I had not even seen it until it was mentioned on this thread. Ownership of the solution rests with the creators of that property. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Category?

I wanted to add the new English article "Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit" to Was mein Gott will, das gscheh allzeit, but only find Category:Was mein Gott will, das gscheh allzeit (Q64759763). Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit, BWV 111 (Q1333095) appears to be the adaptation by Bach while What my God wants, should always happen (Q64759763) does appear to be the item for the original text. It looks like the English label is wrong with the word "category" inserted. What my God wants, should always happen (Q64759763) has only had a single edit where the Commons category and the German article were copied into their respective language labels. As the item has no statements, we can just format it to align to the Wikipedia articles. The Commons category has a mixture of text and musical items, so could be argued to sit on more than one item. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I've had a first sweep at populating What my God wants, should always happen (Q64759763) based on the content of the English article. If you have further information to add or references to support the entries, you are welcome to add them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, helped. No idea how I might have found that English one. Perhaps the search function could be improved? With VERY few ex eptions, the nglish Wikipedia has hymns in their original language, German, Swedish etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: The "English one" you mentioned is the same one you found originally. Here at Wikidata you can set multiple titles through the use of Aliases. Here I have set the translation as the main English title but the original German as an English alias. Searching for the German will bring up the same item. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. The English is only a translation, no title of an existing hymn. It should NOT be used as identifier, imho. Bach cantatas - German hymns, - translations are arbitrary, and often more than one possible, - not good for identification. To bad even German and English differ in the kind of apostrophe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encylopedia and can have only one article title per entry. Wikidata is a database and can hold multiple titles for the same entry. By including both the English translation and the original German as the English item name and Alias, you provide readers with both the meaning and the original title. Try a search for the original title, you will find the same item. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
A label that's meaningless in a given language may not be very useful, e.g., The Three-Body Problem (Q607112) is given various labels in different languages instead of the original "三体". Ghouston (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can anyone check [2]. Thanks.--Arnaugir (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Improve the workflows for queries and lists

Hello all,

Over the past months, we researched how people use queries and lists. We also wanted to find out what problems people meet when getting started with using queries and lists for maintenance. You can find the results of the research in this document.

Our next step is to make some proposals on new features, based on the results of the research. We worked on two concepts: a simple query builder and an improved example queries dialog. Your feedback is very welcome on the related talk pages until April 21st.

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

From country (P17) to country of registry (P8047)

A new property is created, country of registry (P8047). What is the easiest way to move data (including qualificators) from country (P17) to country of registry (P8047) for all ship (Q11446) items? --Cavernia (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This needs bot code. I have something available for such tasks, but as ~50k statements are affected, I would only like to do it with an approved bot task. Would that be okay? —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
If it can do the job, an approved bot should be OK. --Cavernia (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/MsynBot 5; you can add input there as well. Once the task is approved, it is a matter of 1–2 days until it is finished. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate locations for languages

Does anyone know why some languages such as English (Q1860) and German (Q188) have coordinate location (P625) while others such as French (Q150) don't? Richard Nevell (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently product of some import. In my humble opinion adding random coordinate location (P625) from some country to language item doesn't make any sense.--Jklamo (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I could see having a location for Triestine (Q2739548), which absurdly doesn't have one, but not for a major international language with many dialects. - Jmabel (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Marcmiquel: You have some explaining to do. Mahir256 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #410

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • Scholia highlights the scholarly data in Wikidata, including scholarly works, projects, topics, and individual researchers, including their relationships and statistics. It encourages further enrichment of Wikidata through links on the "missing" pages.
  • Development
    • Working on a first prototype for automated finding references (board)
    • Bridge: improve rendering of references (phab:T238661)
    • Only send incremental changes through the API (phab:T230343)
    • Adding a screen allowing people to go edit the references on Wikidata (phab:T240333)
    • Reducing the size of the extra Javascript that the user has to download for Bridge (phab:T228857)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

COSPAR, SATCAT, Harvard ID in space missions

I am new to Wikidata and would like to contribute. I want to get things clarified before I make mass changes. I am mostly interested in spaceflight and am active on the English Wikipedia.

Space missions such as Sputnik 1 (Q80811) and Apollo 11 (Q43653) have different COSPAR ID (P247), SCN (P377), and Harvard designation (P5049) for different components in the mission.

The IDs for Sputnik 1 (Q80811) are:

I tried to attach those properties to space launch vehicle (P375) but 'issues' appeared next to SCN (P377), and I am not sure if the properties for the satellite itself are in the correct spot.

Any explanation of the proper way to do this, either in demonstration or instruction, would be great. There are thousands of items that I would need to apply this to. If you have any questions on the terminology or need clarification on anything let me know, thanks. Kees08 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The hermitage (Q513550) problem

In English, there is only 1 word and concept for a secluded religious retreat: hermitage (Q513550). However, apparently in Spanish there are two words/concepts: ermita (Q56750657) and eremitorio (Q513550). What's the correct way to handle this, both as far as the labels and the sitelinks? Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • We probably have several different concepts here, and articles that conflate them in various ways, so the appropriate thing would be items for each distinct concept and then modeling articles as conflations if they cover more than one of these.
  • hermitage church (Q56750657) appears to be pretty specific, in that it is both the past or present residence of a single hermit and is specifically structured like a chapel. There may be some times it is used less precisely, but I suspect that is simply a matter that not everyone is precise when they talk or write. hermitage (Q513550) as it stands seems to link to different things in English and Spanish: the English is very general -- not even just the residence of a hermit in the narrow sense, but also a residence of multiple monks living in relative seclusion. And, to complicate matters further, the Spanish-language article seems to be heavily illustrated with examples of what in English we would call a "hermit's cave", but I've never heard of a cave being referred to in English as a "hermitage". - Jmabel (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Review changes

I made some changes to Pascal (Q81571). Could someone review those changes to verify I didn't make mistakes? Sylvain Leroux (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems you split the file extensions into several statements. This is a good idea. A solve a constraint violation. media type looks ok too.
Wikimedia import URL (P4656) is generally used to link a specific version of a page when doing automated import (in addition to imported from Wikimedia project (P143)). Personally, I'd have skipped it for this type of statements. --- Jura 20:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Jura. I wasn't very sure about Wikimedia import URL (P4656) either. Given what you said, I will probably remove it. I wait til tomorrow just to see if someone has an objection against that.
@Jura1: after a second thought, I left the Wikipedia references since not all wikis agree on the same file extension set.
Sylvain Leroux (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Sylvain Leroux (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Can Wikibooks Cookbook article (Q56570230) become a property? What is the process?

Wikibooks Cookbook article (Q56570230) was created to be added to Wikibooks articles related to Cookbooks in various languages, to be able to tell that a Wikidata item is a "Wikibooks Cookbook article". I was going to add a Wikidata property example (P1855) to Wikibooks Cookbook article (Q56570230) but couldn't since it isn't a property.

The property proposal page is a source of confusion for me: Wikidata:Property_proposal because Wikibooks Cookbook is a Creative work but it is also a sister project to Wikidata. Is this the correct page Wikidata:Property_proposal/Sister_projects? The Wikibooks Cookbook project isn't a sister project to Wikidata. It is a creative work regarding Cookbook recipes. "Can Wikibooks Cookbook article (Q56570230) become a property?" is my most simple question, everything else is just confusing thoughts I have. I need help to sort this out, help appreciated Datariumrex (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't generally want separate Wikidata items for articles in particular Wikimedia projects, but a single item that they can all link to. E.g., I managed to link a Wikibooks Cookbook article to spaghetti alle vongole (Q1236601), so that it links with other projects. Ghouston (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
You should add sample statements to some of real items and link Wikibooks Cookbook article (Q56570230) to them via model item (P5869).--GZWDer (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: what do you mean with "real item"? Datariumrex (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ghouston: Linking one out of many possible Wikibooks Cookbook recipes into a general idea of a food is misleading. ie. we might be interested in adding Wikidata information to a specific Wikibooks Cookbook recipe, what ingredients it contains, in what order we use cooking equipment and what we do with it, ie. degrees in C/F for temperature in oven or Watts for a microwave. If I put data into the object spaghetti alle vongole (Q1236601) you linked English "Cookbook:Spaghetti alle Vongole" to, about what ingredients that recipe contains it will mislead other users into believing the Wikidata item is about a particular way of cooking "Spaghetti alle Vongole". There are many ways to cook a food. You can't find the "right" recipe, but you can find what ingredients a specific food absolutely contains. The item you linked the recipe to definitely has spaghetti. I'd say that we can be certain of that. 

"We don't generally want separate Wikidata items for articles in particular Wikimedia projects"
Your statement disagrees with the Wikidata Notability Guidelines 1. as is written in its current form, there is no exception for Wikibooks recipes that I can see. If current consensus has an exception for that I'd like to know about it Datariumrex (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
If you just wanted interwiki links, and there were multiple pages on the same topic, you could alternatively put them in a category and sitelink the category to the item (where the item is something like spaghetti alle vongole (Q1236601)), or perhaps have a summary page that describes the different versions and link that. But if it's somehow useful to create a separate Wikidata item for each recipe on Wikibooks, then you just create the item and make it an instance of Wikibooks Cookbook article (Q56570230). I don't understand why you want to create a property. Ghouston (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Unclean data giving many multiple matches?

I must be missing something. If I make a query that returns the id, date of birth, and place of birth of Carl Maria von Weber Q154812, I get *eight* entries, the permutation of four different dates of birth and two different places of birth, all for the same single id. How can this happen in a "mature" project?

I'm struggling to see how I can use this service. Help! What have I not understood? Scarabocchio (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the individual, but as can seen at Carl Maria von Weber (Q154812), there are references supporting three different dates. (Not sure why you have a fourth) and two different places of birth. With careful review of the references, you might choose to put more weight on one of the dates and one of the locations, but short of concluding that some of the references are bogus, this reflects what is in the literature.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this latetr. What we should do in these circumstances is retain all three sourced birth dates but set one as the "preferred" value based on the strength of sourcing. Once a preferred value is set, that will be the default response to a query.
For the location, these appear to be describing a similar area. Due to places changing names or boundaries over time, one database may correctly say that a person was born in the historic boundaries of the town of x, while another database may say the same person was born in the current boundaries of the town of y. Both items are factually correct but create an element of confusion. Again, we need to set a preferred value. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] If I sounded disappointed, it is because was and am. I would expect multiple, incompatible data in an initial early cut of a data project, before the first clean, but surely Wikidata has a few years under its belt .. so this is NOT what I was expecting. (Perhaps one in eight? other queries in the same kind of historical period gave multiple entries due to duplicated data). Yes, I could go away and research each of the items that have multiple data values, but that does not contribute to my general feeling of trust in Wikidata. If there's currently only one date of birth for a given person, how much confidence can I have in it, if it is clear that the data validation is so weak? The feeling I have at the moment is that this is too weak/ dirty a data source to use.
On Carl Maria, one date of birth is from the Internet Movie Database, which I had always understood to be unreliable for any data in Wikipedia's view. So that could be removed (surely that would also justify a blanket removal of all references from that source, no?). Scarabocchio (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, not on in eight, but this is not a one-off. Some opera librettists, the list of duplicates starts like this ...
wd:Q2638502	Albert Millaud	2x death dates
wd:Q311389	Alberto Ginastera  2x death dates
wd:Q1334439	Alessandro Striggio the Younger 2 death dates (possibly gregorian vs julian?)
wd:Q311384	Alexander Dargomyzhsky *3* death dates (1 could be julian vs gregorian; the other not)
wd:Q767332	Alexandre-Vincent Pineux Duval  2x death dates
wd:Q112251	Alfred Grünwald   2x birth dates
Scarabocchio (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @Scarabocchio: I'm no expert on Wikidata or big data (Q858810), but I get the pretty strong impression that we're currently going for quantity on Wikidata, not quality. Let's import everything, and try to make heads or tails out of it later.
And this is not necessarily a bad thing. If there are lower-quality and higher quality recorded facts out there in the world (as of course there certainly are), how do we know whether a given fact that's not in Wikidata is not in Wikidata because it (a) hasn't been imported into Wikidata yet or (b) has been determined to be of lower quality than the facts we already have?
If we decided not to import lower-quality facts, we would face two additional problems: (1) where do we record the identity of each fact we've decided not to import, and (2) who gets to decide, anyway?
So the alternative approach -- and it can certainly be problematic, I don't blame you for being disappointed -- is to just import everything. This approach has its problems, too. (3) Whose job is it to apply all of the requisite qualifiers and rank markers on the lower-quality (or higher quality) data, and when will this happen? (4) How do we teach everyone to write their queries, or rig it up so that queries automatically perform, in a way that appropriately respects qualifiers and ranking?
I suspect we'll get there eventually, but it does still seem to be very much a work in progress. —Scs (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Scs: Thanks for these words. FWIW, I think that you have identified exactly the current situation. We are where we are. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If data are sourced, they do not need to be removed - Wikidata have ranks to handle them.--GZWDer (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you clarify who's misunderstood, about what? (If it was me, I'm happy to be corrected.) —Scs (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Read "I get *eight* entries" above. It's just a malformed query. --- Jura 00:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's the query for info on the librettist (P87) of the opera Die drei Pintos (Q323838). User @Valentina.Anitnelav: worked on the data item for over two hours yesterday and refined the place of birth claim, and updated claims on the date of birth, inter alia. (Thanks!) But that query yesterday returned *eight* entries, and there was no ranking on either date or place of birth to help narrow down the result set. On this occasion, I'm interested in Wikidata as a data user with an application in mind, not as an editor. Scarabocchio (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem in this case is that even Carl Maria von Weber did not know his exact birth date, according to the biography by his son, not "unclean data". The baptism date in the parish registers (20th of November) contradicted the birth date noted by his father (the 18th of December) and neither the entry in the parish register nor the father himself seem to be trustworthy in this case (again, according to Carl Maria von Weber's son). In the end he just chose one of the options because it matched the birth date of his wife. How should we choose a preferred date? I tend to deprecate the 18th and 19th of November because it is actually the "18th or 19th of November" but I could not narrow it down to less than two options (unless I would throw a dice). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
As to your service: If there are several dates and you really want just one, even if it's unreliable, you could try using some aggregator function (MIN(), MAX(), SAMPLE()). You could also try to deal with such uncertainties in your service (e.g. show a range of birth dates instead of just one - in the case that there are more than one possible candidate (Carl Maria von Weber was born between the 18th of November and the 18th of December)). You could also show just the year of the date (this would work in this case, but not for all persons, as sometimes even the year of birth is contested). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, and of course you can query only for statements supported by sources you trust (so you could filter out all statements supported only by a Wikipedia or imdb or don't have any reference at all). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeking help on blowing a raspberry (Q1130485)

We currently have

⟨ blowing a raspberry (Q1130485)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ named after (P138) View with SQID ⟨ rhyming slang (Q429083)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

(with various qualifiers). That has to be wrong. The phrase isn't named after rhyming slang, it is named according to the pattern of rhyming slang. Do we have a more appropriate property? - Jmabel (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have an item for "raspberry tart" as an instance of rhyming slang? Then you could use "named after" with that item as the value. However, this seems like something that should definitely have a reference, especially as the statement is dated with an earliest use. --SilentSpike (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, but I assume you see my point, that it is named after a raspberry tart; its relation to rhyming slang should be something else, not named after (P138). - Jmabel (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Just for ducks, I looked at Merriam-Webster's website which says "raspberry" (sense 2) is "short for raspberry tart, rhyming slang for fart[3]. Maybe "raspberry" <based on> "raspberry tart" which would be <instance of> rhyming slang? - PKM (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The statement you are trying to make is something like "blowing a raspberry (Q1130485) is derived from lexeme (P5191) the rhyming slang (Q429083) 'raspberry tart' (doesn't have a Q item) for 'fart (Q5436447)'. There is definitely no way to express such a complicated statement within a Wikidata claim. You could theoretically have blowing a raspberry (Q1130485) named after (P138) raspberry tart if we we had a Q item for raspberry tart (which seems reasonable to create). Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I'm not trying to make any statement. I'm suggesting someone might want to clean up the obviously wrong statement that is currently there. - Jmabel (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
In that case, we should just delete it :) Kaldari (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like I've been reverted by Swpb. Perhaps they would like to discuss here. Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I created an item for raspberry tart and changed the claim to named after (P138) raspberry tart (Q89677726), which is probably the best we can do. Not all ideas are expressible as Wikidata claims, which is why we have Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Kaldari (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
That's wrong. It's not named after the desert, it's named after a fart that's named after the desert. My revised statement was correct: blowing a raspberry (Q1130485)named after (P138)flatulence (Q160184)criterion used (P1013)rhyming slang (Q429083), name in native language (P1559) = raspberry tart named after (P138) = raspberry tart (Q89677726). Swpb (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
There are a few problems with that statement. First, it's quite confusing to say it is named after flatulence (Q160184) rather than fart (Q5436447), but even saying "named after fart" is confusing, as it's actually named after "raspberry tart", which is rhyming slang for "fart" (which is too complicated to express as a Wikidata claim). Second, you are severely misusing name in native language (P1559). Kaldari (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Named after fart (Q5436447) then. name in native language (P1559) no longer present. It's certainly not right to say the act is named directly after the desert. It's not. It's named after farts, which are in turn named after the desert. Nothing too complicated about expressing that in Wikidata, if we let named after (P138) qualify named after (P138). Swpb (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That seems better, although I don't think you're supposed to use named after (P138) as a qualifier for named after (P138). Definitely not a hill I want to die on though :) Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

facet of (P1269) is applicable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternative of Hoo Bot

Currently Hoo Bot operated by Hoo man is no longer active (since October 2016). Due to recent incidents and other issues occurring from time to time (see phab:T143486), maybe someone may create a bot to take over tasks of Hoo Bot.

--GZWDer (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The first one looks similar to Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 9, so I can try to upgrade the code for that if it would be useful. However, the Wikidata software should really be handling these automatically. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The second isn't always correct, as articles can be merged into a list ([4]). Peter James (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
But how much problem it will have if we only merge items with no statements or only statements that also appear on the target item?--GZWDer (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
It adds incorrect labels, and the items could be used somewhere. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Potentially we may create a database report for items that only linked to redirects, and not tagged as intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304).--GZWDer (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi greetings, i'd like to share an issue regarding huggle in wikidata. I have tried to use huggle in wikidata. But it does not support reverting, but supports welcoming new users, etc. I thought it was a problem in Wikidata:Huggle/Config.yaml, it shows enable-all: true , require-rollback: false and read-only: false. But it seems good. I think it is due to any other kind of problem. May be due to the enable-all:false in deprecated config page. Hope you'll consider this issue. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 16:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up gymnastics apparatus items (how best to avoid re-purposing)

As astutely pointed out on the talk page of balance beam (Q655301), the item conflates the gymnastics event and the apparatus itself. This is currently the case for all artistic gymnastic events and something I've been meaning to fix for a while now. The English wikipedia pages tend to be compound pages and so I think the correct course of action for those would be to have an item for the compound page which links to two other items for both the event and the apparatus (as per Help:Modelling/Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_concepts#Compound_Wikipedia_articles). However, there are a lot of language articles for these apparatus and I'd have a hard time deciding whether they're all compound or not on my own.

I'm also unsure if the current items should be used as the compound item or if that would be a form of item re-purposing and really three brand new items should be made for clarity (the old ones being deleted once all data is appropriately structured under the new items). Any advice? This is my first time trying to fix this sort of situation. --SilentSpike (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the item is currently a conflation of the two concepts, and probably has been for quite a while, I don't think there's any need to create a new conflation item. I think it would be good enough to create new items for the apparatus and the event, and convert the existing item into an instance of Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471). As for whether the various languages are all conflations or not, I'd just assume that they are for now, since it can be easily fixed later if required, and it's only really required if a Wikipedia has separate articles for the two concepts (otherwise, it just tends to break the interwiki links). Oddly, no other items in Wikidata currently link to balance beam (Q655301), so that's not a problem either. Ghouston (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, this makes a lot of sense. Will get started on fixing all these items up. --SilentSpike (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SilentSpike (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Query multiple items or "child" items

Sorry for the newbie question, but I'm trying to do a search on multiple items. I even checked the manual, but did not find how to do it.

I created an item for each of 12 Honda Sports awards, e.g. Honda Sports Award for Cross Country (Q89484695) and Honda Sports Award for Field Hockey (Q89485260). Thanks to Ghouston, I can do a query for any one of these, but I would like to see all 12. I assume there is a way to modify the query to ask for a logical OR. Alternatively, I created each individual award as an instance of the overall award Honda Sports Award (Q5892712). However, if I query that item, it brings up the 18 athletes who have that award listed, but not the 298 athletes who have one of the sports specific awards. Is there a way to ask for Honda Sports Award and all "children" (Not sure whether you use that term.)--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion:
select ?person ?personLabel ?award ?awardLabel where {
  ?award wdt:P31 wd:Q5892712 .
  ?person wdt:P166 ?award .
  service wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" . }
}
Try it!
Toni 001 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! That worked. Now I'm going to figure out why.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:
  • The first line ?award wdt:P31 wd:Q5892712 finds all instances of (P31) "Honda Sports Award".
  • The second line ?person wdt:P166 ?award finds all persons who have received (P166) an award found in the first line.
  • The third line helps to retrieve labels for items stored in the variables ?award and ?person .
Toni 001 (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.Sphilbrick (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

wb_terms table will be empty today

Hello all,

This message is important for people maintaining tools querying directly the database replicas on Labs. Ping @Multichill, Magnus Manske:

Following the previous announcements, today we will empty the wb_terms table. More precisely, we will rename wb_terms to wb_terms_no_longer_updated and immediately create an empty wb_terms with the same structure. This will be done later today and you can follow the status in this task.

Tools maintainers are strongly encouraged to migrate their tools to the new database structure. You can temporarily update your tools to point to wb_terms_no_longer_updated but please note that this table contains outdated data. This table will eventually be removed.

If you need support to update your tools, feel free to task in this Phabricator ticket. You will also find some recommendations to optimize your queries.

We would like to apologize again for the communication issues that happened around this project. We identified some issues related to the structure of the team and internal communication, as well as a lack of centralized and updated documentation. We are working on improving these issues.

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Out of curiousity, is the new database structure at all related to the reported recent (current?) breakage across the sites (phab:T249565)? --Yair rand (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Not directly. The new structure was already in place, but the operation we run yesterday (shortly dropping wb_terms and recreating an empty one) triggered a script that behaved in a bad way, causing the current breakage. More technical details can be found in the incident documentation. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: due to the breakage, the renaming of wb_terms has been postponed, but now the situation is stabilized, it will take place today. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Are Category:People from Germany (Q7605094) and Category:German people (Q3919754) the same?

In many language I think that Category:People from Germany (Q7605094) and Category:German people (Q3919754) are the same concept, except maybe in German language. Can anyone from Germany say if this is correct? Theklan (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Without trying to solve this, one remark: there are certainly many people in de:Kategorie:Deutscher who I'm quite certain would not consider themselves ethnically German, at least not without a hyphen to something else. - Jmabel (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether they are the same concept or not, I don't think you will be able to merge them at this time as arz, az and be language Wikipedias have articles linked to both (there may be other duplicates; I only looked at the As and the top of the Bs). You will have to get a user on each language Wikipedia to work out if they have duplicate entries at their end and resolve them prior to a merge at Wikidata. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
German categories "Kategorie:Person (<country>)" are intended for people with an important relation to some country, not only for citizen. For people with the german citizenship on the other hand, there is the category de:Kategorie:Deutscher. There are pairs of such categories for every other country/nationality.
I can try to look through the other languages and sort them out. --Robot Monk (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Avast and Wikidata

I do not know the relationship that this may have with the recurring and sometimes prominent events of vandalism (for example, the recent change of the nickname of Da Vinci's father, which caused a stir in the Spanish-speaking media) but a few hours ago the Avast's security tool has just rated Wikdata.org as an insecure site, this due to the evaluation of its users. Victorgibby 06:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Automated finding references

Hello all,

The development team is currently working on one of the projects of our 2020 roadmap called "automated finding of references based on semantic markup". Our goal is to analyze a bunch of structured data websites, compare the content to Wikidata, and suggest new references for unreferenced statements to the editors.

We now have the first batch of potential new references for you to look at and give feedback on. Based on your feedback we will continue fine-tuning and expanding the system.

Feel free to have a look and give feedback on this page. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk)

Blocked information

We have this useful tool which lists the number of administrator and bureaucrat actions for the last 180 days. Oversighter actions are not show, and a placeholder "blocked information" is shown instead. However, since the total number of actions is also9 shown, the number of oversighter actions can be trivially calculated. Should we do smth about this? Courtesy pinging @Cyberpower678:.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it includes them in the total, as two of the three oversighters have the same number of admin actions as total actions, and the other has one more (from the logs, it looks like the other action was a rename). Peter James (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Suppression log is not available in Labs (and thus not accessible by bots).--GZWDer (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requests for deletion and watchlist

Would it be possible to make it so items that you nominate for deletion are added to your watchlist? --Trade (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Q89639843, Q89712489

those are the building and address items. their addresses and building numbers follow the official government prescription in http://www.juso.go.kr.They are against Notability policy? or does it meet the criteria 'clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity'? thank you. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks! Choikwangmo9 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • They are different entities, since one is a building and the other is a service operating inside the building. The notability is questionable, especially for the building: how many similar buildings would there be even just in South Korea? Ghouston (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
approximately 7,243,472. but they are all physical and material entities 'clearly identifiable conceptual'. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but notice the 2nd part "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." For the same reason that Wikidata can't include all humans, without exploding, even if they happen to be listed in serious references like telephone books, it also unlikely that it would be able to cope with all buildings, all companies, or other large datasets like all particle collision events recorded at CERN or all observed stars and galaxies in the Universe. Some limitation to only the most notable is necessary. Ghouston (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but I can't help noting that the current mass import (now that we're done with scholarly articles (Q13442814) and taxa (Q16521)) seems to be every star and galaxy listed in SIMBAD (Q654724)... —Scs (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with entering a single address, the problem would be importing every addresses, which would be impossible to manage at this time. We have to prioritize our time and recognize our computational limits. Not adding every address has more to do with priority, even if they can be defined by reliable sources. --RAN (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

date of baptism -- can we resolve this?

Once again, the discussion of the item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247) on date of baptism (P1636) has disappeared from this page with no action taken. Now, religion or worldview (P140) is already one of the property's allowed qualifiers. I don't think many people object to stating the religion of the baptism as a qualifier, right? Certainly I don't. That being so, can I get agreement to remove the constraint that in addition requires adding religion or worldview (P140) as a statement of its own? It was this latter constraint that caused dissensions and confusions in the past discussions. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't protected, I just didn't want to single-handedly take action, especially since there hasn't been a comment from the person who added it in the first place. Levana Taylor (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it was only added in February [5]. I don't see any prior edit war over it. Ghouston (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

contemporary constraint

contemporary constraint (Q25796498)

"The entities 1959 Cypriot presidential election (Q4305841) and President of Cyprus (Q841760) should be contemporary to be linked through office contested (P541), but the latest end value of 1959 Cypriot presidential election (Q4305841) is 13 December 1959 and the earliest start value of President of Cyprus (Q841760) is 16 August 1960."

A case that the contemporary constraint is wrong. The election took place some months before the Independence day. How to remove the constraint from the statement? Xaris333 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I added an exception for it on office contested (P541). Ghouston (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

unique duplicate identifiers on Q33102818 ?

good morning !!!!! Q33102818 contains same url for AE member ID Chanin_Marie-Lise and reference @ https://www.ae-info.org/ae/User/Chanin_Marie-Lise. is my assumption correct. what, when and how should be added to references ? also provide example which contains all data [ i can view and learn through commit history ]. Leela52452 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC) suggestion or critique is preferred here

You are correct, you do not need to add a reference link to an external identifier, the ID number is already a link and its own reference. --RAN (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hello everyone, I hope you are all well! I want to learn how to find the Freebase ID! AntonyFragakis (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Combining values of a statement

Please compare the values given for the statement 'number of pages' in the items 1 and 2. I would like to know whether both the formats given for the statement are permissible or not. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguating in the description field

Is there a consistent way to disambiguate in the description field? When I look at Frederick Dent Grant (Q1344993) it says "United States Army general (1850-1912)". I read it that his years of service in the military were from 1850 to 1912. Would it be better as "(1850-1912) United States Army general". We do need to add "(yyyy-yyyy)", at times, because we have multiple people in large famous families recycling the same name over multiple generations. This leads to people linking the wrong generation in the parent-child concatenations here in Wikidata, especially when they have the same description such as "American politician" or "American businessman". I have been noticing the errors as I add the family tree template at Commons. See Commons:Category:Ulysses S. Grant --RAN (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I see some that are listed as "American politician, born 1853" or "American politician, died 1921" as a way to disambiguate multiple people of the same name. Is that better than "American politician (1853-1921)" so we do not interpret it as "American politician in office from 1853 to 1921". This doesn't come up often, but we have some families with 4 generations of people with the same first middle and last name, and when we are in the 1700s and early 1800s most people did not have a middle name recorded, unless they were a member of a noble family. --RAN (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Programming language derivative work

I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss that topic, but I notices in Pascal (Q81571) a warning since derivative work (P4969) does not apply to instance of (P31) programming language (Q9143). But it looks like it makes sense. I see three ways to resolve that:

  1. There is a better-suited property than derivative work (P4969) in that context.
  2. or programming language (Q9143) should be changed to be a direct or indirect instance of work (Q386724).
  3. or derivative work (P4969) should be changed to accept programming language (Q9143). In that case we should also consider changing based on (P144).

What do you think?

Sylvain Leroux (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Object-orientation vs object-oriented programming

I noticed object-orientation (Q2011845) is wrongly used instead of object-oriented programming (Q79872) as the programming paradigm (P3966) for at least one programming language. I suggest:

  1. A rule should be added to programming paradigm (P3966) so it warns if applied to something else than instance of (P31) programming paradigm (Q188267)
  2. and object-oriented programming (Q79872) should be made facet of (P1269) object-orientation (Q2011845)

What do you think?

Sylvain Leroux (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What happened with logos?

By visiting Bangla Wikipedia (Q427715), its logo image (P154) tells me "the Commons link should exist", even the commons link is in fact existing. By attaching ?action=purge after URL and confirm the purging, I missed it for an hour, but after an hour I re-watched out the "should exist". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Q90076170

'Namwon-ro 527beon-gil' (korean '-gil' means 'street') refers to one of regions in Wonju, Gangwon-do, the Republic of Korea as shown in [6]. 146 buildings are located in this area. I ask the opinion of its notability here. thank you. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

All Xwiki articles without X language labels

Hi! Trying to get rewrite and optimize query for getting all Xwiki articles that doesn't have X language label. Currently have something like this: 

select ips_item_id, ips_site_page
from wb_items_per_site i
where i.ips_site_id = 'lvwiki'
  and not exists (
    SELECT wbit_item_id
    FROM wbt_item_terms
      INNER JOIN wbt_term_in_lang ON wbit_term_in_lang_id = wbtl_id
      INNER JOIN wbt_text_in_lang ON wbtl_text_in_lang_id = wbxl_id
    WHERE
      wbit_item_id = i.ips_item_id
      and wbtl_type_id = 1
      AND wbxl_language = 'lv'
  )
group by ips_item_id
limit 5000;

Maybe somebody sees some way to optimize it? --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no aggregation function used, so group by is redundant. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
(facepalm) --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also known as

Is it ok to add in a common misspelling of a name in the "Also known as" field? Such as "Charles Lindburgh (misspelling)". --RAN (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if some sources make that spelling error then include it as an alias. It will stop duplicate entries being created as users who search for the misspelling will find the correct item. I wouldn't include it unless other sources have already made the error, as that will just add clutter to the database. In other words, don't include it if you just think that it "may" be a common misspelling but have never seen evidence of the error. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I recommend being conservative with 'Also known as' values. They aren't necessarily hidden or discreet (i.e. displayed only in Wikidata), but may well be regurgitated elsewhere, for instance Creator templates on Commons. -Animalparty (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I would also note that adding Charles Lindburgh is fine (assuming people do actually misspell it like that, but we should avoid adding notes like Charles Lindburgh (misspelling) - not completely sure which you're suggesting. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Is dialect a class of programming language?

I'm not sure dialect (Q2458742) is a valid instance of (P31) programming language (Q9143). Given the description, it looks like it came out of an automatic import from StackOverflow.

It seems more meaningful to use dialect of (P4913) to establish the relationship between the derived language and its base language. I did it on Eta (Q51170461). Should I proceed that way, or do I need to revert that change?

Sylvain Leroux (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In theory, dialect of (P4913) is only for dialects of human languages.
See also Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Programming Language and its talk page.
« Given the description, it looks like it came out of an automatic import from StackOverflow.  » →‎ Given the history, it did not come of an automatic import from StackOverflow. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
In theory, dialect (Q33384) is only for dialects of human languages. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Visite fortuitement prolongée: I stopped editing when I realized both dialect (Q33384) and dialect of (P4913) already appears in several language descriptions. And that dialect of (P4913) requires the subject to be instance of (P31) dialect (Q33384).
Conceptually, is there a difference between the notion of computer-language dialect and of human-language dialect?
Sylvain Leroux (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what is the policy regarding moving topics so, I just copied this discussion to the Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Programming Language talk page

What roles can Wikidata play in the current education crisis?

Hi all

Based on conversations I had the WMF education team on the importance of education in times of crisis I started an RFC on Wikidata to discuss what roles it can play in the current education crisis caused by Coronavirus (over 90% of learners worldwide not in school). One way is by helping learners and their parents/guardians find educational resources they need to continue their education at home. However currently no one is consistently and systematically linking curricula (what students need to learn) to the educational resources which are available.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

How to resume a property proposal being on hold

When the EntitySchema was announced a property was proposed to link to schemas from wikidata items. Becasue at the time of the proposal it was deemed too early to discuss this. But now we know a bit more about the EntitySchema. We are now developing a variety of schema's in the ongoing biohackathon and it would be convenient to use such a property to keep track of all the schemas that are being developed in this context. How can we resume the discussion/acceptance process? --Andrawaag (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrawaag: Feel free to describe your usecase as a comment of this Phabricator task, it may help things moving forward. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE):. I added this use case of biohackathon in the above ticket. John Samuel (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Area outline on the displayed map in a commons category

Im refering to commons:Category:Evangelischer Friedhof Matzleinsdorf. In the Infobox for Wikidata you can see that the cemetery has an outline on the map. Yet I'm not sure how to add/did not find any option to add that outline to other items. An example would be commons:Category:Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Evangelischer Friedhof Matzleinsdorf (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch) as subcategory of the reference category. The cemetery as well as the war cemetery are represented as ways in OpenStreetMap (OSM). Since the outline of the cemetery seems like a perfect fit for the way in OSM, I guess it is uses this way somehow. I know there is OpenStreetMap relation ID (P402), but this does not work for nodes or ways.
Does anybody have an idea how this can be added/is already added by some categories? (BTW: I have a draft ready for a property proposal for either OSM reference ID or OSM node ID and OSM way ID) --D-Kuru (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: Apparently the areas are stored as Wikidata references on OpenStreetMap. See c:Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox/Archive_1#where_are_grey_map_areas_stored?. Ghouston (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! --D-Kuru (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Quickstatements login issue

Hey folks, I can't get logged on to Quickstatements. When I eventually get through, OAuth gives me this error: "Error retrieving token: mwoauthdatastore-request-token-not-found". Any ideas? I'm working on an event this weekend and while we can prepare the data for upload, it's somewhat frustrating not to be able to actually upload it at the end of the event! Lirazelf (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I also face the same issue (and errors on QuickStatements import). --Misc (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems there is already a phabricator task on it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T249035 --Misc (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. I've added a comment. Lirazelf (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

QID Emoji proposal

In January 2019, a proposal about creating a new type of ​Emoji Tag Sequence​ that uses ​Wikidata​ QIDs was made. Here is the revised proposal in November 2019. Unicode Consortium opened an Public Review which will run until April 20. You may provide feedback of the proposal here.--GZWDer (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good lord. If I'm reading this correctly, the intent is basically to let anyone add new emoji to Unicode, without the Unicode consortium having to be involved at all, in effect by letting Wikidata be the registry instead.
Suppose (to use an example from the proposal) I want there to be a Unicode emoji for the flag of NATO. Right now there's not a defined Unicode code point for that. But under this proposal, it would be possible for me literally to embed tags for the characters Q 4 5 9 7 8 8 in a text stream in a special way, such that the sequence (begin tag + 7 tag characters + end tag) would represent one emoji character, and if a recipient looked up Q459788 and discovered that it had an emoji icon for it, hey presto, you'd get a little NATO flag icon in your text stream.
Needless to say this would put Wikidata in an interesting position, as emojiphiles flocked here to try to add or adjust the behavior of their favorite new emoji! It would also open up fantastic new vistas for vandalism and prankery...
Now with this said, the proposal does not say that every Wikidata entity is automatically a new emoji character. No, it's limited to some combination of
  • entities that have a distinct visual representation
  • entities that people think are reasonable to use as emoji
It's not the case that any qid you stuck in a text stream would, necessarily, automatically get rendered on the recipient's screen by, say, fetching the entity's image (P18) or icon (P2910) value. Anybody who implemented something like that would clearly be insane. (But you just know it would happen!) —Scs (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC) edited 12:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The implementation will likely hardcode all supported emoji, and how an emoji is displayed depends on the font or software (usually a static symbol is created for each supported emoji, independent with the current content of the item), so is not affected by vandalism unless the vandalism make developers unaware. In UTF-8 each emoji and tag character is four bytes, so a sequence of flag of NATO (Q459788) is 36 bytes (with "tag base" and "end tag").--GZWDer (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, will likely hardcode.
To be clear, as I understand it, today the process for adding new emoji or other characters to Unicode goes something like this:
  • Someone proposes new characters.
  • The Unicode consortium evaluates the proposal and, if approved, assigns new code points.
  • Assuming they want to maintain Unicode compatibility, implementors (of web browsers, smartphone messaging apps, etc.) add rendering support for the new code points in their next release.
The new process would streamline things, taking the Unicode consortium out of the loop:
  • Someone proposes new emoji characters, pointing out that they already have Wikidata QIDs.
  • If they agree, implementors add rendering support for the new QIDs in their next release.
It would be, as I said, insane for an implementor to arrange for unrecognized QIDs to be displayed by automatically, dynamically fetching an image from Wikidata or elsewhere. But given how much people looooovve new emoji, my prediction is that soon enough, even the "streamlined" approval process would be found to be cumbersome, and someone would plough ahead with some kind of automated or semiautomated approach.
So without saying whether I'm for or against this, my prediction is that it would have a huge impact on us here. (When the Unicode consortium was first established, I bet they never imagined they'd find themselves at the forefront of pop-culture iconography debates, either.) —Scs (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Two items that should have the same sitelink

Picture of the Year (Q15635201) ("Picture of the year" project page) and Picture of the Year (Q28155311) "competition" should link to commons:Commons:Picture of the Year, it was proposed to merge them at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q15635201. Initially I thought they should be merged but it looks like they were intended to be separate because of the instance of (P31) and official website (P856), and use in award received (P166) on other items. Q28155311 currently links to the category. Peter James (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Help needed to merge Fallopia japonica -> Reynoutria japonica

Hello, I think that Reynoutria japonica (Q18421053) and Fallopia japonica (Q899672) are corresponding to the same specie of flower, just different names. Actually, there is already a warning that the link to the "Encyclopedia of Life" is a duplicate. I'm a newbie. I've tried to merge them with the "Merge gadget" by following the instructions. However, there is a conflict on the Welsh keys (which I think is just because the welsh wikipedia also has a duplicate). Trying to adjust the link fails (the publishing button gives an error).

I'm giving up... can someone help me?

Pieleric (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The cannot be merged because the two items are linked with each other by taxon synonym (P1420). And that is intentionally - every taxon name has a separate item here, even if it is widely accepted as a synonym. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Percentage of items of people with an image where at Commons there is a return link with "depicts"?

Do we know the number of these items and how long would it take for to get to 100%.. Is it an idea to automate such a link? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Former citizenship(s) of people - present or not and if then how? (ideological issue)

I would like to discuss with you, if and how to present former citizenships of people due to moving to another county or county seizing to exist.

Intro I have noticed that user:sporti edited all items about Slovenian people and added SFRJ (Jugoslavia) as their citizenship. Since SFRJ doesn't exist anymore, therefore people aren't citizens of SFRJ anymore.

Cause Wikipedia uses data of Wikidata, and therefore information about citizenships are shown in articles in infobox. In my opinion, if such information about former citizenships have to be displayed, then I would suggest that new category ("Former citizenships") should be created where such citizenships would be inserted.

Why change is needed? In case of Slovenian people and SFRJ, having both Slovenian citizenship and SFRJ citizenship in same category can provoke many people as it presents ideological topic that divide the nation. It's well known fact that people born in Slovenia before its independence were citizens of SFRJ, but they seize to be that after independence and became Slovenian citizens. Having SFRJ in same category of citizenships could be interpreted as support of former regime and therefore present controversial view which should be avoided on open platform such as Wikipedia.

Therefore I address this question to you, the community. How and if such data should be presented, so it doesn't cause ideological conflicts.

Best regards, Gregor – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.143.164.113 (talk • contribs) at 15:42, 12 April 2020‎ (UTC).

This can be resolved by setting country of citizenship (P27) with qualifiers for start time (P580) and end time (P582). One citizenship will end and another will begin. In cases where there are periods of dual citizenship, the overlapping time periods will reveal that as well. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A Wikidata statement is time-neutral by default. The statement that a person has a specific citizenship just means that there was a time in their life when they had the citizenship. It's useful to use the start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers. In addition you can use the preferred-rank to mark the current citizenship and then Wikipedia infoboxes can read the current citizenship that way.
You may want to mark current (or latest) data with preferred rank.--GZWDer (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

presidential election

1959 Cypriot presidential election (Q4305841) -> candidate (P726) -> Makarios III (Q153509) -> member of political party (P102) --> independent politician (Q327591)

How can I show that Makarios III (Q153509) was supported by AKEL – Left – New Forces (Q22808995)

Another example,

2003 Cypriot presidential election (Q3557575) -> candidate (P726) -> Tassos Papadopoulos (Q200776) -> member of political party (P102) --> Democratic Party (Q816863)

How can I show that Tassos Papadopoulos (Q200776) was also supported by AKEL – Left – New Forces (Q22808995) and Movement for Social Democracy (Q259800)?

Xaris333 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot answer the question, but member of political party (P102) --> independent politician (Q327591) seems wrong to me. Q327591 is not a political party, and by using that value you will make seem like all candidates with no party belong to the same party. I think it instead should be "no value". --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dipsacus fullonum: independent politician (Q327591) is an item that says "a politician not afiliated with any political party" therefore it is a correct option for member of political party (P102). No value is a less useful option in this case.
@Xaris333: I've adjusted your templates above so that they work correctly. You need to set them as {{Q|Q4305841}} and {{P|P726}}. The only qualifier that I can see will work here is political coalition (P5832). Was it a formal agreement between the candidate and the other party or did they just choose to support him without his agreement? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Formal agreement. Not between parties, but between the candidate and the party. Xaris333 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
In that case maybe nominated by (P4353) would be the better option. You could use the qualifier a few times and say he was the nominated candidate of different parties but a member of only one party. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Xaris333: "a politician not afiliated with any political party" is not a party, so it should never be the value of P102 which have political parties as values. Please note that I am not saying that there shouldn't be a claim for P102, but that the special value called "no value" should be used as value. It is explained at Help:Statements#Unknown or no values. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dipsacus fullonum: independent politician (Q327591) is intended for use with member of political party (P102). Where else would you make use of it other than in a call from member of political party (P102)? Rather than telling people that there was a political party made up of independents, the structured data from independent politician (Q327591) tells people that all the people linked to that item were at one point in time independent politicians outside of any party. "No value" tells us nothing and prevents any queries for "idenpendent politicians of country X." If you think this is wrong then we should bring in a third opinion, or at the very least engage in a discussion. Ignoring the point someone raised a few lines above and giving out disputed advice is not very productive. If the issue isn't resolved one way or the other you will just be having one set of editors adding an item and another set of editors removing it in an infinite loop. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: Q327591 is not intended for use with P102. The item was created in 2012 to create interwiki links between many Wikipedia articles about independent politicians. P102 was created later (in 2013) and should only have political parties as values, which Q327591 is not. It is neither true that "no value" tells us nothing. The claim "person P102 no value" tells us that the person is not member of any political party, and therefore is an independent politician. And nothing prevents you from query for persons with "no value" for P102. But use of Q327591 is against the data model for Wikidata and makes queries difficult (like e.g. finding members of same the political party) because Q327591 isn't a political party as expected for values for P102. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk)
@Dipsacus fullonum: That may be the history of it but the current situation is that we have 7,773 links from main space to independent politician (Q327591). There may be some different usages mixed in there, but all of the ones I sampled had it linked to member of political party (P102). For the record, as far as I can recall, I have never added an entry for member of political party (P102), so those 7,773 links are by other users or bot operators. My personal opinion is that I think you are wrong on this. Whatever the historical order of creating the items and properties, linking the two establishes the concept of "independent politician" in association with the individual. No value does not link the concept. However, the key here is consensus, neither you nor I should be dictating Wikidata policy. There is evidence here of a set of editors working against your advice. If you think they are wrong, build a consensus to reverse it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
There are 4,976 truthy claims for persons with P102 Q327591 and 1,634 truthy claims for persons with P102 "no value" according to these two queries:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
WHERE
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item wdt:P102 wd:Q327591 .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" . }
}
Try it! 
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
WHERE
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item a wdno:P102 .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" . }
}
Try it!
--Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that the claims with P102 Q327591 are incorrect, against policy (which are not made by me) and should be changed because Q327591 is not a political party, and because Wikidata has standard means to indicate that a property have no value which are intended for exactly such cases. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to say that in member of political party (P102) there is Wikidata property example (P1855) with independent politician (Q327591) since June 2016 [7]. Maybe @Jura1: can help us. Xaris333 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You will note that Jura's example which was used in Special:Diff/351977470 was changed to use "no value" in 2019 in Special:Diff/958163719. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk)
So? That's not means that the second one is the correct one... As a user, I usually check examples at property's page. It is there since 2016. Maybe that's the reason why some users used it like that. Xaris333 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Infectious disease harmonization

We have all the COVID deaths using the same "cause of death" but looking back at other diseases I want to harmonize the cause of death. Is there a tool I can use to put all the AIDS deaths under death from AIDS-related complications (Q4651894)? We have several synonyms, such as "AIDS" (142) and "HIV" (there were 4, I moved them by hand) and "AIDS related disease" (34), but death from AIDS-related complications (Q4651894) has the largest number and appears to have been created just for this purpose. What tool will allow me to do it easily, rather than one-by-one? --RAN (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Reordering different values datewise

Consider the item 2020 coronavirus pandemic in West Bengal. In that, there is a property named number of cases. I would like to know whether the values can be displayed according to the qualifier 'Point of Time'. Currently, it is ordered in the way, the user enters it. Adithyak1997 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the limitations on gadgets are, but feel like this is something someone could create one for (order the UI based on series ordinal/point in time/start date qualifiers). Worth noting that this is purely an aspect of the Wikidata UI - I only mention this because I've seen people talk about "order" before and removing/re-adding statements to get the right "order" (which is silly, because the data is only truly ordered by addition of qualifiers). --SilentSpike (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Also worth noting, you may want to set preferred rank on the most recent values, this way queries will return those. Can be qualified with reason for preferred rank (P7452) most recent value (Q71533355). --SilentSpike (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I've found one method that works, through the API, which is to read the JSON version of the item using wbeditentity, edit the JSON to reverse the statements (without changing IDs, etc.), then rewrite the item with wbeditentity. It's a bit odd, since the edit has an empty diff. Example, [8], which orders the authors. Ghouston (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ghouston: My point was really that there's no value in doing so as far as the data itself is concerned and really this is something that should be solved by the UI. --SilentSpike (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably, but maybe you'd need a way to give a hint about which qualifier to sort by. It could be various types of date or a sequence number depending on the statement. Ghouston (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It could be done as a property : qualifier mapping in the script. Ghouston (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I had a go at creating a script for this User:SilentSpike/sortQualifiers.js, unfortunately it doesn't consistently work (which is generous, it's failing more often than not). Think it's because the script is running before the HTML of all the statements is filled in. However, even if it were working consistently, I've realised there is an unavoidable delay because first the UI loads and then it gets re-sorted (which is pretty bad UX). So perhaps this isn't something best solved by a gadget/userscript, maybe worth open a phabricator ticket to suggest ordering statements by certain qualifier values (similar to how statements themselves have a defined order). --SilentSpike (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
If it was going to be done, I suppose it would best be done in bulk, e.g., for every item with an author statement. But I'm not sure that it's desirable because of the extra load on the server. Although, done this way, you'd only be sorting the statements once, not every time the UI displays the page. Ghouston (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would be difficult to automatically work out which items would need sorting. I don't know if you could write a SPARQL query that would find out-of-order statements. Ghouston (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Order of statements is insignificant, there is no guarantee you will get statements in any order. See phab:T125493 or phab:T173432. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, I've still yet to fully work out how to navigate phabrictor effectively! This confirms my understanding that it's a UI issue not a data issue. --SilentSpike (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
There might be a few properties that could its values safely sorted by "point in time" qualifier (e.g. population). Ideally this is done directly when some other edit is done. --- Jura 20:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Sotiale

This is a notice directed in accordance with the relevant policy for requesting CheckUser. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Jasper Deng

In accordance with the policy, here is a notification of my candidacy for CheckUser.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Romaine

Added here for completeness--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

I took the liberty of moving these into one section to permit discussion of the general principle of having local checkusers on this project that is independent of the specific applicants. See meta:Steward requests/Checkuser for the process we currently follow, having never had local checkusers. Bovlb (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  • On the plus side, this project is growing, and it's probably about time that we took this load off the global stewards. On the minus side, a significant fraction of our LTA involves cross-wiki problems, and there may therefore be some need for a CheckUser to be able to check across multiple projects. Bovlb (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Bovlb: Our current CheckUser policy permits stewards to keep checking for those cases, and we have a sizable number of local sockpuppetry cases as well. A particularly flagrant one I recall is Special:Contribs/JJBullet. Our goal here is to be better able to handle the local cases. CheckUsers also get subscribed to a cross-wiki checkuser-l mailing list for all stewards and CheckUsers globally and are given access to a CheckUser wiki also for those users, which facilitates cooperation with the stewards. I personally have worked closely with stewards on cases requiring CheckUser and would never hesitate to reach out for cross-wiki cases.
    • On another note, I don't think it's really necessary to have a separate discussion for it. The comments sections of our requests should be used for this IMO.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. Do we need a "Request for CheckUser" page? Or we should use Administrators' noticeboard?
  2. Also a mail list may be needed.
  3. Should we relax the sockpuppet policy once we have CheckUsers? (previous discussion)

--GZWDer (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion more CheckUsers are needed. The optimal number of CheckUsers in my opinion is 4. more admins should volunteer.--GZWDer (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I think using Administrators' noticeboard may create confusion for the users from other projects and also for making it easier to archive the requests a separate page might be a better idea. This will also make it easier for CUs to notice new requests in their watchlists.-BRP ever 11:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
We could definitely set up a request for CheckUser process. On my part, my only really big preference is that I would like the prefill to ask for evidence, since investigations won't be carried out without it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I concur with BRPever and Jasper Deng on this. --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing files on Commons with QS

On the page of QS I saw that there is a box that says "Commons [batch mode only!]". Does that mean I can use QS to add statements to images on Commons? Example: File:Building at Döblinger Hauptstraße 83 in Döbling, Vienna, Austria PNr°0516.jpg depicts Q64692116. Is there a way to quickly add an information like this to the image without a manual edit?
BTW: I'm not talking about modifying the image description page. I'm just talking about the linking an Item from Wikidata. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I already took a look at Help:QuickStatements, but didn't find anything in there that would help me along. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you can. It's possible to specify either filename or Mid, captions are equivalent to Wikidata labels, otherwise the format is same. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: I tested a little bit, but I still don't seem to get how this works.
I want to add Radeon HD 5450 (Q90327087) to File:Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg. First I tried the opposite of how you add a statement to a wikidataitem:

  • File:Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg|P180|Q90327087
  • "File:Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg"|P180|Q90327087
  • Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg|P180|Q90327087
  • "Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg"|P180|Q90327087

None was working. The page just tells me "No valid commands found". I thought, maybe it's still the other way round:

  • Q90327087|P180|File:Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg
  • Q90327087|P180|"File:Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg"
  • Q90327087|P180|Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg
  • Q90327087|P180|"Sapphire Radeon HD 5450-front PNr°0382.jpg"

The first and the third one won't even run (it is just stuck on run). The second and the fourth one just say "Invalid snak data."
First I tried the batch mode for Commons. Then I tried to do it on wikidata since I it didn't work, so might as well test this. I'm clearly doing something wrong here, but I have no idea what.
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked at Help talk:QuickStatements#Commons again. Both and CSV syntax work for me but conversion from filename to Mids still (or again) doesn't work. (Something made me think it does.) Also [batch mode only!] is a gotcha, it will only work if you run the batch asynchronously (in the background). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: Thanks. It finally worked. I'm not sure if it is faster than entering the info by hand tough...
For archive and later lookup purpose the steps:
  1. Find Item on Wikidata
  2. Check File ID with Minefield (looks like M123456) Multiple files can be added every new line. NOTE: The files get resorted by their media ID!
  3. Open a new QS batch
  4. Select "Commons [batch mode only!]" from the drop down menu
  5. Add the files and items like M123456|P180|Q654321 (=> file with ID 123456 depicts item 654321)
  6. Import commands
  7. Check commands and click "Run in background" (!! NOT "run" !!)
  8. Enter a name for the batch (optional)
  9. Check for errors and own mistakes (eg. linking the wrong item to a file)
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

presidential election of 2 rounds

The President of Cyprus is elected using the two-round system; if no candidate gets a majority in the first round of voting, a run-off is held between the top two candidates.

I tried to apply this in Wikidata with 1988 Cypriot presidential election (Q4351905). So, the structure is like this:

I am not sure about the statements I used. Some questions:

Xaris333 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This one seems to have a better setup: first round of French presidential election, 2017 (Q29836873). It's not itself an instance of an election. Ghouston (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that one is nice. If you don't want to include that much detail, you could do like 2016 Estonian presidential election (Q22676594), but that way one might miss the interesting part: the person elected in the 4th round wasn't a candidate in the first three. --- Jura 01:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Most problems solved.

  • For the last problem I added a separator to point in time (P585) [9]. It's that ok?
  • Another problem is candidate (P726). Should we add the candidates to election item or only to rounds items? Because, if you add them to election item, you must add votes received (P1111) but you can't because two of the candidates participated in two rounds. Xaris333 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    • In English, it just reads "potential issue" (This candidate statement is missing a qualifier votes received.), not "you must add". I do think adding all candidates on the election items is an advantage, even if they didn't actually reach the stage where they could get votes. --- Jura 01:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for my English... So, its better to have the candidates only in rounds items? In 2017 French presidential election (Q7020999) there also all the candidates with potential issue. Xaris333 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
No. Just noticed that someone had borked the main item .. --- Jura 18:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Help needed to create reference definitions in Wikidata Items of medical terms

Hi, As a laboratory medicine professional from the Netherlands I’m rather new in WIKIDATA and need some support from the community to sort things out I don’t readily understand due to a lack of experience. Even I’ve done the tutorials and stuff. To improve the unambiguousness of the interpretation of several wikidata Items in the field of laboratory medicine, I want is to add formal definitions from authorities like WHO, ISO and IUPAC as a statement to these Items. The reference definitions are crucial for the FAIR-LOD principle at a knowledge level.

As an example, global authorities like ISO and WHO have formal definitions in ISO15189:2012 and WHO toolkit 2009 in their section ‘terms and definitions’ of e.g. item Accreditation ( Q705899 ). I want to present the definitions of terms (wd: item) as a statement like property “defined as” with datatype text for the value. In this field the original text of the standard. As a qualifier I would suggest “Defined in” with the standard document such as ISO 15189:2012 and a qualifier “defined by” the authorized body of that document, such as ISO.org.

The only properties I ran into were “described by source” (P1343), “stated as”, “stated in” and stated in reference as” ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/propbrowse/ ) but these do not cover this issue. More over, the “stated as” is not allowed as a property and only as a qualifier. This restriction I don’t understand by the way.

Therefore , I want to propose this new property in ( https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending&action=edit&section=4 ). And here I run into some newby issues, that is, how to fill in this form and how to arrange subsequent steps. It is to some extend clear to me how to do this but to avoid disillusions I would greatly appreciate some support to get me through the math. Best regard, Frans van der Horst Reinier de Graaf Hospital Delft NL frans@semantoya.nl

I think exact match (P2888), equivalent class (P1709), and described at URL (P973) are relevant properties, although I'm not sure exactly where each is preferred. Ghouston (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose the question is how to ensure that accreditation (Q705899) is about the ISO concept and not about a more general one. Or if we should have another item that is specifically about the ISO definition thereof.
About the inclusion of textual definitions, there was some discussion on Wikidata:Property_proposal/definition. --- Jura 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


Hello Frans van der Horst. Regarding ambiguity, there are (at least) two ways of fixing the meaning of an item.
  1. Suggest a property of type "external identifier". In this case, one could imagine a property "ISO 15189:2012 item number". (I don't have access to this standard, but I could imagine that each term defined therein has an item number.) Then, when someone finds this item, they can look up the definition in the standard and be sure that they found the correct one.
  2. Use described by source (P1343), with value <some item for ISO 15189:2012>, and qualifier section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) (for the item number), and optionally the qualifier subject named as (P1810).
Here is an example item (identifying a physical/chemical quantity) that demonstrates how both approaches are used (linking to both ISO and IUPAC): absolute chemical activity (Q89097848).
Best wishes. Toni 001 (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

OSM relation but no node or way?

Can someone explain why we got OpenStreetMap relation ID (P402) but no similar props for OSM node or OSM way? Eg the village where I live Dragichevo (Q1074197) has OSM node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/273878582 but no relation (nobody geo-traced the village's boundary yet) --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

OSM relations are relatively stable, while node and way IDs change in the normal editing process. If someone were to delete your village node and replaced it with the drawn boundary (a perfectly reasonable thing to do), the resulting entity would have a new ID. Even with the village as a node, you can link the two on OSM using Key:wikidata. Vahurzpu (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Vahurzpu is entirely correct, and I would say even the inclusion of relation IDs here is questionable as they're still pretty unstable. --SilentSpike (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate: Jacek Fijuth (Q87624734) and Jacek Fijuth (Q87624736)

Apparently this duplicate has been created because of the duplicate ORCID iDs

What is the proper merging of the two ? Kpjas (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kpjas: Just merge the two items and the merged item will get two ORCIDs. (For what it's worth, 0000-0002-3777-0960 is "preferred" because it lists more works). Do you observe many duplicates in ORCID? If so, we should organize some reporting to them --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kpjas, Vladimir Alexiev: You can use the contact links on the ORCID website to let them know about problems like this; I've sent them a dozen or so such cases. I think they are still working on procedures to address these, but in principle the process is that they contact both registered email addresses to confirm they are the same person, and then deprecate one ID in favor of the other. I believe they've done that successfully in a few cases I sent so far, but it takes time. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new Wikipedia project

I sent a long email to the Wikimedia-l list and also made the same post to Meta. I published a new paper recently with a proposal for a multilingual Wikipedia and more, and, unsurprisingly, Wikidata plays a central role in that proposal. I am trying to have the discussion not to be too fragmented, so I hope it will happen on Meta or on Wikimedia-l, but I also wanted to give a ping here. Stay safe! --Denny (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikidata external sources

Hi everyone,

I'm new to Wikidata but I find the project ... just amazing.

As far as I understood by skimming through the docs, data are manually edited but are also automatically imported from external sources.

Is there a list of the external sources used to populate Wikidata?

Sylvain Leroux (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There were too many of those sources, but right now someone is importing many many galaxies and related solar systems, and for years already people are importing scientific papers and their authors. But I also know that some uploaded every single Dutch street in 2015, and a lot of items are simply created because they belong to a new Wikipedia-article in any of the supported languages. Edoderoo (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Bot imports usually have an external identifier, but not all external identifiers are completely loaded. For instance Findagrave and Familysearch, have famous people, but lots of ordinary people that would be difficult to disambiguate, and just make it difficult to find the one you are looking for, so we only import the famous people. Bot imports need to be approved since we have computational limits. This has caused a queue to be formed for uploading large data sets. Somewhere we have a list showing the mix and match programs. The list compares the size of all the original data sets and the percent we have uploaded. Does anyone have a link to that table, it showed the percent of VIAF and the percent of Geonames and other large data sets that were imported entirely, or matched against existing entries? --RAN (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Edoderoo. There were actually many questions in one, and my initial message wasn't clear about that. Probably because it wasn't that clear in my mind. If I try to rephrase my thinking:
* Is there a list of the sources regularly explored by bots? As a random example, with such a list I would know if I need to query/parse/cross-reference the Library of Congress Catalog, or if this would be a waste of time since Wikidata already aggregates that content.
* Is there a way to distinguish between bot-imported data and human-curated data? For example, it's surprising (to me!) that COBOL (Q131140) programming paradigm (P3966) object-oriented programming (Q79872) has no reference, whereas COBOL (Q131140) instance of (P31) object-based language (Q899523) has en:wikipedia as the source. Would that mean in the first case data were manually entered? Or they were derivated from other data? And why only en:wikipedia is quoted as the source for the second case? Does that mean no other Wikipedia website corroborates that fact?
Sylvain Leroux (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata does not contain all entries in VIAF/LCCN/GND/FAST etc.--GZWDer (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Somewhere we had a list showing the percent of each that was imported through the mix and match program which found a matching value for a person or place in the database. --RAN (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

CentralNotice event for korean users

Hi. I'm WMKR (Wikimedia korea) Project Manager.

WMKR want to encourage Korean users to participate in Wikidata.


So we are going to hold the following event and do CentralNotice as below.


The CentralNotice runs from May 1st 15:00 UTC to May 16th 15:00 UTC

and applies only to 'Korean language' and 'Republic of Korea (=South korea)'.

thanks to read it :) --이강철 (WMKR) (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Location format error in commons

I was trying to correct a missing location on w:c:File:Austrian Constitutional Court building 01.jpg and w:c:File:Austrian Constitutional Court building 02.jpg and knew nothing about wikidata. The Commons location template is {{object location|Wikidata=Q873868}}. Q873868 had coordinates under statement "headquarters location"; I added a separate statement "coordinate location" with the same coordinates but now the commons page has the error "Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 764: bad argument #2 to 'format' (string expected, got nil).", unless I also add "#statements:coordinate location|from=Q873868", when the coordinates appear correctly but twice. What am I doing wrong? Finavon (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a small conclusion. What I have understood is that both headquarters location as well as coordinate location are entirely different. Take for example US Bank. It will have a headquarters and have various branches. In the Wikidata of a branch, you need to specify both the coordinate location of branch as well as the coordinate location of headquarters. If any experienced editors find my solution illogical/confusing, please remove it. Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a mix of several issues:
  1. coordinates under statement "headquarters location" is a valid way to indicate the exact location of headquarters. The module could be enhanced to work with it, too.
  2. I cannot see any code at the exact line that would throw this error (it's close, though). There could have been a cached version that you invalidated with your edit. It could indicate a bug in the module, too.
  3. various branches - the information about them can be split to multiple items. It isn't flexible to store information about multiple entities in a single item.
--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, commons does not find the location when it is in a headquarters location statement (or location for an image statement). I thought duplicate information in multiple statements might be a problem and have now removed headquarters location coordinates, leaving only coordinate location. There is still an error in commons (removed by adding the statement call). I'm just discovering wikidata and worry I am misusing the item (Constitutional Court) - an organisation while I want the building location. Lots of commons images are being tagged with a location using wikidata. Advice welcomed. Finavon (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Are Constitutional Court of Austria (Q873868) and Bank Austria Kunstforum Wien (Q806615) separate entitities that just happen to share the same building? If so, we need to end up with an item for each organisation and an item for the building. We can then say that the building is occupied by the two organisations using occupant (P466). The geographical information can be tied into the building item through coordinate location (P625) and to the organisation items through headquarters location (P159). Does this sound like a reasonable approach to more experienced editors? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think, yes. From w:de:Bank_Austria_Kunstforum_Wien: "The former bank building has been owned by Signa Holding since 2010 and has also housed the Constitutional Court since August 2012 (Renngasse 2 entrance; this was given the address Freyung 8 on the occasion of the VfGH move)." So appears to be a former bank building, now owned by w:Signa Holding and occupied by a museum/exhibition centre and a court (vfgh). Helpful but does not move forward my question about how to properly remove the Lua error (whatever that is) from a location call in commons. Finavon (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

different from

@Bouzinac: The way I understand different from (P1889) - and what it says in its description "item that is different from another item, with which it is often confused" - it should only be used when two items can be easily confused. But - are the city Pattaya (Q170919) and the fruit dragon fruit (Q232755) aka "Pitaya" really something which anyone would ever confuse, only because it is spelled a little similar? see this diff I only use that property for items which same name and same (or very similar type), like two same-named hills, especially if close to each other. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Confusion is very much a cultural thing. You are taking the example of the city Pattaya (Q170919) and the fruit dragon fruit (Q232755) . The fruit in France/Europe is very little known (more known as "fruit du dragon" and not "pittaya"), hence a confusion is possible. That's why the enwiki has shown a disambiguish template for long time and thus Wikidata should show too. Take into account the main aim of different from (P1889) is to prevent people from merging. Cheers Bouzinac (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: : I understand the logic behind your edits but I think you should not doing it mindlessly nor on the sole basis of WP:EN. For example, you linked Quintilian (Q193769) with names of large numbers (Q1151232), because Quintillian links to Quintillion which is a redirection (!) to Names of large numbers. I can't figure a situation where an user would mix the resulting two Wikidata items and merge them. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, according to the English, quintillion is a very large number, not to be confused to Quintillian, by paronym/mispelling. Perhaps a French wouldn't confuse but perhaps an English would do. Again, it is not my creation but a need (very light need, I admit) put into English wikipedia. It has been populated and farmed with the presence of template Distinguish ; I am also farming frwiki with template Confusion with HarvestTemplate tool here. I tried other languages but it had been not very much working, cause the distinguish templates are used differently. Bouzinac (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think different from (P1889) is about the same function as disambiguish template on Wikipedia or storing paronyms in general. EnWiki also doesn't profit from us setting the disambigutation property this way. I don't think our users are going to try to merge a city with a fruit as it's easy to understand that the two are different without different from (P1889) having been set. I don't see the value in farming those template for setting different from (P1889).
Paronymity is also a property of lexemes and not of items towards which the lexemes point. It's different in different languages and listing it in the item will confuse users about the distinction between names and their referents. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
[10] is the very property of disambiguation. It is sometimes far-fetched, I agree, sometimes very helpful. May be far-fetched for you and helpful for the others. See for instance Leo Tolstoy (Q7243) and Lev Lvovich Tolstoy (Q1152362) or Giordano Bruno (Q36330) and Bruno Giordano (Q613257). In their wikipedias, someone decided confusion is possible between A and B, therefore different from (P1889) should also reflect that. On top of that, I feel that property could also be helpful as a way of "see also". Bouzinac (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (Q924335) and inception (P571) of 0 for artworks

On the website of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (Q924335), the year of production of an artwork is at least sometimes displayed as "0000" when it is unknown, e.g. [11]. This has been imported, generally by BotMultichill, to dozens of items at a minimum, as a statement of inception (P571) being 0, with most the examples I've looked at being from artists born in the 19th century and dying in the 20th. I think this is pretty clearly an issue, but what is the best way to resolve it? Should these incorrect statements be marked as deprecated, or should they really just be removed as a quirk of the museum's website that got propagated here by a bot? (I tried removing a few, and the bot added them back; I'm not sure what to do about that either.) Is it OK to leave these items without a non-deprecated date statement, or is there an appropriate way to indicate in the items that these works were created within the artists' lifetimes, even if no more specific date is available? I'm not quite sure how to handle this after looking for more information (e.g. Help:Dates, Help:Ranking), and would be interested in any help others can provide. Affected items include: Kamerinterieur (Q24056498), De danseres Angelica Velez (Q24056105), (Vaas met bloemen) (Q24055222), Zittende man (Q24063088), In de omgeving van Schiedam (Q24060208), Huisjes met bleekveld (Q24059967), De l'intérieur à l'extérieur (Q63184566), Azalea (Q24063419), Landschap met lage duinen (Q24063134), Stilleven paarse bloemen (seringen) (Q24055387), Tuin met maaier (Q61856808), Zelfportret (Q61856615), Landschap met koe (Q24056789), Stilleven met boeken (Q24055423), Muziekinstrumenten (Q24057996), Post-Office Witte Brug at Scheveningue (Q24062267), Débarquement de la pêche (Q24055382), Zonder titel (Q24055394), Still Life (Q61856867), Stierkalf (Q61856729), Landschap met geiten (Q24063478), Kerkinterieur (Q24055430), Avondstemming (Q24063099), Vaas met narcissen (Q24060173), Dienstmeisje (Q24056555), Kinderen aan het strand (Q24056568), Q24056888, Vue de Paris (Eglise de St. Germain l'Auxerrois) (Q24063007), Stilleven chrysanten (Q24055392), Paysage (Q24063009), Stalinterieur (Q24063506), Seascape (Q61857024), Vrouwenportret (Q61856655), Landschap met ven, bij Hilversum (Q24056091), Zelfportret (Q24056525), Ruiters onder een poort (Q24055149), Thunderstorm (Q61857023), Bosrand (Q24057948), Spuistraat bij het Kattegat (Q24056516), Landschap (Q24056443), Begijnhofje te Haarlem (Q61856983), Bloemstilleven (Q24056877). Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of discussion of late about debatable imports by bots, without definitive resolution that I'm aware of, so my suggestion here should not be considered authoritative.
I would agree with you that the 0-valued statements would best be deleted, but you're right, the bot just reinserts them.
So I would suggest (a) lowering the 0-valued statements to a rank of 'deprecated', and perhaps adding a reason for deprecated rank (P2241) qualifier, if we can figure out what the reason for deprecation should be. See also Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank and Help:Deprecation. —Scs (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC), edited 04:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) As a trial run, I've deprecated the offending date at Zelfportret (Q61856615) and added a reason of error in referenced source or sources (Q29998666). (It might be more accurate to use a deprecation reason of "value unknown in referenced source", but there's nothing like that in the list of official deprecation reasons at Q52105174.) —Scs (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Slightly better reason: explicitly designated as wrong in other source (Q76449977). —Scs (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Seem to be old items. Rather trying to fix them manually, I ask the bot operator to look into it. If the bug is fixed since, it should be fairly easy to delete the statements. --- Jura 04:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW, this reminded me of some other bug: Wikidata:Bot_requests#Cleanup_collection_size_0_= --- Jura 04:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #411

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • COVID19 Dashboard is a Wikidata-powered one-stop information/visualization service for COVID19-related topics such as COVID19's outbreak map, deaths, symptoms, taxonomy, and publications.
  • Development
    • Move wb_terms data in cloud replicas to wb_terms_no_longer_updated (phab:T248592)
    • Rebuild wb_items_per_site, after incident where wb_items_per_site was dropped (phab:T249596)
    • Purge / Reject client pages that were cached in parser cache during the incident (phab:T249595)
    • More work on Automated finding references
    • More work on federated properties: create and save a statement with federated properties
    • Bridge: improve the generic error screen (phab:T241126) and on save (phab:T248087)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

ICMBio ID (external - ID)

Hi guys, I'm having a little bit of difficulties to structure the proposal of this new external ID. The problem is that the URL not always follow the same path: [12] or [13], but, this is this the most important ID when we are talking about national reserves in Brazil.

So how can I propose this in a proper manner? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: I don't speak Portuguese, so I'm not 100% sure here. Some testing reveals that every page has a unique numeric ID in the URL (1869 and 7922) in your examples. Furthermore, if you input the ID into this URL: https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/unidadesdeconservacao/biomas-brasileiros/_/_/ID-, it'll always bring up the content for that ID (even though it's not the canonical URL). The ID could also just be everything after the portal/ in the URL, mosaicosecorredoresecologicos/moscaicos-reconhecidos-oficialmente/1869-mosaico-bocaina and unidadesdeconservacao/biomas-brasileiros/mata-atlantica/unidades-de-conservacao-mata-atlantica/7922-rppn-cabure in your examples. --SixTwoEight (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@SixTwoEight:, thank you for the attention, so you are saying that the structured need a text entry, not only an id?
@Ederporto: pode me ajudar, aqui? Talvez precise de português para criar esse ID?
Thank you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, SixTwoEight: Hello, the identifier to be proposed will be only about the conservation units or the content of ICMBIO? I think short, numeric identifiers are always better, so the first SixTwoEight's proposal is great. On the other hand, the ICMBIO also have pages for the Brazilian fauna species and Brazilian research centers on those topics, it would be nice to have them as well. And this non canonical url works with them too, so I propose three different ICMBIO identifiers:
  • ICMBIO conservation units ID: https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/unidadesdeconservacao/biomas-brasileiros/_/_/$1-, with $1 being a number;
  • ICMBIO Brazilian fauna ID: https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/faunabrasileira/_/$1- for the Brazilian species, with $1 being a number and;
  • ICMBIO research centers ID: https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/centrosdepesquisa/$1 with $1 being a slugified name.
Ederporto (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Ederporto:, I will propose in some time soon. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BNF to Wikidata, RIP

It appears we recently lost one of the most valuable tools for easily importing biographical database entries into Wikidata without needing a degree in computer science. The immensely useful BNF to Wikidata tool appears to be recently defunct and abandoned: see https://www.lehir.net/dicare-tools/. Can we get something similar rebuilt? I will reiterate my previous assertion that Wikidata needs more ways to quickly and easily pull from existing databases. Even if a tool simply imported name, instance of (human), and a single identifier, that would save several time-consuming steps. If concerns about database copyright are a problem, perhaps tackle public domain sources like the Library of Catalog Name Authority File. I'm aware of, and sympathetic to, concerns about mass imports of thousands of items all at once, but any efforts to more easily start a single item would make a world of difference. -Animalparty (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have created phab:T249697, though this is a very general task that does not include anything specific to do.--GZWDer (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That's quite the accusation done by user:Envlh on https://www.lehir.net/dicare-tools/
At least the source code was committed to git (https://github.com/envlh/ ) so you can deploy it somewhere else. So the RIP is very premature. Multichill (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
GZWDer Thanks for starting that phab ticket. One really nice thing about BNF to Wikdidata was that it allowed importing/additions of sourced statements to already existing items, as well as expediting the creation and expansion of new items. -Animalparty (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
-Animalparty,GZWDer, Multichill, Hi, could you add in the phabricator proposal the latest addition of Envlh : a tool that converts from IdRef to Wikidata ? (basically works the same way than the BNF one) The code is also on git--René La contemporaine (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@René La contemporaine: no, you should do that yourself. You can login to Phabricator using your Wikimedia account. Just go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/auth/start/?next=%2FT249697 and use the "Wikimedia" option. Multichill (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Multichill Well... I tried my best but this is really far away from the set of skills I have. Please check if what I said makes some sense. :-(--René La contemporaine (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Interwiki extra

(Apologies if this has been discussed before. I could not find it in the archives.) Template:Interwiki extra (Q21286810) is used on several Wikipedias to "Get extra interwiki links from a specified Wikidata object, to complement existing links for the including article." For example, if a person is known primarily for one incident, we often find that some projects create an article on the person, whereas others have an article on the person event, and some may have both. Similarly with duos like Bonnie & Clyde. This template allows a reader to find relevant articles in additional languages. Unfortunately, to use this template, it must be added separately to each article in each project, and does not help with projects that have no such template, which seems to go against the Wikidata way of hosting such information centrally. Is there a property we can use to represent this, which could be exploited by all client projects? Should there be one? Bovlb (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the middle of your paragraph there; "some projects create an article on the person, whereas others have an article on the person, and some may have both." Have you used a wrong word? Both options seem the same. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Bovlb (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

To phrase this problem in a different way: The central maintenance of interwiki links was the original motivating use case for Wikidata, and this is an area where we are failing to meet that goal because of our finer ontological distinctions. For example, the Spanish Wikipedia) has an article on Kitty Genovese (Q238128), but the English Wikipedia) has an article on murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) instead. An ESWP reader does not see "English" on the "In other languages" list, even though ENWP has a highly relevant article on the subject. The corresponding ENWP reader does see a link for "Spanish", but only because an ENWP editor has manually added {{interwiki extra|qid=Q238128}} to the bottom of the page. My proposal is that we devise a way to centralize this information so that all projects can enjoy the benefits. Bovlb (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Léon Auscher and Category:Léon Auscher

Hello, there is something wrong with the items Léon Auscher (Q65088391) and Category:Léon Auscher (Q90567396) and the connexions to fr:Léon Auscher and commons:Category:Léon Auscher. Can somebody correct it? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): ✓ Done. There are two items: Léon Auscher (Q65088391) for the person (with Wikipedia link) and Q90567396 for the category. Tubezlob (🙋) 16:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tubezlob: Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
A separate category item is unnecessary; the Commons category can be added to Q65088391. Q90567396 was created linking to French Wikipedia and Commons. It was then made into a category, based on the English label, and there was an existing item with no sitelink that the Wikipedia link could be moved to, but the "Category:" shouldn't have been there. Peter James (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Another example of this: when I created Q90585603 it had "Category:Cwm Pennant" as the English label and "Cwm Pennant (Powys)" as the Welsh label. Commons isn't an option when creating an item from Wikipedia; an item created by adding a link to Wikipedia from a Commons category makes it a category in English but not in the language of the Wikipedia article. Peter James (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Cleaned it up. --- Jura 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Terms of use violation while importing dataset

I'm writing here, because I don't believe anything will be done about this by the user involved (judging by the previous indifference about reported problems with imports). GZWDer just imported CAS COVID-19 Anti-Viral Candidate Compounds (Q90481889) dataset (with 2 contraint violations per item and with a pseudo-reference by the way), but the terms of use seems quite clear: this is not CC-0. What's more, it seems that the data is copyrighted. What should be done now? Wostr (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of datasets are not CC-0 but importable, given no copyright can be claimed about individual piece of data.--GZWDer (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: In this case it doesn't apply, but do note that copyright can be claimed on individual pieces of data due to EU database copyright. It doesn't apply here though since American Chemical Society (Q247556) isn't a European legal entity. --SixTwoEight (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
So are you 100% sure that the data you've imported is now CC-0? Wostr (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Interwikilinks

How can I add a Interwikilink at a discussion page to the German Wikisource. Is this possible and where can I find the abbrevation of the code of the wiki I need to use for that. I havent found it at the Mediawiki. But maybe I havent looked to the right page. --Hogü-456 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You can see a list of all interwiki prefixes on the German Wikisource at https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Spezial:Interwikitabelle . You should be able to find a corresponding table on every project under Special Pages. Bovlb (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's possible. You can use either s:de: or :de:s:, but these don't link directly. --- Jura 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • If the question you're answering is "Can I add an interwiki link from Wikidata to the German WikiSource?", then I agree it is not (currently) possible, as the local Special:Interwiki only provides prefixes for the English WikiSource (and also the old, all-language WikiSource). But I think the OP was asking the reverse question, which is what I answered above. Bovlb (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Good point .. I think d: works everywhere on Wikimedia. --- Jura 21:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Cattle as a source of gelatin

I'm new to editing WikiData, so please let me know if there is a better forum for this discussion. I edited cattle (Q830) to indicate that the this taxon is source of (P1672) gelatin (Q179254) (citations 1 2). User:Succu has repeatedly reverted my edits and the conversation I initiated on their talk page has been unproductive. Would anyone be able to offer some perspective here on how to proceed? Thank you. Scientific29 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scientific29, you asked me for advice on my talk page but unfortunately I am unfamiliar with this taxon is source of (P1672) as I mainly work in biographical items. Using "what links here" reveals several examples of how the property is used and I can't see anything wrong with your proposed edit. @Succu: Can you please explain where Scientific29 is going wrong here? Is this a dispute that one is not a source of the other or that this needs to be recorded in a different way? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. We do not claim cattle (Q830) this taxon is source of (P1672) milk (Q8495), but cattle (Q830) this taxon is source of (P1672) cow's milk (Q10988133)
  2. We do not claim cattle (Q830) this taxon is source of (P1672) butter (Q34172), there are other sources than cow's milk (Q10988133)
  3. The en description of gelatin (Q179254) is mixture of peptides and proteins derived from connective tissues of animals. enWP states derived from collagen (=collagen (Q26868)) taken from animal body parts. So I don't think we should claim cattle (Q830) this taxon is source of (P1672) gelatin (Q179254).
--Succu (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Succu: So the key problem is that we are missing an intermediate step, is that correct? If Scientific29 is able to provide sources for "beef gelatin" they can make a new item for it as a subclass of gelatin and then say on cattle (Q830) that this taxon is source of (P1672) "beef gelatin." Would that be a satisfactory approach? From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think claiming cattle (Q830) this taxon is source of (P1672) "cow milk butter" makes any sense. "cow milk butter" made from material (P186) cow's milk (Q10988133) does. --Succu (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if that is an answer to my last point as you have marked it as an edit conflict. However, referring to a hypothetical about "cow milk butter" instead of talking about gelatin is possibly steering this discussion in the direction of a w:Straw man. Let's try to break this discussion down into components so we can draw out the source of the dispute and find any areas of agreement. Looking on Google, there appear to be several common types of gelatin, mainly marketed to people with certain dietary requirements. Pork based gelatin appears to be sold to Christians and Hindus but not Muslims or Jews (due to religious laws against eating pork). Beef based gelatin appears to be sold to Christians, Muslims and Jews but not to Hindus (due to cows being sacred to Hindus). Fish based gelatin appears to be marketed mainly at Muslims and Jews as it can be shown more easily to comply with their religious laws. This suggests two questions to move this discussion along:
  1. If Scientific29 can provide reliable sources to establish the existence of "Beef based gelatin" as a real world product, would you have any objections to the creation of a new Wikidata item to reflect that product?
  2. If a "Beef based gelatin" item is created and Scientific29 can provide reliable sources to demonstrate that it is sourced from cattle, would you have any objections to using cattle (Q830) this taxon is source of (P1672)?
If you object to either of these proposals, please provide a reason. At the moment I am struggling to understand the source of the dispute. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input here. User:Succu, this taxon is source of (P1672) specifically indicates that the taxon-product relationship can be one-to-one or many-to-one: "Some products may be yielded by more than one taxon." To further complicate matters, I believe many commercially available gelatins represent a mixture of several taxa, with single-taxa gelatins produced for religious consumers. Scientific29 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Question for working with QS

I tried to use QS on a bit larger scale and did pretty much the same as I did in my smaler tests. Yet it created only six empty Items that I have to fill now. Does anybody know QS well enough to have a look at the code and tell me if I did something wrong? I would also like to know if something like this works:

CREATE
LAST|P361|Q666587 (property part of with Qvalue of a cemetery)
Q666587|P527|LAST (property has part with the QValue of the new item) <- the interesting line for the question
Extended content 
/* 
		Matzleinsdorf
*/
CREATE
LAST|Len|"war cemetery Matzleinsdorf"/* Label in ENglish */
LAST|Den|"war cemetery in Vienna, Austria"/* Description in ENglish */
LAST|Lde|"Soldatenfriedhof Matzleinsdorf"/* Label in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Dde|"Soldatenfriedhof in Wien, Österreich"/* Description in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q362/* instance of war cemetery - of World War II */
LAST|P17|Q40/* country */
LAST|P18|"War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Matzleinsdorf in Vienna, Austria-entrance PNr°0623.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P18|"War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Matzleinsdorf in Vienna, Austria-full oblique uppder PNr°0627.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P131|Q1910897/* located in the administrative territorial entity */
LAST|P373|"Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Evangelischer Friedhof Matzleinsdorf (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch)"/* Commons category */
LAST|P361|Q666587/* part of */
LAST|P625|@48.178319/16.359869/* coordinate location */
LAST|P706|Q666587/* located on terrain feature */
LAST|P2324|341/* quantity buried */
LAST|Scommonswiki|"Category:Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Evangelischer Friedhof Matzleinsdorf (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch)"/* Link */

/* 
		Rodaun
*/
CREATE
LAST|Len|"war cemetery Rodaun"/* Label in ENglish */
LAST|Den|"war cemetery in Vienna, Austria"/* Description in ENglish */
LAST|Lde|"Soldatenfriedhof Rodaun"/* Label in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Dde|"Soldatenfriedhof in Wien, Österreich"/* Description in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q362/* instance of war cemetery - of World War II */
LAST|P17|Q40/* country */
LAST|P18|"War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Rodaun in Vienna, Austria-full lower centered-wide PNr°0622.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P131|Q2160909/* located in the administrative territorial entity */
LAST|P373|"Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Rodauner Friedhof (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch)"/* Commons category */
LAST|P361|Q1457413/* part of */
LAST|P625|@48.1344/16.26982/* coordinate location */
LAST|P706|Q1457413/* located on terrain feature */
LAST|P2324|135/* quantity buried */
LAST|Scommonswiki|"Category:Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Rodauner Friedhof (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch)"/* Link */

/* 
		Kalksburg
*/
CREATE
LAST|Len|"war cemetery Kalksburg"/* Label in ENglish */
LAST|Den|"war cemetery in Vienna, Austria"/* Description in ENglish */
LAST|Lde|"Soldatenfriedhof Kalksburg"/* Label in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Dde|"Soldatenfriedhof in Wien, Österreich"/* Description in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q362/* instance of war cemetery - of World War II */
LAST|P17|Q40/* country */
LAST|P18|"War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Kalksburg in Vienna, Austria-large-full oblique-lower PNr°0612.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P18|"War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Kalksburg in Vienna, Austria-adjacent-full PNr°0609.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P18|"War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Kalksburg in Vienna, Austria-small-full PNr°0607.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P131|Q1678869/* located in the administrative territorial entity */
LAST|P373|"Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Kalksburger Friedhof (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch)"/* Commons category */
LAST|P361|Q1338572/* part of */
LAST|P625|@48.140288/16.256250/* coordinate location */
LAST|P625|@48.140396/16.256417/* coordinate location */
LAST|P625|@48.139934/16.256593/* coordinate location */
LAST|P706|Q1338572/* located on terrain feature */
LAST|P2324|76/* quantity buried */
LAST|P2351|3/* number of graves */
LAST|Scommonswiki|"Category:Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Kalksburger Friedhof (Zweiter Weltkrieg, russisch)"/* Link */

/* 
		Mauer
*/
CREATE
LAST|Len|"war cemetery Mauer"/* Label in ENglish */
LAST|Den|"war cemetery in Vienna, Austria"/* Description in ENglish */
LAST|Lde|"Soldatenfriedhof Mauer"/* Label in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Dde|"Soldatenfriedhof in Wien, Österreich"/* Description in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Ade|"Sachsengrab"/* Alias in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q361/* instance of war cemetery - of World War I */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q153650/* instance of war cemetery - of Austro-Prussian War */
LAST|P17|Q40/* country */
LAST|P18|"War grave for Austro-Prussian War on the cemetery Mauer in Vienna, Austria-full PNr°0584.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P18|"War grave for Austro-Prussian War on the cemetery Mauer in Vienna, Austria-grave stone PNr°0585.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P131|Q1910986/* located in the administrative territorial entity */
LAST|P373|"Friedhof Mauer, Vienna - Sachsengrab 1866"/* Commons category */
LAST|P361|Q1457371/* part of */
LAST|P625|@48.153815/16.275054/* coordinate location */
LAST|P706|Q1457371/* located on terrain feature */
LAST|P1705|de:"Sachsengrab"/* native label */
LAST|Scommonswiki|"Category:Friedhof Mauer, Vienna - Sachsengrab 1866"/* Link */

/* 
		Hütteldorf
*/
CREATE
LAST|Len|"war cemetery Hütteldorf"/* Label in ENglish */
LAST|Den|"war cemetery in Vienna, Austria"/* Description in ENglish */
LAST|Lde|"Soldatenfriedhof Hütteldorf"/* Label in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Dde|"Soldatenfriedhof in Wien, Österreich"/* Description in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q362/* instance of war cemetery - of World War II */
LAST|P17|Q40/* country */
LAST|P18|"War grave for World war II on the cemetery Hütteldorf in Vienna, Austria-full PNr°0582.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P131|Q1423660/* located in the administrative territorial entity */
LAST|P373|"Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Hütteldorfer Friedhof (Zweiter Weltkrieg, deutsch)"/* Commons category */
LAST|P361|Q1652549/* part of */
LAST|P625|@48.204782/16.245214/* coordinate location */
LAST|P706|Q1652549/* located on terrain feature */
LAST|P2324|17|P642|Q128781/* quantity buried */
LAST|P2351|1/* number of graves */
LAST|Scommonswiki|"Category:Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Hütteldorfer Friedhof (Zweiter Weltkrieg, deutsch)"/* Link */
Q1652549|P527|LAST/* has part */

/* 
		Liesing
*/
CREATE
LAST|Len|"war cemetery Liesing"/* Label in ENglish */
LAST|Den|"war cemetery in Vienna, Austria"/* Description in ENglish */
LAST|Lde|"Soldatenfriedhof Liesing"/* Label in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|Dde|"Soldatenfriedhof in Wien, Österreich"/* Description in DEutsch (german) */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q361/* instance of war cemetery - of World War I */
LAST|P31|Q1707610|P642|Q362/* instance of war cemetery - of World War II */
LAST|P17|Q40/* country */
LAST|P18|"War grave for World war I+II on the cemetery Liesing in Vienna, Austria-part PNr°0551.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P18|"War grave for World war I+II on the cemetery Liesing in Vienna, Austria-grave stone PNr°0550.jpg"/* image */
LAST|P131|Q1824343/* located in the administrative territorial entity */
LAST|P373|"Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Liesinger Friedhof"/* Commons category */
LAST|P361|Q1457363/* part of */
LAST|P625|@48.132124/16.293827/* coordinate location */
LAST|P706|Q1457363/* located on terrain feature */
LAST|P2324|24|P642|Q361/* quantity buried */
LAST|P2324|3|P642|Q362/* quantity buried */
LAST|P2351|1/* number of graves */
LAST|Scommonswiki|"Category:Soldatenfriedhof Wien-Liesinger Friedhof"/* Link */

Thanks for your help --D-Kuru (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @D-Kuru: did you use a tab character for separation (instead of the pipe symbol |)? ([...] Hint: You can also use a spreadsheet software such as Excel; Copying/pasting the cells should automatically insert TABs. [...] ) Using OpenOffice and Copy/Paste works for me fine to create the tab separation, some text editors might convert the tab character to spaces. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the commands with LAST anywhere but at the beginning still don't work. (The behavior is said to be different when you run batches synchronously and asynchronously, so not really sure about both.) --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@M2k~dewiki: I have a template with things that could be added to a new item here. I copy it and change the values to whatever fits the item or remove it when I can not find the information. The code was exactly entered as it is shown in the expandable section. I prewrote the code in Notepad++ using the pipe character (as the help page said that it can be used for QSv2). The problem in the end was how QS interpreted the code.
@Matěj Suchánek: Well, then I have to test this. It sucks that this can only be tested on Item creation though. I read that there is a special test page if you want to test stuff, but I don't think that there is a whole Wikidata sandbox where you can create temporary items that never show up in the database and will be deleted once the test is over.
Now to the interesting thing: I copied the code to QS and tested it again. There is told me that it would create new items and listed their statements. I did not test if it would do the same thing again, but the list of items looked completely different. So I guess that it would work.
What I think happened is something I already noticed on Commons. I opened the QS window and edited the code. Since the code is a bit larger and I tried to be as careful as possible it took like 45 minutes. I think the window had some kind of timeout. What happens after that timeout is the site is processed without any detail you entered. On Commons it was that an image I wanted to upload reset the upload page. Here it might be that the page does not process any statement data.
I have no idea if this is because of Firefox, Windows or Wikipedia. It would be interesting to ask if Wikipedia is designed to have some kind of timeout on it's pages, but who would I ask and where should I do that?
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
We do have testwikidata:. I think the kind of timeout could be expiration of the edit token used for security or session data. But I'm not sure (networking isn't my field). The best explanation can be given by some Wikimedia engineers who are best reachable via IRC (don't know which channel). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I have to take a closer look at test wikidata since it seems to be pretty much to be what I'm searching for. The rest also needs a deeper look into I guess --D-Kuru (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: I took a acloser look at it. Well, "The Test Wikidata is for developers to test their code without breaking all of Wikimedia". I also would have to have admin rights to edit it. So unfortunately I can not use Test Wikidata to test wround with creatig items. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. I can see even anonymous users editing it and QS does offer Wikidata-test. But I cannot help you more now, sorry. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

PetScan problem: 504 Gateway Time-out

The tool PetScan (http://petscan.wmflabs.org/), which is very useful for creating new wikidata objects for unconnected items or adding statements to existing objects, returns a 504 Gateway Time-out for about one week now. It has been working twice again inbetween, but failed again after one or two days (also see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:PetScan#Down). Is it possible to check/restart, ... this tool? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Compound family name

How would I display a compound family name? A random example being Sally Morrison-Griffiths (Q58424961). Would it be Morrison (Q2780711), series ordinal = 1, Griffiths (Q21508954), series ordinal 2, or make another item? Nat965 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

legislative election

Hello. I am working with 2016 Cypriot legislative election (Q20948997). Do you know a good example of an item about legislative election of other country? Or do you know any importang statements that are not in the item? Do you know any way to add the seats each party won? Xaris333 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing about the seats. Moreove, do we have a property about "Electoral system" electoral system (Q182985), like Hare quota (Q2573853), Droop quota (Q1260232)? Xaris333 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

event cancelled. Request for deletion

One of my events has been canceled. I'd like to request a deletion for the page. I promise I will be more careful in the future to provide you with events that will become reality.

Why canceling?--Trade (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Item Category:1780s (Q6672453) seems broken.

Item Category:1780s (Q6672453) seems broken. I can't edit it at all, anybody else has the same problem? - FakirNL (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sitelinks were attached to a redirect; it should be fixed now. Peter James (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It works now, thanks for helping out! - FakirNL (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Baldry (Q21456453) has a technical problem

When attempting to edit Baldry (Q21456453), whether statements or sitelinks, changes cannot be saved because of an unspecified error. Maybe it has to do with the fact that someone mistakenly merged a wikimedia disambiguation page item into this name item a while ago? Levana Taylor (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a duplicate that was created in February, so possibly a database error when it was merged. I reverted the changes to the surname and merged the three disambiguation items. Peter James (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata generic tree problem

Since several days, Wikidata generic tree don't show me any label. And you? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that tool (specifically, its get_item_names.php helper) uses the wb_terms table, which is now empty (see archived announcement). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Could somebody help @Magnus Manske: updating the code? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox item creation. Where?

I'm working on a Python library to access Wikidata. I heavily used the Wikidata Sandbox Item (Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189)) to test item modification. But how/where can I test item creation or deletion? Sylvain Leroux (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried https://test.wikidata.org/ ? Also, I assume you're already familiar with pywikibot. Bovlb (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of https://test.wikidata.org/. Thanks for the link @Bovlb:. Regarding pywikibot, yes, I knew the project. But I wanted something a little bit different, specifically tailored for Wikidata (or Wikibase-based websites at large). It's still in its early infancy, but I imagine transparent navigation in the Wididata entity graph just like if it was a giant local datastructure:
     item = entity('Q42')
     print(item['P31'].label['en'])
OK. Don't let me discourage you, but there are a few more possibilities out there, including: Wikidata, python-wikibase, wikibase-api, and pywikibase. Good luck, and let us know how you get on! Bovlb (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: You're right, and I agree it is somehow reinventing the wheel. But I should admit it is also for the fun ;)

Given name and family name conflated in same item

Hi. I was editing Rifqah Olufunmilayo Okunlaya (Q61751272) and I spotted that the family name (P734) entry Olufunmilayo (Q61627926) includes both a family name (P734) and a given name (P735) in a single item. Looking at how the name is handled at https://www.jlis.it/article/view/9478, the surname is clearly Rifqah and Olufunmilayo is a given name (the name is abbreviated in the text to O. O. Rifqah). Both names require a new item. What is the best way to deal with Olufunmilayo (Q61627926)? Should I deprecate the whole item in some way or perhaps deprecate the native label and add a new label for Rifqah on its own? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Help!

Last week I created hundreds of new categories on Commons, on Mayors of Dutch municipalities, which I linked to Wikipedia lists, but now Pi bot is removing all the connections in favor of a category-to-category connection, which is totally unwanted: how can I stop that bot? See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Peel#Unwanted_moves_by_Pi_bot, where I get no reaction. This is making me feel pretty bad, I put a lot of effort in it. Can please someone stop that bot? Eissink (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

  • It's the standard approach.
If you want nl:Lijst van burgemeesters van Arnhem to link to c:Category:Mayors_of_Arnhem, you could add
  • [[c:Category:Mayors_of_Arnhem]]
  • or {{Commonscat|Mayors of Arnhem}}
to that page. This could also be generated by LUA for a series of pages. --- Jura 07:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is resolved. Thanks, Jurgen Eissink (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 09:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Janet L. Smith (Q88493012) seems to be duplicate of Janet L. Smith (Q66362741)

how should i resolve duplicates, if i am 100% sure ? Leela52452 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC) any OTHER suggestion or critique is preferred here

✓ Done @Jura1: that was quick and easy. thank you Leela52452 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC) any OTHER suggestion or critique is preferred here
This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 13:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tiles signs

Is there any wikidata item I can use for files in Commons:Category:Station tile signs in the Netherlands? When I search for 'tiles' in Wikidata I get nowhere.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Mostly in combination of P1071 (location).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, but then I have to create a whole top-down structure: 'tile', 'tile signs', 'station tile signs' and 'Station tile signs in the Netherlands'. I have little experience in this and dont to upset the whole applecart. There is Q3695082 (sign), Q468402 (tile), Q55488 (railway station) and Q55 (The Netherlands). Wich combinations are usefull? Most information can be derived by other ways. A specific railway station has a location, country and of course is a railway station. It seems to me that only Q3695082 (sign) and Q468402 (tile) combination is usefull to create.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I created tile signs (Q91011988). Many files in the Commons category 'Tile signs' can be coupled to the item via structured data. I have done a few, but there are lots more. Can be used in combination with P1071 (location). However the tiles the tiles are drawn, made and baked somewhere else then on the construction site. Also where the creative work lies is unclear. For simple text and designs the architect gives the instructions and the maker of the tiles only executes.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

legislative term and parties

Example: I want to show that La France insoumise (Q27978402) was one of the parties of 15th legislature of the Fifth French Republic (Q24939798). I have tried

La France insoumise (Q27978402) → member of (P463) → 15th legislature of the Fifth French Republic (Q24939798)

but I get value-type constraint (Q21510865).

Also I want to show the inverse. I want to list in 15th legislature of the Fifth French Republic (Q24939798) all political parties that take part.

Xaris333 (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's probably part of (P361) / has part(s) (P527). Although, it may be individual people who are members, perhaps nominated by parties, and people are indicated using a different mechanism. Ghouston (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

bot edits while maxlag at 4 minutes

So according to https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/000000170/wikidata-edits the maxlag value has been at or close to 4 minutes since mid-day today. Yet there are still bot accounts making edits right this second, am I misunderstanding something or shouldn't those be backing off as soon as maxlag goes above a much lower number like 5s (the typical value used)? --SilentSpike (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Most bots stopped at 12:00 server time, for 5 hours now (and counting). But I see LargeDatasetBot is indeed violating that. Edoderoo (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, maybe it is not as bad as I thought ... my scripts were also stopped, but it seems they got choked completely due to an internet outage here at home. Edoderoo (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Probox Module

I'm a relatively new wiki editor trying to get the Probox module working on the OpenStreetMap wiki. Can someone point me to a good place to learn more how the module works and how to build wiki pages to use it?

Thanks in advance Cliffordsnow (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you had a look at meta:Meta:Probox and meta:Template:Probox? Bovlb (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

heisenbug (Q54270)

I'm trying to add a link to the German project at heisenbug, but it "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed." It would be good to know what the error is to try to resolve it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because there were two items for the same thing, which I have now merged. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I see the entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Q91611683

I am getting an error of "Could not save due to an error.The save has failed." when trying to connect Hebrew article בין כל הרעשים. רונאלדיניו המלך (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 07:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge two ids ISNI for one person ?

Hello. I found two different ids ISNI for the mathematician Glenda Lappan (0000 0003 5183 7284 et 0000 0000 2990 5912), and I don't know if it's possible/necessary to merge them or if sombody here should inform the Isni staff. Maybe wikidata can deal with that and there will be no conflict, but it's the first time I meet such a situation and the only answer I received on the fr-wiki is to come here and explain... Thanks for your help. --Cbyd (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cbyd: You can go the URL for one of the ISNIs (isni.org/ the ISNI without spaces) and use the yellow "Please help us improve this record" link on the left to report an error, and in the description put the other ISNI and explain why they're the same person. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I had included both in wikidata and I could stop then, but my wikipediholism drives me to try to fix such problems when I notice... --Cbyd (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 13:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Birth place or place of birth register

Hello all!

Adam Alsing (Q3355833) was physically born in Stockholm (Q1754). "The problem is that the filed [ place of birth (P19) ] normally is where the mother of the child lived, or more exactly, where she was filed in the registry-books when the birth took place". Most sources state that the person was born in Karlstad (Q25457) due to that being the birth domicile (Q10501047) (place of register). How should the be denoted properly on the item? Both can't be used for birthplace, right+ Or if they should, which should be the preferred rank?

This was discussed in 2015 without much success or progress at Property talk:P19#method, and since this person, unfortunately, passed away yesterday due to COVID-19 (Q84263196) this is a high-impact item (in Sweden). (t) Josve05a (c) 22:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I've assumed it was supposed to be geographical place where the birth took place. Some people are even born in transit, e.g., in a ship or aircraft. The only time I remember it making a difference in an item I edited is Stewart McSweyn (Q36672959); his parents were from King Island, but since that's a small island with few medical facilities, people are generally not born there. Ghouston (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
If both can be sourced, one would want to include either anyways, ideally qualified with, e.g., criterion used (P1013). The question is then which rank to use. If this can't be answered all would have normal rank. --- Jura 05:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
For the most part, modern man is going to be born in the town of the nearest hospital. Which is not going to be the town of "OMG, my water broke, let's go to the hospital", or the town where one resides immediately after. I always list place of actual birth, which would be the town with the hospital, not the address filled in on the admissions form. Quakewoody (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international project, so words have the meaning they have in ordinary language, not the meaning they have in some obscure law or rule in some individual country, state, or province. The place of birth is the physical place of birth, regardless of any strange definition that might exist in some law.
Laws do create requirements about where the birth should be registered, where the birth records are kept, where the records may be accessed, and who may access the records. Often, this is irrelevant for Wikidata because for people who are still alive or who died recently, the official records of their birth are not accessible to the general public, and even if they were, it would be difficult to reliably determine that a certain official birth record refers to some well-known adult who is the topic of a Wikidata item. Therefore, Wikidata should rely on reliable independent published sources, not official birth records.
In the cases where an official birth record would be appropriate to use, if there is an "official" birth location that differs from the physical birth location, that should be regarded as a matter of referencing (that is, something that helps in finding the correct official birth record). It is not a fact that pertains to the person, only a referencing detail. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
To return the original question. I think the question was how to record "place of birth" that appears in w:Swedish_passport#Identity_information_page. place of birth (P19) seems fine. --- Jura 11:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
In the past when discussed we assigned the birth/death location as the hospital. We also used "residence" and added the year of birth. Same for death, you may die in a hospital, and have your residence listed as your home town. I don't know if everyone adopted that way of adding it. --RAN (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

implementing the wikidata search autocomplete in an external project

Fellow Wikidata enthusiasts! I am working on a website/tool that lets people explore wikidata data. However, I would like to enable the users to search for anything within wikidata. In the same way SQID does it: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/ SO I am trying to make an autocomplete search field that proposes wikidata results. I use HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. I am not very familiar with other languages. Any help to get me on my way is greatly appreciated!--Daanvr (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Link to REDIRECT on Wikipedia

There a quite a few items on Wikidata that are collected in one article on Wikipedia, however, they do have a redirect leading to the main article. I have seen this very often with list articles or other articles where two very similar topics are described.
On the item itself I saw that you can select the redirect page and there even is some sort of qualifier that says it's an (intentional) sitelink to a redirect. Yet I only get the error "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed."
Any ideas? --D-Kuru (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

D-Kuru See Help:Sitelinks#Linking_to_Wikimedia_site_pages. If a redirect already exists on Wikipedia, the simplest way to link WIkidata is to temporarily break the redirect (e.g. remove the "#"), connect Wikidata to the redirect, then restore the redirect to its original target. See for instance the revision history of Guy Lombardo and His Royal Canadians. -Animalparty (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. Even I understand the reason behind it, it is still a stupid idea if you want to connect to a redirect. It takes two extra edits and more time for the exact same result. --D-Kuru (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
See phab:T54564 for a proposal to permit sitelinks that are redirects. Bovlb (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It takes less effort to link to a Wikipedia redirect than to create a new article or redirect, or even to add a couple additional properties to the item. I don't know exactly why one can't link directly to a redirect immediately (possibly to prevent inadvertently linking to typos or alternate spellings of existing items as opposed to to sub-topics: there are multiple classes of redirects), but I don't think the process is stupid. -Animalparty (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe the rationale is: 1) most redirects represent synonym expressions; 2) an item with a redirect sitelink is therefore likely to be a duplicate of another item (with the redirect target); and 3) we don't like having duplicates. Bovlb (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree to Bovlb. In general a wd-link to a redirect is not wanted, but there might be exceptions, especially when an item in language A is redirected to something general, and more specific in language B, with a chance that language A might get a "full item" in the future. If you have a long list of such items, and the community agrees on it, such a list might be imported/processed by a bot script, then you can request it on WD:RBOT. If it's just a few items, you can do the above trick manually. Edoderoo (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
An example already exists for Canon PowerShot S95 (Q5033267). The camera has it's own article on en.wikipedia. On de.wikipedia it is collected in the list article Canon Powershot S, but the page Canon PowerShot S95 redirects to the list article. You can not enter the list page for all items that appear on said list. Beeing a redirect maybe the S95 will never have it's own article. Maybe. The Canon Powershot S100 has it's own article page. Maybe someone will work on the S95 article in the future and will turn the redirect into an article.
My point here is if it is not wanted to add sitelinks to redirects, then they should be removed alltogether. If the sitelink to redirect A is bad, than the sitelink to redirect B has to be as well, right? But since it is possible to bypass the restriction by breaking the redirect and then reverting the edit, you can link an item to a redirect that links to a page where more than just this one is described. There are plenty of other examples and I don't see the point to have two extra edits on every Wikipedia that has a redirect just because Wikidata likes to be the stick in the gear.
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Let me remind that links to redirects are officially allowed even if it's a technically problematic. --Infovarius (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Birth place or place of birth register

Hello all!

Adam Alsing (Q3355833) was physically born in Stockholm (Q1754). "The problem is that the filed [ place of birth (P19) ] normally is where the mother of the child lived, or more exactly, where she was filed in the registry-books when the birth took place". Most sources state that the person was born in Karlstad (Q25457) due to that being the birth domicile (Q10501047) (place of register). How should the be denoted properly on the item? Both can't be used for birthplace, right+ Or if they should, which should be the preferred rank?

This was discussed in 2015 without much success or progress at Property talk:P19#method, and since this person, unfortunately, passed away yesterday due to COVID-19 (Q84263196) this is a high-impact item (in Sweden). (t) Josve05a (c) 22:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I've assumed it was supposed to be geographical place where the birth took place. Some people are even born in transit, e.g., in a ship or aircraft. The only time I remember it making a difference in an item I edited is Stewart McSweyn (Q36672959); his parents were from King Island, but since that's a small island with few medical facilities, people are generally not born there. Ghouston (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
If both can be sourced, one would want to include either anyways, ideally qualified with, e.g., criterion used (P1013). The question is then which rank to use. If this can't be answered all would have normal rank. --- Jura 05:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
For the most part, modern man is going to be born in the town of the nearest hospital. Which is not going to be the town of "OMG, my water broke, let's go to the hospital", or the town where one resides immediately after. I always list place of actual birth, which would be the town with the hospital, not the address filled in on the admissions form. Quakewoody (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international project, so words have the meaning they have in ordinary language, not the meaning they have in some obscure law or rule in some individual country, state, or province. The place of birth is the physical place of birth, regardless of any strange definition that might exist in some law.
Laws do create requirements about where the birth should be registered, where the birth records are kept, where the records may be accessed, and who may access the records. Often, this is irrelevant for Wikidata because for people who are still alive or who died recently, the official records of their birth are not accessible to the general public, and even if they were, it would be difficult to reliably determine that a certain official birth record refers to some well-known adult who is the topic of a Wikidata item. Therefore, Wikidata should rely on reliable independent published sources, not official birth records.
In the cases where an official birth record would be appropriate to use, if there is an "official" birth location that differs from the physical birth location, that should be regarded as a matter of referencing (that is, something that helps in finding the correct official birth record). It is not a fact that pertains to the person, only a referencing detail. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
To return the original question. I think the question was how to record "place of birth" that appears in w:Swedish_passport#Identity_information_page. place of birth (P19) seems fine. --- Jura 11:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
In the past when discussed we assigned the birth/death location as the hospital. We also used "residence" and added the year of birth. Same for death, you may die in a hospital, and have your residence listed as your home town. I don't know if everyone adopted that way of adding it. --RAN (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Lists of

If we have lists of presidents or cars. How to list them? Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are lists held at Wikipedia and described here. You would have to make the list there. The problem is that you may spend a month creating a list, lets say, of all the mayors of a town for the past 200 years, only to have it deleted. There was a large purge of lists a few years ago. The ruling at the time was the list had to appear in a reference work already. Otherwise it was original research or not Wikipedia notable. However, that list would be welcome here, using either of the two methods I described. --RAN (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: What did you want to make a list of? --RAN (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): List of certifications received by artist but we can say whatever. Eurohunter (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
So I take it that for a given artist, you are talking about a list of existing (or creatable) items describing certifications, to be attached to the item for the artist as properties. The list itself wouldn't be an item. I presume that the meaningful order for the list could be derived from the date each certification was granted, so you wouldn't need any property to order it, just a property for the fact that the artist received a certification, and then in reporting it you could have your order based on a date qualifier. - Jmabel (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

implementing the wikidata search autocomplete in an external project

Fellow Wikidata enthusiasts! I am working on a website/tool that lets people explore wikidata data. However, I would like to enable the users to search for anything within wikidata. In the same way SQID does it: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/ SO I am trying to make an autocomplete search field that proposes wikidata results. I use HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. I am not very familiar with other languages. Any help to get me on my way is greatly appreciated!--Daanvr (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Trying to add Swedish page of Research assistant, but fails

Hi, I'm trying to add the Swedish page of "Research Assistant". I go into the related wikidata page (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5405633#sitelinks-wikipedia) and I add "sv" and the name of the page in Swedish "Forskningsassistent". However when I click on publish, it tells me "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed." but with no other explanation. THe swedish page is (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forskningsassistent). Can someone help me?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fcole90 (talk • contribs).

MediaWiki:Wikibase-validator-sitelink-conflict encourages deletion of duplicates

MediaWiki:Wikibase-validator-sitelink-conflict currently says: Site link $1 is already used by item $2. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Request deletion of one of the items at d:Wikidata:Requests for deletions, or ask at d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts if you believe that they should not be merged. This is the message that you see when you try to undo or rollback the deletion of sitelinks that have subsequently been added elsewhere.

I think this is bad advice, because it is not our practice to merge and then delete; rather, we merge and leave a redirect. This is important because Wikidata ids are intended to be permanent identifiers and may be used by external sites. Keeping the redirect allows eventual merging of records, whereas deletion does not.

I propose to change this message to:

Site link $1 is already used by item $2. Perhaps the items should be merged. Ask at d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts if you believe that they should not be merged.

Bovlb (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Strong support sure, the current formulation is really outdated! --Epìdosis 16:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Note also the discussion at Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Redirect_vs._deletion which suggests that Deleting is however appropriate if an item has not been existed longer than 24 hours and if it's clear that it's not in use elsewhere. Bovlb (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Change made. Bovlb (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Blank node deprecation in WDQS & Wikibase RDF model

Hi,

This message is relevant for people writing SPARQL queries and using the Wikidata Query Service:

As part of the work of redesigning the WDQS updater we identified that blank nodes are problematic and we plan to deprecate their usage in the wikibase RDF model. To ease the deprecation process we are introducing the new function wikibase:isSomeValue() that can be used in place of isBlank() when it was used to filter SomeValue.

What does this mean for you: nothing will change for now, we are only interested to know if you encounter any issues with the wikibase:isSomeValue() function when used as a replacement of the isBlank() function. More importantly, if you used the isBlank() function for other purposes than identifying SomeValue (unknown values in the UI), please let us know as soon as possible.

The current plan is as follow:

Step 1: Introduce a new wikibase:isSomeValue() function

We are at this step. You can already use wikibase:isSomeValue() in the Query Service. Here’s an example query (Humans whose gender we know we don't know): 

SELECT ?human WHERE {
  ?human wdt:P21 ?gender
  FILTER wikibase:isSomeValue(?gender)
}
Try it!

You can also search the wiki to find all the pages where the function isBlank() is referenced in a SPARQL query.

Step 2: Generate stable labels for blank nodes in the wikibase RDF output

Instead of autogenerated blank node labels wikidata will now provide a stable label for blank nodes. In other words the wikibase triples using blank nodes such as:

s:Q2-6657d0b5-4aa4-b465-12ed-d1b8a04ef658 ps:P576 _:genid2 ;

will become

s:Q2-6657d0b5-4aa4-b465-12ed-d1b8a04ef658 ps:P576 _:1668ace9a6860f7b32569c45fe5a5c0d ;

This is not a breaking change.

Step 3: [BREAKING CHANGE] Convert blank nodes to IRIs in the WDQS updater

At this point some WDQS servers will start returning IRIs such as http://www.wikidata.org/somevalue/1668ace9a6860f7b32569c45fe5a5c0d (the exact form of the IRI is still under discussion) instead of blank node literals like t1514691780 auto-generated by blazegraph. Queries still using isBlank() will stop functioning. Tools explicitly relying on the presence of blank nodes (t1514691780) in the query results will also be affected.

We don’t have a defined date for this change yet, but we will follow the Wikidata breaking change process (announcing the change 4 weeks in advance).

Step 4: [BREAKING CHANGE] Change the RDF model and remove blank nodes completely from the RDF dumps

Instead of doing the conversion and blank node removal in the WDQS updater we will do it at RDF generation. This is a breaking change of the somevalue section of the RDF model and the no value constraint for properties.

We don’t have a defined date for this change yet, but we will follow the Wikidata breaking change process (announcing the change 4 weeks in advance).

NOTE: If you encounter issues using wikibase:isSomeValue() or if you have questions about the process, feel free to write a comment on the Phabricator ticket or the contact page.

Thanks! DCausse (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-ranking items in a long list

hello! In Q73022, the population entries are quite jumbled, not in chronological order. I could not find how to rearrange the items without having to delete the entries and re-add them manually. There has to be a better way... Can anyone help? Thanks a lot Teemeah (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to come up lot lately, please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Reordering_different_values_datewise above. In Wikidata, the order shown in the UI is irrelevant to the data (can be inconvenient as an editor I admit). Any sort of data "order" must be declared using qualifiers. --SilentSpike (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Teemeah: I am using ru:Википедия:WEF for sorting population data. --Infovarius (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: how do you that? which tool in that list? Teemeah (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I found it after installing the tool, and oh wow, this is incredibly useful! Thank you for the suggestion! Teemeah (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@SilentSpike: but what qualifiers? How? This is not an editorial inconvenience but these data are pulled to infoboxes in wikis and are displayed for readers in a jumbled order. Which is not an inconvenience but simply looks stupid and irrational. Wikidata people need to understand that if wikipedia integration is done to all the data, it will be displayed and it's not only bots and databases using wd data, but the interface in wikipedia, too. En masse, at that. if there is no solution, then developers need to find one, because then there is no reason to automatically pull data from wd into wp.... I can manually enter that into the infobox in the right order, but that's just one language wp. It's easier to maintain such data in wd and pull to wp, that was the original intention of having wikidata in the first place, right? :) Teemeah (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Teemeah: I'd just preface what I'm saying with, I'm primarily a Wikidata user and so maybe don't appreciate the Wikipedia side of using the data here. However, looking at it purely from a data point of view, the "order" which you are seeing is just the order statements were added (which is why deleting and re-adding changes it). It may be nice when that order happens to align with a desired order (chronological as seen in this case), but for any machine reading that data (and this includes use at Wikipedia) there's no indication that the order is chronological unless qualifying data is added (which has correctly been done on your example item using point in time (P585)) and the machine is checking that. So, from my perspective (purely considering the data) the data needs to be ordered by the data user (in this case Wikipedia) according to the qualifiers as desired - especially because there are many possible ways the data could be ordered.
   All of that said, perhaps Wikidata could be doing some form of native "most-reasonable" qualifier sorting so that there's a standard expected order when accessing it, but there are still potential pitfalls to assuming an order because it may be that not all statements are qualified. I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from when talking about "order" and why it's not as simple as it seems. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

participant or candidate

For legislative election (Q2618461) should I use participant (P710) or candidate (P726) to list the political parties? For example,

Xaris333 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Child prodigy

For the child prodigy (Q205178) is most correct has characteristic (P1552) or significant event (P793)? --151.49.56.117 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • My first instinct would be to say that this is a very unspecific claim and it would make sense to focus on more concrete claims about what the person did as a child to qualify them as having special abilities. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Child prodigy

For the child prodigy (Q205178) is most correct has characteristic (P1552) or significant event (P793)? --151.49.56.117 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of an earlier question on this page. Please be patient, someone will answer your earlier question before it is archived. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Since there is some answered questions after my one, I thought it hadn't been seen... --151.49.56.117 15:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia redirect (Q21528878)

Does it make sense to have any direct instance items of this class? If single sitelink is redirect then either it should be merged somewhere or it has some separate meaning (and it's not "redirect") - e.g. Q56441264. If there are other sitelinks (not redirects) then this P31 doesn't make sense either. I can imagine to have it as a badge to a sitelink, but we already have sitelink to redirect (Q70893996). Any other possible uses? --Infovarius (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Aie .. looking at a few items with P31=Q21528878, I don't really understand why they are there.
Either these items should be deleted, merged or changed to a better P31 value. --- Jura 05:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata module error?

What's with the error now affecting many Commons image files? The File description field is blanked and instead the following error message is splashed in red:

Lua error in Module:Wikidata_label at line 52: Tried to write global yesno
— JGHowes (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@JGHowes: fixed here, I suppose. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 Resolved thanks — JGHowes (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #412

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • Ordia generates statistics from Wikidata lexeme information, and through the "Text to Lexemes" feature allows linking a document to the associated lexemes, and highlighting missing lexemes that can be added.
  • Development
    • Prototyping week: the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Germany spent one week working on some quick experiements. The projects developed during this week are not necessarily going to be added to the maintained codebase. Among those projects:
      • try to use GraphQL for the API providing access to Wikibase/Wikidata data
      • allow to programmatically access different configuration variables of a Wikibase instance to make it easier for tools to built on top of it
      • investigate ranking for Items to order them by their relevance in a query result
      • com up with a workflows for editing statements linking to other Items in the Wikidata Bridge
      • identify how to improve Wikidata's accessibility
      • create design system components to continue improving consistency

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Chemical element groups and periods... shouldn't they be properties?

I'm trying to integrate Wikidata into the Danish Wikipedias infobox on chemical elements, and noticed that groups group (Q83306) and periods period (Q101843) are items and not properties. I'd argue it would make sense to have them as properties as for example beryllium (Q569) would have the value of Property 'Group' be alkaline earth metal (Q19563) and the value of property 'Period' be period 2 (Q207712), which would enable them to more easily be included in other projects. At it stands, both of those values are currently used with part of (P361) which doesn't seem very useful for this purpose. However, I'm new here and would like to make sure that I've understood the project correctly. Would it make sense to have Properties for chemical group and chemical period, for use on chemical elements on the periodic table? I'm not looking to make a mess --Metalindustrien (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Hugo
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Leiem
Christianhauck
SCIdude
Binter
Photocyte
Robert Giessmann
Cord Wiljes
Adriano Rutz
Jonathan Bisson
GrndStt
Ameisenigel
Charles Tapley Hoyt
ChemHobby
Peter Murray-Rust
Erfurth
TiagoLubiana

Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

@Metalindustrien: We do have a Chemistry Wikiproject here (pinged), they may have some opinions. However, I think in general Wikidata has avoided generating too many properties that would apply only to a small number of potential items - in this case just over 100. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd say, if a wiki can fetch both group and period unambiguously from the item (while being part of (P361)), this does not need a separate property. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually instance of (P31) would be better suited, this is a « classification » of elements, nothing like physical parts … part of (P361)/has part(s) (P527) are suited for something like « oxygen part of water » which is nowhere close in meaning to « oxygen part of group whatever of chemical elements ». See Help:BMP for example.
There are several classes of elements, metallic elements for example. This should be represented as
⟨ iron (Q677)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ metallic element ⟩
, not
⟨ iron (Q677)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ part of (P361) View with SQID ⟨ metallic element ⟩
. Alternatively this could be a subclass of « metal atom » if we have a class for all metal atoms. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous proposals:

--GZWDer (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The problem with items like period 2 (Q207712) is that in some languages it is period X and in some element of period X, so it's not that simple to choose between P31/P279 and P361/P527. Wostr (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • group (Q83306): IIA and period (Q101843): 2 are also OK. --Leiem (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • period 2 (Q207712) has "instance of: period" and "has part: chemical element". Peter James (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • part of (P361) is never appropriate. This would be a conflict between two very different meaning. The correct one in the usual meaning of part of (P361) in ontologies is « oxygen is part of water », which is nothing like the examples above. The periodic table of elements is not made of elements, it’s just a way to represent a certain way of sorting them. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • So there should be separate items "set of elements depicted in period 2", "set of elements depicted in the periodic table"? and Q207712 should be an instance of something else? Peter James (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
        • No, you don’t need « set of elements depicted in period 2. You just need to assume that « period 2 » is a class of chemical element, with the usual definition of this kind of element (for period 2, a period 2 element could be defined as an element with 2 electron shells for example). Then the elements are simply instance of this element class. You would just have something like
          ⟨ carbon ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ period 2 ⟩
          (carbon is a perdiod 2 element) and
          ⟨ period 2 ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ chemical element ⟩
          (any period 2 element is a chemical element).

          (alternatively or in complement we could have another item for « period 2 atom », with just

          ⟨ carbon ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ period 2 atom ⟩
          if carbon is a class of atoms. Possible definition : atom with two electron shells. Then any carbon atom is also a period 2 atom, that would also make sense). Maybe some of the definition of some of those element-classes could give rise to properties such as « number of electron shell(s) » or something like that. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are so mamy of the Abuse Filters marked as private?

In what way is this beneficial? There's quite a few of them that i want to read but can't --Trade (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: I cannot speak for every edit filter, but the general problem is that, for many of them, if you knew the exact rule they used, then it would be fairly trivial to work around them. Bovlb (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Why not just make the abuse filter public while keeping the exact rules private?--Trade (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: I'm not sure what you mean here. We can't just hide a filter's conditions without hiding the whole filter as well (and vice versa; beyond public things like the description), unfortunately.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In almost all cases, I would be happy to let established users view filter conditions, but I don't think that's an option we have available to us. It certainly is difficult today to collaborate on filter development. Bovlb (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In general, I would encourage those who are interested in managing abuse filters to apply for administrator (that includes you Trade).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

artificially interlegent

What's it meaning?

@197.210.174.172: Have you looked at en:Artificial intelligence or simple:Artificial intelligence? Bovlb (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Coalition of political parties

Hello. Two political parties were candidates to elections as "party coalition" (sorry for my English). One was a "big" party and the other was a small party if that helps. How to add these party coalition to election item? Please see how I add them in 1996 Cypriot legislative election (Q3496803).

⟨ 1996 Cypriot legislative election (Q3496803)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ participant (P710) View with SQID ⟨ Democratic Rally (Q644973)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
together with (P1706) View with SQID ⟨ Liberal Party (Cyprus) (Q66041235)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

Or should I create a new item with the label "Democratic Rally-Liberal Party coalition" ?

Xaris333 (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of existing instances of political coalition (Q6138528). Ghouston (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The coalition was just for the elections. But ok, I will create a new item. Xaris333 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Co-topic graph

In the same way that scholia calculates a co-author graph, I've been working on visualising co-topic graphs for topics that appear together as main subject (P921)s in publications. See the initial results below drawing from wikidata and visualising using [R] and D3:

T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the OWL file for wikidata?

The only ontology that I have found so far is http://wikiba.se/ontology-1.0.owl. Is there a different url / method to retrieve / navigate the ontology?

--Helt cs (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Helt cs: The OWL file you cite is just for the structure of the RDF embedding. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but:

See also Wikidata:RDF. Bovlb (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Thank you for your answer and the links. In my understanding (and thats what I am looking for), an ontology contains the "core data model" of a data store (please correct me if I misunderstood something here). With an Turtle RDF embedding, I can build the data model of that embedding, but I will probably (?) get a subset of the global core data model, even I recursively follow certain links. However, I want the full data model. After surfing wikidata a bit more, I tend to think, that the way to go is to extract the data model by following a few (manually selected) properties of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16354757 . I hoped that there is an easier way to derive this backbone data model, but it seems like this is not the case :/ --Helt cs (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Helt cs: OK. If you could explain more about your use case (what you plan to do with the data), then perhaps we could be more helpful. Bovlb (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Currently, I want to understand the core elements of the wikidata data model, and my understanding is that an owl file would provide that in a machine readable way. I know there are help pages and special pages that help to wrap my head around the wikidata data model (and those are indeed helpful for me), but I wonder why (if) those pages are presented elsewhere in a form which boils down to accepted standards like OWL2, RDF/S and alike.

I think the query select ?s ?q { ?s wdt:P279 ?o . SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } } would produce a class graph of wikidata. It should be somewhere between "visualize whole wikidata" and "visualize the core structure of wikidata", right? When I step back a bit and look at it from a different angle, the first thing I want to, is to translate RDFS vocab into the wikidata vocabulary. In other words, I look for queries, which use RDFS-types as input and produce the wikidata-equivalent as output, e.g.

--Helt cs (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Phonetic code cleanup: how could it be done?

I just got done adding Caverphone codes to some 11K surname items. This included nearly every previously-uncoded name with its language stated as English or its native label tagged as English-language, plus several thousand multilanguage names. I skipped double names because I'm not sure whether they should have a Caverphone or Soundex code at all.

Caverphone is a phonetic algorithm intended to convert surnames to a generalized sound pattern so that names that sound vaguely alike can be grouped together regardless of spelling -- nice for searching census records and other sources with greatly variable spelling of the same names. It comes with the caveat that it can only be sensibly used for names that have an evident or established way of pronouncing them in English; more importantly, if the spelling of what you're coding doesn't follow English rules, the code must be recalculated to accord with the pronunciation. The result of simply applying the Caverphone algorithm to the letters of "Pawełczuk" or "Duchesne" is not useful (what's the problem? well, you want Duchesne, Duchene, and Dushane to be in the same set of sound-alikes, which won't happen if you code them as TKSN, TKN, and TSN instead of correctly all TSN). Whenever I manually adjust the code I add the IPA transcription, with a reference if at all possible; see Grosvenor (Q16870332) for an example. The same remarks hold for Cologne Phonetics, which is an algorithm for German pronunciation and spelling only.

Here are some online resources for finding English-language surname pronunciations [caveat lector as regards their reliability]:

This brings me to the problem of cleanup. There are multi-thousands of incorrect phonetic codes in Wikidata due to people applying the Caverphone and Cologne Phonetics algorithms without taking into account whether the name uses English/German spelling and without determining the pronunciation of anomalous spellings. Today I already corrected the codes for Grosvenor, Schleier (Q37549020), Thiebaud (Q37562931), Cipollone (Q36990500), Lanaux (Q37498663), Alejandrino (Q37449990), and many a more, and deleted the Caverphone for Kocourek (Q24352976) because I could not determine the English pronunciation if any (don't worry, I'm not going around deleting statements en masse -- it might be called for as part of the cleanup project, but only if agreed on). The thing is, I have no idea how to find the errors. Simply checking everything would be impossible. Do any of you have clever ideas for finding at least some of the problems? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @GZWDer: --- Jura 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The method described in w:Caverphone#Procedure (and code in links below) is based on spelling only. Anything not in a-z is simply removed.--GZWDer (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the problem is, we're using Caverphone for a purpose it was never designed for. It was originally developed for one specific set of 19th/early 20th-century census records and the spellings used in those records. We, on the other hand, are applying it to every name in the world -- not even just ones that are common in English-speaking countries; anyway, the concept of standard English surnames is pretty meaningless in the US and Canada, and increasingly so in the UK. If we want it to serve this new purpose, we have to adapt it, we can't have things both ways with both broadness and simplicity. What's your suggestion for some way to use it to discover that the anglicized spelling of Duchene is Dushane not Dukane? That is to say, using the algorithm blindly not only doesn't give you the right information, it gives you the wrong information: tells you that Duchene = Dukane. Levana Taylor (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Addendum: Well, it seems I chose a bad example there. The English family Duchesne does or did pronounce it /duˈkɑːn/ so probably Dukane is a respelling of that. Still, I stand by my general point. Levana Taylor (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Levana Taylor: I'm not quite sure what you're looking for, but are you familiar with WDQS and querying Wikidata with SPARQL? It seems at least some likely lists of candidates with problems could be generated that way. Also it sounds like mismatches between IPA and these phonetic codes might be helpful, I don't know how many have IPA transcriptions now, but you might want to generate comparisons and find some algorithmic way to compare? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the answer to how many names have IPA transcriptions, is practically none. In all my time editing name records, I never saw a single IPA statement until I started adding them this week. And I've only added very few. Levana Taylor (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a proposal which I think could be extremely helpful, although it'd take a long time to add this additional information to the existing items. Namely: add a qualifier (I suggest criterion used (P1013)) to every Caverphone and Cologne Phonetics code stating whether it's calculated in accordance with the written letters, the pronunciation, or both (and if pronunciation, specify a language). That would allow for powerful focussed searching, where you could filter out everything but phonetically-based codes in one language if you want to. And if you don't know the pronunciation, no worries, just create a spelling-based code and label it as such; the qualifier will allow people to filter it out or go back and add a pronunciation-based code at some point. I personally would have absolutely no objection to items having spelling-based codes if they were marked somehow and if pronunciation-based codes were allowed also. See Strachan (Q21508274) for an example of what this could look like. This name happens to have several variant pronunciations, some of which follow the letters and some of which don't. With qualifiers, multiple codes cause no confusion.

I suppose if I am proposing a major change to use of Caverphone/Cologne Phonetics, which would require some sort of help page written, it should be a RFC. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Personally, I looked into Soundex only, not the two others mentioned above. As I understand it, Soundex is meant to be an approximation based on how the name could be pronounced in English in order to find similar names. The ideas is not the codify the actual pronunciation. That it was developed for a purpose that is different from what people use it today shouldn't really matter that much. @GZWDer: who proposed it first. --- Jura 17:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Soundex is a bit of a different thing. It is indexed by, first, the initial letter of the word, and second, meta-phonetic representations of the following 3 or so consonants. It was invented back in 1918, for assembling literal paper indexes; you would start with the first letter of your target name, and scan over other names grouped together in that section of the index for potential matches, and then if, for example, you wanted to check if your name beginning with C might match one beginning with K, you'd flip to a different part of the book and check again. Computers allow so much more power, so why not use power? We are, in fact -- we're assembling a huge global dataset, bigger than could fit in paper books. But we shouldn't be doing that expansion stupidly.
Caverphone and KP, unlike Soundex, aspire to be easy ways of converting the entire word to a pattern that can be matched. When they are applied to a more-or-less uniform dataset, they are really successful, and produce few enough false codings not to worry about. But the more names you include in your set that match spelling to pronunciation in a way not taken into account by the code, the worse your output set of codings becomes. In my opinion, a global dataset turns worse into "what's the use"? To circumvent this problem, the simplest solution is to avoid including items in the dataset that fail in the algorithm. That's the heart of my proposal to add qualifiers to codes. Say whether the code does or doesn't match the pronunciation, or if the match status is unknown, so that people can filter appropriately. Another level of sophistication is to adapt the code to match the pronunciation, but admittedly there are pitfalls to such innovation. Nonetheless, if people do decide to add statements with adapted codes to items, qualifiers will be used to make it clear that that's what they are. Levana Taylor (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking at Caverphone, how is what you are proposing covered by w:Caverphone#Procedure? You seem to be using a different definition. If the Wikidata property is for Caverphone, then the value should reflect that. If you want to add some other value determined in a different way, then it should go into another property. Please propose it. There are some databases that use a qualifier to state that (e.g.) the date of birth is filled with "floruit" dates, but this isn't the way Wikidata properties work.--- Jura 10:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Tu as raison and also you are right! Can't just go making up a new way of using phonetic codes and calling it Caverphone. I retract that part of my suggestion. BUT I still think it would be a good idea to use a qualifier to indicate whether the caverphone code matches the pronunciation. I will write a new suggestion and post again. Levana Taylor (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Historical markers marked as parks

See for example Zion Lutheran Church Historical Marker (Q49584011) where an historical marker is marked as a "park", I see a tranche of them imported from Geonames by the Philippine group. Should I add in instance_of "commemorative plaque" and leave "park"? --RAN (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The "park" comes from ceb, which in turns picked it from geonames, which in turn picked it from GNIS [14]. Apparently GNIS has no category for historical marker, and their definition of park vaguely includes them "Place or area set aside for recreation or preservation of a cultural or natural resource and under some form of government administration" (emphasis by me). So given the name of the item, I'd set the park to deprecated state. Take a look on what I changed in the item, funnily we even already had a photo of it :-) Only odd that the marker seems to be more notable than the church itself... 07:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There is bout 50 of them I have to fix. If we had an entry for the church, like we do now, Zion Lutheran Church (Q91490642) it would probably not be worth making entries just for the plaques, we have a spot for plaque image in the church entry. Someone asked if it was worth creating an entry for a tombstone. The answer was to just add the photo to the person, not make a separate entry. Unless somehow it was an extra special tombstone. --RAN (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I get an error trying to merge 2 items

Hi!

I try to merge Q9953588 and Q9698620 but I get an error message.

Could anyone perhaps tell me what the problem is?

Both categories should be to Public Domain files with the template "PD-self". --MGA73 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Items with ?itemsubclass of (P279)border (Q133346) and ?iteminstance of (P31)border checkpoint (Q757292)

@Wlodek k1: You added both ?itemsubclass of (P279)border (Q133346) and ?iteminstance of (P31)border checkpoint (Q757292) on a bunch of items. I don't think both these statements in conjunction makes sense, I think ?itemsubclass of (P279)border (Q133346) should be removed so I'm going to remove it soon from the items matched by this query: 

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P279 wd:Q133346.
  ?item wdt:P31 / wdt:P279 wd:Q757292.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it!

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done

cleaned with: 

wd sparql <(echo 'SELECT DISTINCT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P279 wd:Q133346. ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q757292. }') | tee /var/tmp/objects.txt | tr ' ' '\0' | xargs -0 -I{} wd claims {} P279 Q133346 | xargs -n1 -t wd remove-claim

cleaned objects 

Q11102346 Q11741142 Q11741141 Q11785610 Q11785613 Q11785622 Q11785625 Q11828589 Q11828594 Q11828593 Q11828615 Q11828618 Q11828619 Q11828617 Q11828622 Q11828620 Q11828621 Q11828631 Q11828643 Q11828641 Q11828646 Q11828645 Q11828651 Q11828660 Q11828668 Q11828675 Q11828673 Q11828678 Q11828680 Q11828691 Q11828695 Q11828692 Q11828693 Q11828709 Q11828717 Q11828732 Q11828733 Q15846152 Q16591937 Q16591941 Q16591944 Q16592148 Q30907229 Q30908492 Q64731352

I also removed ?itemsubclass of (P279)political border (Q1292279) from Q11828684 Q15697229 Q692730 Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 03:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Major issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T249565

A major database corruption hit Wikidata, also affecting connected sister projects such as Wikipedia, about 11 hours ago (at 23:00:00, 6 April, UTC). A fix is in place, but it may take a while for things to get back to normal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: logged out users might see wrong data for the next 24 hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Less "wrong data" and more "poorly rendered client pages" with elements like the wikidata sidebar link, interwiki links and data included in the articles missing. ·addshore· talk to me! 18:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Watanabe no Tsuna (Q6582069)

I don't know if this is just happening to me or if something else is going on: the enwiki, zhwiki, and jawiki for this subject are not showing interwiki links, while frwiki and fawiki are showing the interwikis fine. I don't see any templates being used in the affected wikis that are suppressing the interwiki links. Sorry if I asked this in the wrong place. Underbar dk (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Underbar dk: See phab:T249565. Causing lots of issues, including true duplicates. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Missing interwiki links on client pages will indeed be a symptom ·addshore· talk to me! 10:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't "Wikidata item" under Tools column in English wp?

"Wikidata item" isn't listing under Tools column in English Wikipedia for en:One America News Network. How can this be changed for Q17107494, as it is causing an error for the {{official website}} there? X1\ (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
An issue that occured yesterday has been causing various problems with the connections between Wikidata and the other projects. We are working on fixing it as soon as possible. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
There is also problem that is now possible to create duplicate item (with same sitelinks) JAn Dudík (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is a known problem but should stop in the next 24 hours after the table is fully restored. Let me know if the issue happens again after 24 hours. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. X1\ (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Could not save due to an error.

I can t change anything on Q83873593 --Viruscorona2020 (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like some users have managed to edit that page since you posted this message. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q83873593&action=history Are you still having problems? Do you have any error message? ·addshore· talk to me! 10:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The interlingual links of Template:PD-user-w (Q25920238) cannot display on every wiki sites

These template pages are appeared on this item. However, the interlingual links cannot display on every wiki sites. Taiwania Justo (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is probably phab:T249565 ·addshore· talk to me! 10:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I edited the item and purged some of the pages; all now link to the Wikidata item. Some links don't display (for example to a different project in a different language) but that is just how it is set up. Peter James (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:PD-user (Q6188601) has the same problem. I cannot target that the related items with this bug. Taiwania Justo (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I checked some of the pages and the links were there; some may need purging. Peter James (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Update about the database breakage

Hello all,

A few hours ago, an important issue with the Wikidata database caused various issues: Wikipedias were down for about 20 minutes, some error messages appeared on Wikidata and other projects. Some of the side effects were disappeared interwikilinks, broken tools and gadgets, creation of duplicates on Wikidata, as well as other issues related to the connections between Wikidata and the sister projects.

This breakage was caused by a database table that was temporarily dropped due to a failing script that got activated after the renaming of wb_terms. You can read more technical details in the Phabricator ticket and the incident report.

A patch has been submitted quickly after the breakage and we can confirm that no data prior to the breakage has been lost: as we’re sending this update, all of the data that was stored before and after the issue (April 6th at 23:00 UTC) has been successfully restored.

However, some deletions and redirects that happened during the past 15 hours may currently still have site links attached to them in this table. We will need to remove them as soon as possible.

You may also experience caching issues on sister projects for the next 24 hours if you’re logged out: most of the time, purging the page or performing a null edit on a page will solve it.

If you encounter any further issues, please let us know. Many thanks to the engineers at WMDE and WMF who contributed to address the problem quickly. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Mass creation of duplicate items

I can see people actively creating duplicate items. Probably because they come to Wikipedia and see that their favorite articles don't have any interlanguage links. I've merged/redirected some ([15], [16], [17]), but Q89666264 just won't merge with Q61686297 for some reason. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is fixed now :) ·addshore· talk to me! 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

duplicates impossibile to merge...

probably a consequence of the recent bug...

Q89624137 is a dupe of Q48002038, with the same enwp link... obviously created when adding the tewp link...

contrary to other dupes of the same kind that I successfully merged today, I cannot merge these 2 ; even removing the en link from Q48002038, there still is a "Erreur durant "Fusionner avec : Q48002038" : Validation failed: SiteLink conflict" message.

Can someone investigate, and merge them, please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

edit : ok, there seems to be a 3rd item, which conflicts on tewp link Q25576476, but the statements seem conflicting : actor and sport coach ? I just merged the 3 of them, and then unmerged because of this... could someone understanding telugu please check it, I'm afraid of making a big mistake ?
Trouble here: Category:Molluscs of Oceania (Q7849769) with true duplicates Category:Molluscs of Oceania (Q73191082), Category:Molluscs of Oceania (Q86161706) and Category:Molluscs of Oceania (Q86238123). I tried to merge several ways, but remained unsuccessful. Lymantria (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I merged them; I had to remove the sitelinks from the last two items, and from Category:Molluscs of Oceania (Q86127443), which was also a duplicate. Peter James (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, so I still overlooked one. Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Lakshmi Kanakala (Q48002038) is described as an actress, and is also in the category Category:Indian acting coaches (Q86321678); coach (Q41583) was probably assumed to be the correct meaning of "coach". There is now a separate item acting coach (Q28135085) but it's still a subclass of Q41583. Peter James (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Cannot edit Q664609

Today I edited sitelinks and labels on several items, but when I try the same on Caribbean (Q664609), every time I get: "An error has occured. The save has failed." What's wrong? --bdijkstra (overleg) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons sitelink had been added, but it was already on Category:Caribbean (Q6140308); I removed it from Q664609, so it should now be possible to edit. Peter James (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed it is editable now, thanks. How does one figure out that a duplicate sitelink is the cause and how does one find the other sitelink? --bdijkstra (overleg) 14:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
It's usually the cause, but I don't know if there's an easy way of finding them; I searched for the English title, as that is the most likely to be a duplicate, and didn't find a new item that looked likely, then as the Commons link was to a category, I checked the category item and saw that the link was on both. After that I would have asked the same question. Peter James (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Restoring an old version then attempting to restore the most recent version should find the duplicate. Peter James (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"The save has failed"?!

@Peter James: Before Feb 2020, when I failed to do addition of sitelinks, the warning box should tell me that the sitelink is already used by another item, and suggest me that if move and/or merge is possible or not, but now this warning box just only say "has failed", who vanished the former functions? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about that, it still says where the sitelink is used with Special:MergeItems and when merging in QuickStatements. Peter James (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peter James, Liuxinyu970226: this issue still exists, lead people too hard to know that which item a linked page exists at, at least without the help of special:itembytitle, which most of Asian peoples don't know about that, please can some developers fix that? --117.136.54.124 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia page move failed to update Wikidata link

I moved the Wikipedia page en:Hôtel de Conti to en:Hôtel de Brienne. Apparently the link at Wikidata Q3145768 failed to update. I tried to make the change manually on Wikidata, but got an error message: "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed." An attempt to edit the Label item of Q3145768 also gave this error. Perhaps this is related to a move I requested of en:Hôtel de Conti (disambiguation) to en:Hôtel de Conti, which deleted the original en:Hôtel de Conti. I did not noticce the problem at Wikidata until after that second move was made. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Part of the database had to be restored from a backup, which had some of the sitelinks attached to both this item and a redirected item Q16844978. Editing the redirect seems to have removed the duplicate links so the item can now be edited. Peter James (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This partly relates to phab:T249613 I expect ·addshore· talk to me! 13:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(true) duplicates created after database corruption

After the database corruption on 7th of April 2020, a lot of duplicate items have been created, including true duplicates, for example:

(e.g. [18])

Will all true duplicates be merged automatically? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not so. It would be interesting if someone created a list of true duplicates at Wikidata:True duplicates? Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Cannot edit Q89654066

@Addshore: Weirdly, I cannot edit Q89654066 and the edit history is empty, but the item already has two sitelinks. Were some edits lost from the page history? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vojtěch Dostál: Merged to Filip Forejtek (Q48614810), the enwp sitelink was duplicated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata based disambiguation pages?

Sample at Wikidata:Lists/dab/Lincoln (ideally for use on (interested) Wikipedias, not here).

Obviously, the layout and sorting could be improved.

What do you think of it?

Sample following a discussion with @Llywelyn2000, Dipsacus fullonum: on WD:RAQ. 05:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)--- Jura

  • I think this is a great idea worth exploring further. Most (English) disambiguation pages use some sort of grouping ("Sports", "Music", "Organizations", etc.) - would we be able to replicate some of that? Moebeus (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

spoilt votes and blank votes

For some elections in the past, spoilt votes and blank votes were counting together. I can't use number of blank votes (P5045) or number of spoilt votes (P5044). So there is no property to add the number of "spoilt votes and blank votes". Is there another way to add that number (maybe with together with (P1706) as a qualifier)? Do you think we need a new property? Or we just don't add that number (that number is the difference of ballots cast (P1868) minus total valid votes (P1697)) ? Xaris333 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be OK to use number of spoilt votes (P5044), on the grounds that a blank vote is a kind of invalid vote. Ghouston (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That's way I think to use with number of spoilt votes (P5044) the qualifier together with (P1706)->number of blank ballots (Q51591465). Xaris333 (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd use including (P1012)->blank vote (Q2345115) as a qualifier instead of together with (P1706). --Shinnin (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Why the qualifier? At least in Denmark where I live blank votes is considered a subclass of spoilt votes, so I would always assume that the count of blank votes are included in the count of spoilt votes. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Dom Tubezlob Oravrattas Sarilho1 Yair rand Siwhitehouse Louisecrow Xaris333 Amadalvarez Popperipopp Dajasj Johanricher c960657 Dipsacus fullonum Zwolfz Antagonist Nikola Tulechki WikiBunny2K1 Ranjithsiji Gnoeee Kuldeepburjbhalaike PAC2

Notified participants of WikiProject elections

First, thank you Dipsacus fullonum to have ping us. Maybe that when this discussion will be ended, it should be copied to Wikidata:WikiProject elections. I think that these two properties must be used from the point of view of the considered election and not from our own point of view. So if the election commission (Q935741) decided to mix the 2 in number of spoilt votes (P5044) it must be recorded like this. Dom (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose this depends on the context of how the data is used, but if different numbers are likely to be compared from different sources, then consistency would be useful. E.g., if only a single value is reported, for all invalid votes, then put it in number of spoilt votes (P5044), but if blank votes are recorded separately, put them in number of blank votes (P5045), and don't include them in number of spoilt votes (P5044) (or alternatively, do include them in number of spoilt votes (P5044)), it doesn't make much difference as long as it's consistent.) Ghouston (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Including the blank votes in number of spoilt votes (P5044) in all cases may be best, since then that value is consistent whether or not the number of blank votes (P5045) is also present, but I don't know how existing data has been recorded. Ghouston (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the electoral system, they may mean different things. It wont matter if the candidate with most votes passes. It does matter if they also need a percentage of valid votes (which can include blank votes). There was also short discussion at Property_talk:P1697#Blank_votes.
If we really want to record a combined number that can't be covered with one of the existing properties, we need a one.
Obviously, if 10% vote for president "nul ou blanc", it might mean the same to them. --- Jura 04:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

New Community Communications Manager for Wikidata/Wikibase

Hi everyone,

I hope you’re all having a great day!

I’m super excited to announce that I’ll be joining the software department at Wikimedia Germany to help advance engagement between the software development team and the communities using and contributing to Wikidata/Wikibase.

Together with Léa, Sam and Lydia, I will be liaising with the different user groups within the Wikibase community to provide information about software changes and promote a smooth and productive collaboration between stakeholders. You can share bug reports with us at Contact the development team

Please leave a note on my talk page or write to me directly anytime you encounter issues with the Wikibase software so that I can bring them to the development team:


Cheers,

Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome onboard :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
👋 Hello and congratulations! --SilentSpike (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Given that the idea seems to be to have Wikibase as a distinct entity from Wikidata, I think it would be great if issues with the Wikibase software would not go to Wikidata pages like Contact the development team but you create an additional channel for them and generally establish a channel that's supposed to be used for Wikibase related issues that's distinct from Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Welcome to "awesomeness"! The offer made to Sam obviously extends to you ("If you haven't had a chance to edit Wikidata yet, I can try to come up with a few sample things to try/do (supposedly in a private capacity, with a non WMDE account) . ").
Just curious, now that there are four product managers/communicators, how many devs does Adam get? --- Jura 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Thanks for the suggestion. We're working on better documentation for Wikibase and a better place to ask for help or suggest new features. This will hopefully come in the next few months. In the meantime, the most active Wikibase community discussions are taking place on Telegram and the mailing-list.
@Jura1: I'm not sure I understand your question. In the software department, developers are not necessarily assigned to only one project. Depending on the features we are working on and priorities, resources fluctuate and people move from a project to another. This is why we are not communicating things like "X people are working on project Y". Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
How many full time equivalents had it been in January/February? (you can pick another period that might be easier to assess) --- Jura 10:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/CheckUser#علاء

In accordance with the policy, here is a notice of my candidacy for CheckUser. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge Q3667038 and Q30608194

Q3667038 and Q30608194 are about the same subject, but I can't seem to merge them myself. I would appreciate it, if someone would look at it. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: I merged them after removing the redirect sitelink on the correct item. This seems to be a result of a page move on the English Wikipedia somehow resulting in a redirect being linked in the correct item and a new item being made for the new title.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick action! --Semsûrî (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Item update request

Please open Apple (Q312) and add @Apple as TikTok username. Thanks!!! --151.49.56.117 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

How do we prevent users from doing too many manual edits over and over

While many manual edits are useful, I wonder what would be the best way to help users to get to use the many available tools. Obviously, some of the edits I'm doing should be scripted as well. --- Jura 06:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: As a fairly new user it has been very useful to work through things manually so that I can understand how things operate here. However, there are probably a lot of useful time saving tricks that I haven't encountered yet or don't understand. Only about a week ago I spotted the gadget to automatically populate the "retrieved" field; that has saved me a significant amount of time while referencing. Is there a central point that new users can be directed to that covers the various automation options and tools that they can use? Some sort of index of tools with a brief summary of each and a link to the more detailed tool guidance would be useful. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
What is probably missing is a list of tools to try for a given problem after some experience in doing things manually. OTH, users tend to look for tools after doing several times the same. --- Jura 07:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflation Of

This query shows 64 "conflations" i.e. mixes of two items: 

select ?x ?xLabel ?xDescription {
  ?x wdt:P31 wd:Q14946528
     SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} limit 100
Try it!

Maybe some of them are legit, eg "Minesweeper...conflation of several games developed by Microsoft".

But I think that creating conflations of people is harmful @DrGavinR:. These then become targets of wrong external links and create confusion.

1. It's better to keep to only records about actual people and add "different from" links between them.

2. Even if there's a very good reason to create a "conflation" item, we already have a type "disambiguation page".

--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Q2965940 has a bunch of links that conflate(d) the two persons with that name. I think it would be harmful to arbitrarily assign the identifiers to one of the two persons.
Help:Conflation_of_two_people explains how to go about it. --- Jura 06:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

From now on, I won't do any more edits connected with conflated external identifiers until we've reached consensus about the best way to handle this problem. We need a consistent solution because it happens often with VIAF ID (P214), WorldCat Identities ID (superseded) (P7859) and Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012). --DrGavinR

For anyone just joining, Q87066628 is a good example of the conflation items I've created. In this case all three conflated authors can be identified clearly enough to have a Wikidata item. There may be other cases where not all of the conflated authors can be positively identified, and I have no idea what to do about that. If only one of the authors can be identified clearly enough to have a Wikidata item, then creating a new item to represent the conflation won't work.--DrGavinR (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, emailing VIAF corrections to bibchange@oclc.org has no effect. It would be good to get input from: @Merrilee: @Thisismattmiller:

Andrew Gray Andy Mabbett Bamyers99 Ijon Vladimir Alexiev Epìdosis emu Alexmar983 Simon Cobb Pmt Mathieu Kappler MasterRus21thCentury Jheald JordanTimothyJames Maxime Jonathan Groß

Notified participants of WikiProject Biographical Identifiers --DrGavinR

How can I be helpful? Merrilee (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
hi @Merrilee: You wrote at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VIAF/errors that VIAF errors shouldn't be collected there. But I don't know any better way so I collected at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VIAF/errors#WorldCat_Identities_errors and emailed bibchange@oclc.org. Now @DrGavinR: says that is ineffectual. We really need a working flow for data corrections between Wikidata and VIAF: can you shed some light? If we can organize it in any more automated manner, that would be perfect: Wikidatians are good at that sort of thing --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In the meantime, do you have another suggestion? A solution that doesn't rely on contributors here emailing a person at every external database (Wikidata has other IDs than VIAF) and ensuring that datausers using these identifiers don't end up with mismatches, because someone here arbitrarily assigned it to the wrong item. --- Jura 06:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Vladimir I've looked at the page and am having a hard time figuring out an example of a request you've made to bibchange? I am sorry to be so dense but struggling to understand what the problem is here. Merrilee (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Merrilee: if you look at the linked section, you'll see a few hundred VIAF or WorldCat id errors reported by users (after I imported 1.7M WorldCat id to Wikidata). I'm currently also discussing the problem with Marsel, Jeff, Jenny and Andrew (I connected to them in relation to another VIAF matter). BTW when you don't ping me (see the beginning of this bullet), the chance that I'll see your reply is very small; and furthermore these sections will soon be archived away. So maybe it's better if we continue by email: vladimir dot alexiev at ontotext dot com. Cheers! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vladimir Alexiev: see Q87065562 for a concrete example of confusion caused by a new item that is instance of (P31) conflation (Q14946528). This makes me more convinced that you're right, and as nobody else supports the idea of creating new conflation items, I think we can conclude that it's not legitimate. Before I started creating these items, I believe the usual practice was:

  • it's legitimate for an item to be instance of (P31) conflation (Q14946528) if:
  • an existing external identifier statement can be changed to deprecated status if it's later found to be a conflation (but I see no precedent or support for knowingly adding a conflated identifier and deprecating it immediately).
  • if we find a conflated external identifier, we can:
    • use the external organization's email address or feedback form to report the error
    • or ignore it

If nobody has any objections, I will go back to doing it like this until someone can suggest a better idea and get a consensus in favour of it.--DrGavinR (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @DrGavinR: I don't think reporting it to the external organization should be the default way of handling it. It seems Vladimir Alexiev still hasn't provided a valid alternative. emailing them to his personal address surely isn't an option. --- Jura 07:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Groups of countries

I'm currently preparing a mapping of the country classification of the 20th Century Press Archives (Q36948990) to Wikidata. One problem I came accross were groups of countries or territorial entities, such as European colonies in Africa (Q90696277) or Russian peripheral countries (Q90303093). At some point in time, these groups of countries were considered important enough not only that newspapers published about them, but also they formed a distinct category for the collection knowledge about the world. I have looked through some historical and current examples, but found no elegant solution how they could be modelled:

  1. . Should they be considered as class? (e.g., a subclass of dependent territory (Q161243)?)
  2. . Should they be considered as an instance? (e.g., instance of administrative territorial entity of more than one country (Q15646667)?)

Both do not fit well. Finally I found geopolitical group (Q52110228), which however is not much in use. Are there other solutions out there, of which I'm not aware? Cheers, Jneubert (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jneubert: What about something like instance of (P31) -> group (Q16887380) -> of (P642) -> country (Q6256)? --SilentSpike (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@SilentSpike: Thanks, this is indeed a valid option, which did not come to my mind. I hesitate however, because it is much more difficult to qeury, and leaves a lot of room for variations (group -> of -> country|state|colony|...).
I'm considering now a rename of geopolitical group (Q52110228) to "group of countries", for which the description "group of independent or autonomous territories sharing a given set of traits" would fit perfectly (as well as the other statements). For a group like European colonies in Africa (Q90696277), where the common status was forcefully implied. the current label "geopolitical community" does definitly not fit. The change would make clear, that the group is not necessarily self-defined (which is also in line with it's current use for e.g. Four Asian Tigers (Q190918).
If there are no objections here, I'd go forward and suggest the change on the item's talk page. Cheers, Jneubert (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
How about "geographic region" linked with "part of" from the relevant items? --- Jura 07:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I had considered "geographic region" as well, but that means a (somehow contiguous) geographic shape, not a political grouping of possibly geographically disparate entities (e.g. the "geopolitical community" G4 nations (Q838116) - Brazil, Germany, Japan, India -, or the "European colonies ..." example above). So it could be used in some cases, but not in outhers. Jneubert (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jneubert: "geographic region" needn't be limited to physical geography. Anyways, I think either could do. --- Jura 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments! I've moved the question to the talk page of geopolitical group (Q52110228), so it can be archived here. Cheers, Jneubert (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

occupation politician

For who we can say that:

occupation (P106) -> politician (Q82955) ?

I have noticed many person's items that have it but their occupation is not politician. Some of them are actors, singers, athletes, that never where politician. They just were in candidates of a party at one election and they didn't elected. They weren't politicians before and they weren't not after elections. No source called them as politicians. I notice the same mistake (at my opinion) in wikipedias articles. Xaris333 (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

en:Politician says "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government." Ghouston (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
en:Politics says "Politics is the set of activities that are associated with the governance of a country, state or area. It involves making decisions that apply to groups of members and achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community." You are occupation is not politician if you just be candidate once. Xaris333 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
P106 values don't need to be full time employments .. Some even consider politics as one that shouldn't be one. --- Jura 14:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
They consider as politician someone who just was candidate once? Xaris333 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the same question we could ask about Formula One drivers. Is person a Formula One driver after compete in just one race or participation in pracsise session? Eurohunter (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Not the same. Formula One drivers are employments. If a person competes it means that is an employment of an auto racing team. Maybe he compete just one because of an injury or becauce the team decide to change him. But when he competed that one race he was an employment. With a contract. Xaris333 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that you are a politician if you are engaged in politics, it does not have to be a paid position. If you attain a position, then we have a field to hold that position. We also had a disagreement last year as to whether people that hold civil service positions, that they are elected to, are politicians. So, is a coroner or a judge or a sheriff, that has to run a campaign to be elected a politician? Or are only city council members, mayors, county executives, governors, members of congress, and presidents, politicians? I do not remember the outcome. --RAN (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It's the same with ministers in the Netherlands, they are appointed by the governing coalition, not directly elected, but I believe they generally already politicians. Ghouston (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It can be a cultural thing. In Italy, meteorologist (and/or weather presenters) are military personnel, in other countries it might be politicians. --- Jura 08:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Ministers are active politics, it not the same with persons who where just candidance once. Xaris333 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

International Standard Identifier is not yet an identifier

ISIL (P791) (the clue is in the name) still does not have the datatype "identifier". I am unable to divine, from Wikidata:Identifier migration/0, which was lasted edited in 2018, any reason why this might be. Can it now be converted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I will post it to Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done requested here Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Italy as historic region

I am considering creating a new item "Italy" defined as "historic region of independent city-states, duchies, and maritime republics in the Italian Peninsula" to be the <location of creation> for medieval-to-early-modern objects whose origin is given as "Italy" in our sources. The modern country of Italy is often used here, incorrectly. Would there be general support for using this item in this way? - PKM (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What would this new item be for that can't be done with Italian Peninsula (Q145694)?--Shlomo (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that if it worked for others. - PKM (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure Italian Peninsula (Q145694) should be used in this case: for me it's more a reference to the physical landmass. I can propose Geographical region of Italy (Q3155864) or Italy in the Middle Ages (Q2480041). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I would support this as a subclass of (P279) of historical region (Q1620908). Some existing items could become part of this class [20]. Similar subclasses can be seen here. Concept to be refined,thought (part of, instance of). Italy in the Middle Ages (Q2480041) proposed by Jahl would become an instance of (P31) of such new class.--FabC (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobelprize.org: Wikidata P8024 can now be used for linking Nobelprize.org

see Version 1 is now implemented for creating links in Wikipedia using Nobel Laureate API ID (P8024) and please help push this message out to Wikipedia languages that can benefit from using it - Salgo60 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Question do we have an easy way of finding Wikipedia pages using P3188 (P3188) that is now an candidate for deletion and we should use Nobel Laureate API ID (P8024) instead? Also pages with linkrot that is now using Internet Archive (Q461) instead of Nobelprize.org would be nice to find - Salgo60 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge quants ?

Hello,
quantitative analysis (Q24282744) and quantitative analysis (Q20738516)
Some economist or financial specialist would have an opinion? frWP and enWP seem identical, except in the title. Thanks. —Eihel (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

→ ← Merged --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What is that ?

↓↓↓↓↓↓

↑↑↑↑↑↑

I don't understand this modification, GZWDer. You can delete the entire section if it's an error ;) —Eihel (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Automated archiving for otherwise unsigned text? Text you deleted BTW [21]. --- Jura 07:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It was added here, in the now-deleted section. (That section was, among other things, unsigned, having been created for a second time by an anonymous IP here and questionably "fixed" by me here.) —Scs (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done merging old into new Sheila Christina Tinney (Q27805714) Sheila Christina Tinney (Q27813777), is it acceptable ?

Sheila Christina Tinney (Q27813777) has more info than Sheila Christina Tinney (Q27805714). usually on issue trackers we merge duplicates into oldest issue. does this apply here also ? i am using gadget to merge. Leela52452 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Usually not, the lower number would stay. Sometimes there are otherwise unused items about the same without any detail or labels in rarely used languages that get identified only much later.
For your sample, they were created about at the same time and all identifiers are on Q27813777, so it's more likely that external uses are of the later item.
I'd merge into Q27813777.--- Jura 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: so, in this case, should I have done it the other way around? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I rarely use anything but the default. Maybe if you find a lower QID item for John (Q4925477) (100,000+ uses), please avoid redirecting Q4925477 --- Jura 07:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
what i meant by oldest : in this case is Sheila Christina Tinney (Q27805714). i am just clarifying myself, please dont mind. Leela52452 (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Item constraints

Is there a way to add contraints to items? --Sylvain Leroux (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Best practices, name properties for pseudonyms?

Is it a good idea to create given name (P735) and family name (P734) statements for pseudonyms? The usual practice, I believe, is that only a person's real (and full) name gets such statements if they also have pseudonyms. So if we don't know the real name behind a pseudonym (e. g. Bob Whyte (Q90048044)), should we be "consistent" and say unknown value for given and family name? I didn't see anything directly relevant in Wikidata:Requests for comment/How to deal with given names and surnames. Levana Taylor (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding a ping to project names. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
Moebeus
Dcflyer
Looniverse
Aya Reyad
Infovarius
Tris T7
Klaas 'Z4us' van B. V
Deborahjay
Bruno Biondi
ZI Jony
Laddo
Da Dapper Don
Data Gamer
Luca favorido
The Sir of Data Analytics
Skim
E4024
JhowieNitnek
Envlh
Susanna Giaccai
Epìdosis
Aluxosm
Dnshitobu
Ruky Wunpini
Balû
★Trekker

Notified participants of WikiProject Names

Unable to edit

I'd like to add jawiki 帆布 to canvas (Q4259259), but for some reason I can't. When I tried to add from the 帆布 page, I was told: "An error has occured. You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action." When I tried to edit the Wikidata page, the edit button wasn't there. For other items on wikidata, the edit button still shows, so it is a problem unique to item Q4259259. Could someone please help?--YTRK (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • You need to ask an admin to unprotect the page. --- Jura 13:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah it was protected. I had thought of it but had dismissed the idea as I couldn't spot the "protected" sign (turns out I'd simply missed it). Someone has kindly done the addition so the problem is solved. Thank you anyways.--YTRK (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Generate wikicode from Q item

Hi, does anyone know if a tool exists to generate some wikicode from a Q item ? Like an infobox code. As a lot of opposition exist against a permanent link between WD items and WP articles, it could be nice if we could generate the wikicode of some standard pieces of WP article which could be copy-pasted into Wikipedia. Zhis could be an intermediate step in the acceptance of WD use in WP. Snipre (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Please tell us more about your usecase. What Wikipedia do you want to edit? Which field? Maybe it exists already and we can point you in the right direction. --- Jura 08:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Just for info: I've created around 22,000 new articles generated from Qids, and automated straight from Wikidata, on cywiki. Could be done on all language wikis, but needs manual checks and categories added! For example: Owen County, Kentucky, 99% comes from WD! Initially, I placed the code in a template, and the template could have been placed on any geolocated article (anywhere in the world); however, adding info would be difficult if not impossible! In theory I could create a million articles in any language within days, but what for? Language context and cultural diversity and consrvation are more important than numbers. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: There is a tool in WP:en which allows data extraction and wikicode formatting for genes (see comment here) and I wanted to know if WD can propose something similar. Snipre (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
If this would be for a repeating tasks, that can be performed full-automatically, like for example fill the IMDb-link into a certain template when it is now blank, someone could write a script (e.g. in python with pywikibot) and let the script run periodically. Another option would be to have an extention that could show a pop-up with wikicode, so you can copy/paste it into a certain wiki, but as far as I know that does not (yet) exist. Maybe it's something that can be made during the online hackaton in early May? Edoderoo (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: The idea is not to perform huge data change but to offer the possibility to wikipedians which don't like the current system for different reasons to perform some data extraction and formating in an easy way from WD and at the same time to let them the possibility to choose every single sentence or piece of data in a known environment. Snipre (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Snipre: If I understand what you are asking for, you might look at PrepBio (for people) and Mbabel (for works of art, museums, libraries, archives, and theatres). Both tools create structured outlines for new articles (including infoboxes, authority control templates, and category suggestions) that can be copy-pasted anywhere you want them. You can use these tools to get code snippets to improve existing articles this way, though their primary intention is to create drafts of new articles. - PKM (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

canonization status (P411)

Can this property be used to capture the notion that some people can be considered saints in one Church, but not in another? w:Template:Infobox saint has a | venerated_in= field for this; is there an equivalent in canonization status (P411)? At the moment, e.g. Saint Sebastian (Q183332) and Mother Teresa (Q30547) both just have canonization status (P411): saint (Q43115) on Wikidata, whereas they have different lists of Churches under w:Template:Infobox saint | venerated_in= on en.wp. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@It Is Me Here: How about using of (P642)? e.g. Mother Teresa (Q30547)canonization status (P411)saint (Q43115)of (P642)Catholic Church (Q9592) Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate qualifier for Urdu (Q1617)country (P17)Norway (Q20) to indicate the nature of the relation

Urdu's relation to Norway is that it is spoken there, similar relations exists for many other languages. Is there some qualifier that could be used to make this clearer? I think that the unqualified statement is not that useful or informative. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

user:Arlo Barnes user:Daniel Mietchen Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) user:Infovarius user:Lore.mazza81 user:Middle river exports user:Nikki user:Popcorndude user:SM5POR user:SynConlanger

Notified participants of WikiProject Linguistics

Please have a look at what has been done for the Northern Sami language. I think a way to indicate how much a language is spoken in a country is to add the number of people who speak that language. Pamputt (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Añadir un enlace de otra Wikipedia

Hola. Intento añadir un enlace de un artículo que existe en una Wikipedia, pero después de quitar el erróneo al poner el correcto me da error. ¿Qué tengo que hacer? Gracias y saludos. Antón Fr

(moved from WD:RAQ by author  TomT0m / talk page 08:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

@Antón Francho: ¿Cuál artículo? ¿Cuál q-item? Sín saber esto, es imposible saber porque. Lo probable es que exista un conflicto con un enlace a otro artículo o q-item. - Jmabel (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hola. Gracias por contestar. El artículo es Chalamera. En el historial de la página está explicado: lo que quería hacer. Saludos. Antón Francho (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
ceb:Chalamera (kapital sa munisipyo) ya está vinculado al q-item Chalamera (Q24013386). No se puede vincular un artículo con dos q-itemes. Antes de añadir un enlace nuevo, se necesita borrar el enlace existente. - Jmabel (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Muchas gracias Jmabel. Ya he arreglado lo que quería. Saludos. Antón Francho (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

P3221 (New York Times topic ID)

For Property: P3221 is their a master list someplace, the New York Times page listed at the property only lists a dozen. You used to be able to click on the topic in the New York Times to see a chronological list of articles. Now I think that link is hidden and you only see a list of related articles, has the scheme been abandoned by the New York Times? --RAN (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess they are abandoning adding tags by hand and using an automated word matching program, and this is a just a legacy. --RAN (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Get XML RDF format from a query link

Hello, I use this link [22] to get Wikidata items in XML and JSON format. Does anyone know how to get in the XML RDF format? Thank! Alphama (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean like https://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1372810.rdf? - Nikki (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Nikki: Oh yeah, thank a lot Nikki. For those who need more information about this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityData/ Alphama (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Newbie with questions

Hi I have known about Wikidata for some time but I haven't really been sufficiently engaged with it to try to understand how it works.

In my professional life I work with data, in both XML and SQL structures. I am aware of the RDF/triple modeland how it works semantically, and can read bits of SparQL, but I don't really understand how the Wikidata project is hard-linked to Wikipedia, and i would be interested in understanding more about how that works.

For instance, I created a category yesterday and received a notification overnight that a wikidata item has been created representing that category. What I don't understand is how that affects the SparQL Graph? Are Articles which get added to that category automagically added to the Graph ports in Gabon? Do I need to edit Q91870850 to add more value to it?

I have read the Introwithout finding the answers. Is there someone who could explain this side of it to me?

Thanks

Fob.schools (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

« Are Articles which get added to that category automagically added to the Graph ports in Gabon? » →‎ No.
« Do I need to edit Q91870850 to add more value to it? » →‎ No. There is nothing that you must do in Wikidata. But you could add category combines topics (P971) port (Q44782) and category combines topics (P971) Gabon (Q1000) to Category:Ports and harbours of Gabon (Q91870850) (thus creating 2 triples), and you could merge Q6306010 and Q91870850. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. I dont understand? what does the creation of the item Category:Ports and harbours of Gabon (Q91870850) actually add to wikidata?
You've recommended 2 actions:
  1. refine the definition of the category item in question
  2. Merge 2 category items
OK, lets look at the merge first. The related wikipedia category for Category:Ports and harbours of Gabon (Q6306010) will probably be deleted in 7 days. It is an empty misnamed category. So isn't there some link between the 2 projects to delete Q6306010 when that happens?
WRT refining the category, I can understand that it does refine the definition, but it there are no locations/articles attached to the category, why bother? Am I missing something? Fob.schools (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
« isn't there some link between the 2 projects to delete Q6306010 when that happens? » →‎ I don't know.
« why bother? » →‎ When you add data to a Wikidata item, then... there is more data in Wikidata. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
For example, you could query all the categories related to Gabon, your included. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Q6306010 also contains links to the Commons and Spanish Wikipedia categories; if they are about the same thing, they can be linked by merging the items. The English label can be changed. Peter James (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

WD: AN

Opened up discussion there, Jasper Deng closed it saying to come here. I propose a policy where if you are involved or MAY be involved are notified on there talk page so they don’t have a huge disadvantage and have a chance. Please vote Support or Oppose. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 01:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: @Bovlb: @Ymblanter: any objections? Ur the admins. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 01:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not even sure what you are proposing. Could you please formulate it more clearly.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Not involved in this, but I believe what's being proposed here is a policy that if a discussion is started about a user at the administrators noticeboard then said user should be notified on their talk page. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@SilentSpike: Thanks, this is something I can reasonably support, but what does involvement have to do with this?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Just intended to say I think I can clarify what this user is suggesting, but have no personal stake in the matter. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, let us may be wait what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Assuming it is as what SilentSpike interprets it as, I'm partially in support. I do think it is problematic that many vandalism or spam reports here are made prematurely, but I don't think this is the solution to that. For routine vandalism reports, assuming if the user is really a vandal, notifying them they've been reported here is likely of little use–but sadly this assumption doesn't seem to be reasonable these days based on how many reports I see that do not concern actual vandalism. But the requirement to notify doesn't address the core issue there. For things involving good-faith edits, I do favor the requirement to notify. It may be useful to make a multilingual notification template for that purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    Notifying vandals would make WD: AN a bit target for vandalism. This is important to keep in mind because if we semi-protect WD: AD the policy will quickly become far less useful.@Jasper Deng: --Trade (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Trade: That is why I'm hesitant to support notification requirements if AN is still going to be used to report vandalism. It's not so much that it would necessarliy encourage more vandalism, but that with vandals, it's often inefficient to notify them, especially if the vandal has been sufficiently warned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am proposing that we have a policy where if Person A reports Person B, then Person A MUST warn Person B so that they have a chance. That is what I am trying to say. @Jasper Deng: that is somewhat true. If a user is being disruptive but tries to be in good faith and it is a CIR issue, they should be brought here so they can explain that. If you can prove it is a true vandal, then they probably don’t need to be warned. @Ymblanter: that is what I am proposing because I have had enough cases where people were literally blocked without warning. If it is truly malicious, really, I don’t care. But this range that I am editing from clearly shows that I do care that people are notified. Anyway, got to go. Now you can vote. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 12:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If it is confusing, basically, if Person A is a VANDAL and Person B takes them to WD: AN, no warning needed. Otherwise, Person A should be warned to be able to present themselves. I am changing the time stamp as I do have a while today. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 8:54 AM, 20 April 2020 (UTC-4)
@Jasper Deng: @Ymblanter: come to think of it, if someone is a vandal, it should not even go to WD: AN. Just ping an admin! 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 12:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a number of thoughts on this issue.

  • For comparison, en:WP:ANI says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} Bovlb (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC) to do so. This is roughly repeated in en:Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Clearly the ENWP community have found this to be a useful rule.
  • Generally (though not universally), users discussed on a board will be linked to, and hence will be pinged. (When the OP does not link, I often add it.) There does not seem to be any consensus, however, that such pinging constitutes adequate notice, and there is no feedback that a ping has been sent. My observation is that many such users do show up to defend themselves (and many others are unlikely to respond at all).
  • Unlike WP:ANI on ENWP, I feel that most of the reports we see on WD:AN are fairly clear-cut vandalism where neither warning nor notice are strongly indicated. This may be changing over time.
  • We do see a steady trickle of reports that are not clear-cut. Often these discussions end with the advice that the OP should contact the user in question and try to resolve directly before running to a noticeboard. It is not clear that requiring notification of the WD:AN report is the best prior advice in such cases. Bovlb (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Bovlb: We shouldn't try to emulate the English Wikipedia all the way. However, if we want to do this, it might be good to have a separate place for vandalism reports, and then it becomes simpler for reporters to decide whether to notify or not; AN can then require notification. This would require us to better communicate when to not report something as vandalism, as too often I see users reported for "vandalism" when, even if their edits are disruptive, they're in good faith and consensus is often not clear. I am inclined to close such threads as not appropriate for AN, but absent a specific definition of AN's scope, it's hard to do so with firm policy basis. For the matter, on the English Wikipedia, pings are not considered adequate notification. Given this, I think we should first do an RfC on the scope of AN, and a possible new page for vandalism reports, along with guidelines for the latter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jasper Deng: I'm not arguing that we should follow everything ENWP does, but it's a good example of people trying to follow the proposed principle. As an aside, I note that posters on :en:WP:ANI often skip the notification, but I have never seen any penalty imposed for this, and reports are not rejected (solely) on account of it, so it turns out to be a rather toothless rule in practice. Bovlb (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Bovlb: As a regular member of that community, I'll say that it's etiquette (Q188907), not so much a policy, but compliance is usually pretty consistent anyways. I don't imagine blocking someone over it (it isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things and if someone forgets, someone else usually does the notification). But their AN(I) page is not for routine vandalism reports and protection requests, making a blanket notification guideline make much more sense there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Jasper Deng: @Bovlb: @Ymblanter: Ok so I am back after a few days. Tks4Fish globally blocked that /56 range, but thankfully when I was blocked on Meta Camouflaged Mirage let me have account creation, and Tks4Fish made the block anon-only. So I can edit. Secondly, why did the discussion go stale? I am still here. So can you rediscuss this. Honestly, we should have 2 pages-one for things like vandalism and spam, and one for issues where a notification is required. Vote Support or Oppose on my idea. Anyway on the Interstate 88 article I made a small change and added the word “Central”. Am I doing a good job editing Wikidata? Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Steven1825andrew2044: There's no need to email me about this. We can't compel others to comment on this proposal. That said, maybe try posting at WT:AN as well about this. I think it's good that you're delving into content contributions and I recommend focusing on that instead of "admin" areas like this one. Note too that this isn't a vote (that's not how consensus works).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
McKay. Resolving, but I will ask TP question Jasper Deng. Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved

I agree that, in any case involving an established editor or behaviour that is not clear cut, users ought to have a fair chance to defend themselves, and I would not be opposed to having a brief note about notifications at the top of the page, but I think that is what usually happens in practice anyway, so it's fixing a problem we don't really have, which arguably makes it instruction creep. And I would be hesitant to create new noticeboards willynilly as our community already sometimes seems too small to cover the ones we have. I also agree with Jasper Deng that it is not necessary to ping, add a talk page message, and send an email just to continue a conversation. But welcome to the community, and I'm glad you got your connection issues sorted out. Bovlb (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, @Bovlb:, and thanks! If you want you can do that welcome template. Unlike Wikinews or Commons, we don’t have a bot to do it. Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Aliases in English that are not aliases in English

For Leonardo da Vinci (Q762), there are some names given as aliases in English that I seriously doubt have ever been used as aliases for Leonardo in English, unless as a result of serious ignorance. Viz.: "Leonhardo da Vinci", "Leonardo de Binçi", "Leonardo Vincj", "leonardo de avinçe"; that is by no means exhaustive.

Meanwhile, until I added it, "Leonardo", probably one of the most common and correct ways of referring to him in English, was missing from the list; presumably the omission was missed because of this pile of detritus.

Can't we have a policy that versions of a name that are neither from the person's native or near-native language(s), nor the language(s) of any country in which they lived, nor from the language for which we are giving aliases belong in that language? - Jmabel (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We probably should have such a policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
See also the discussion at the top of this page (out of respect for the victim of which I'd prefer not to ping him again). Mahir256 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Aliases are alternative search entries, I often add there (for Dutch, for English I leave it for others) names in Mandarin, Cyrillic, and for sure English transliteration of names originally in different script. If I understand you well, you want to add rules that such entries become forbidden by policy. If the policy applies to English aliases only, I would not mind, but it would for sure not be my advice. Edoderoo (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a question. If someone having language X, tries to search text aliased only in language Y, will he be able to find the item? Is the alias system translanguage ? Other way to read the question : is it useful to have same alias text on different languages for a said item ? Bouzinac (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Me too. In items about people with Hispanic names, in the English aliases I usually add their aliases in Spanish, and vice versa, because that is a way they are known, regardless of the language. Esteban16 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16: Sure, but do you add their name in German? Lettish? Mandarin? As I said, names in the person's native or near-native language(s), language(s) of any country in which they lived, and the language for which we are giving aliases make perfect sense to list. None of the examples I listed above meet those criteria. Nor do almost half of the others on that item, but I didn't want my comment to turn into a laundry list. - Jmabel (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: Are you saying that for Leonardo da Vinci (Q762), you think the list of Dutch aliases should include (for example) the Mandarin, the Cyrillic, and the (presumably katakana) Japanese for Leonardo, Leonardo da Vinci, da Vinci, etc.? Or are you just saying that you would include those for people for whom that language would have some specific relevance (e.g. of course it would be OK to add the kanji and/or hiragana for Katsushika Hokusai (Q5586)). For Leonardo, not so. - Jmabel (talk)
If someone wants to make a law to forbid something on all 90M items, solely on the data of the item of Da Vinci in 2020, then we should stop this discussion now. And no, I don't want to add mandarin script in the alias of Da Vinci, but I want to do that for a Chinese football-player or Chinese pop band. And I don't want someone else to forbid to do that, because of Da Vinci. Edoderoo (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: You are making up a straw man. Obviously, for a Chinese football-player or Chinese pop band, their name in Chinese would fall under the heading of their name in their "native or near-native language(s)" and/ or "language(s) of any country in which they lived," which I called out in my original post and have already reiterated once. Why are you bringing up something I explicitly said was fine as if I were trying to prohibit it? - Jmabel (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense aliases are left in some old items because a bot used to import all redirects from Wikipedia and add them as aliases on Wikidata. Stryn (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
In this case the aliases come from the ULAN database. They were imported by BotMultichillT ; the first topic on this page is actually related to that issue. Since Multichill abandonned the bot in the meantime, this shouldn't happen anymore. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense aliases are things like "kPa" or "hPa" on pascal (Q44395) which gets you to the wrong item [23]. --- Jura 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You say "wrong item", I say close to the right item. We might both be right. Edoderoo (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In many cases it could: e.g. for "school of Leonardo da Vinci" Q762 could be useful. For units, it's just not the right one (kilopascal (Q21064807)). --- Jura 07:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
You expect an alias to bring you to the item you need. I expect an alias to give a suggestion to what I might need. We will never get to an agreement on what to add to aliases in this way. Let's agree to disagree. Edoderoo (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's important that "Leonardo" is also used in a statement. Aliases merely help find the correct item, but statements should enable one to use the correct name. --- Jura 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
From my point of view one of the reasons why there are aliasses not belonging to the language of the description is that other users who dont use Wikidata often dont know how they can add a description or an alias in a language they dont usually see if they load the item. Configuring does need some time until the languages changed as far as I know. There is Special:SetLabelDescriptionAliases for setting labels, aliases and descriptions and I think it were useful it is possible to set a link to that page from the interface for editing an item. That is found by more users. --Hogü-456 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How to indicate a website or item is "open access" or free ("gratis") to everyone

Bokmålsordboka (Q1778634) is "open access", that is everyone has access to it's full content. It is not open source though. There are other similar sites, such as AlternativeTo (Q3613175) which is also "open access". I would like some way to indicate this, specifically so I can query "open access" dictionaries of a specific language. I looked around and there is:

  • open access (Q232932): free distribution of knowledge
  • free-to-play (Q1414510): video game business model that gives players access to a portion of the game's content and/or features at no cost, but access to additional content requires payment
  • freemium (Q1444631): business model and software licensing scheme in which the basic form of a product is free of charge, and access to additional features requires payment
  • freemium (Q1444631): business model and software licensing scheme in which the basic form of a product is free of charge, and access to additional features requires payment
  • pricing strategy (Q3394670): strategies related to price when selling products or services
  • pay to play (Q594235): an exchange of money for the privilege to engage in a specific activity
  • freeware (Q178285): software distributed and used at no cost, with other rights still reserved
  • open access policy (Q2000006): policy requiring or recommending Open Access to scientific publications

None of these really fit well, the closes are maybe free-to-play and freemium. But then there is also the question of what property to use to indicate this. There is business model (P7936) but in my view this is not the right choice because the business model of a product is a separate concern.

Maybe the right solution is to create a property "access policy" and then make it's values instances of an item "access policy" and have some like "free" "free for personal use" "freemium".

Any input would be appreciated. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Care system

@ChristianKl : witch property for Care system ? --Antidote2020 (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't add sitelink to Q7437391?

Trying to add link to ja:Category:古代の著作家 but it won't add a link giving a "The save has failed." error. It used to be at Q88832614 but instead of being merged it was just deleted. Doublah (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

True, can't edit anything on that item. Ghouston (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The last edit somehow created a duplicate on the pl sitelink. I fixed it by merging the duplicate item, which was Q86126401. Ghouston (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Identifier not working

I have attempted to add YouTube channel ID on Bruno Barbieri (Q3645632) but when I test, YouTube alert me that the channel do not exist. Where I mistake? --151.49.56.117 12:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The ID has to be in a similar format to UCDLPyCCDRSxQd1OtBkup-Bw. Take a look at the URL for that person's channel and a similar length of characters should be included. They should appear immediately after https://youtube.com/channel/. As a general tip, take a look at the property page when you can't get an ID to work. The property will tell you what format it expects the ID to be recorded in and give you some examples. In this case see YouTube channel ID (P2397). From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: that format do not appear to me, only the name... I will be VERY glad if you help me and check the problem... Thanks!!! --151.49.56.117 14:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the link to the YouTube channel? I'll need to see that to extract the ID. If the link isn't obvious on the YouTube page, there should be a "share" icon, that then gives you an option to "copy link." From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/user/chefbarbieriofficial --151.49.56.117 14:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVJ2ZV_fi1y3EsB1roSrkhQ. Set the ID to UCVJ2ZV_fi1y3EsB1roSrkhQ. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!!! --151.49.56.117 17:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

portal:information technology and portal:computer science

Hello! there is confusion between the two topics Portal:Computer science (Q14152352) and Portal:Information technology (Q3874978), compared to the two main articles computer science (Q21198) and information technology (Q11661). There are errors in the languages links, thank you --Omar Ghrida (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please be specific about what you think the problem is here? I can see you have been moving Wikipedia links between the items but what exactly is the issue? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: The problem is that every language must be checked, because number of names must be transferred from Portal:Information technology (Q3874978) to Portal:Computer science (Q14152352). for example: it:portal:Informatika must be linked to Portal:Computer science (Q14152352) because it:Informatika article linked to computer science (Q21198). --Omar Ghrida (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
There are at least 3 items: computing (Q179310), computer science (Q21198), theoretical computer science (Q2878974), but only 2 portals. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
See also information technology (Q11661) and information and communications technology (Q5268834). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

first 2 reverts

@Visite fortuitement prolongée: Can you explain the reason for your undo my changes in Portal:Information technology (Q3874978) Portal:Computer science (Q14152352)? --Omar Ghrida (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to put an explanation in the field of the revert.
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


@Visite fortuitement prolongée: OK .. but I have a note:

--Omar Ghrida (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So there is currently no Wikimedia portal (Q4663903) about computing (computing (Q179310)). Interesting.Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Modelling bookstores.

I'm not entirely sure what the right way is to model bookstores or bookstore chains. I'm specifically interested in improving these items:

I have looked at some other examples:

As far as I can see there seems to be two approaches being used now:

Where subject is one of the bookstores, and the object is one of the following:

Of these approaches the better option seems to be to use instance of (P31) to me but I'm not entirely sure, maybe there is another property than industry (P452) that can be used. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

I would use instance of (P31). Note bookstore (Q200764) has industry bookselling (Q998426). I think bookstore chain (Q42414514) should have the statements <has parts of the class> = "bookstore" and <industry> = "bookselling" added.
I'm not sure that instances of business types that have an assigned industry also need that industry explicitly stated on every instance, but I don't think it hurts and I'd be interested in other editors' thoughts on this. I also note that Powell's Books (Q2106972) is <instance of> "bookstore" and <industry> "retail". See also Blackwell UK (Q2905612).
There seem to be a lot of bookstores with <instance of> "business" and no way to identify them as bookstores, which leads to the question - do we want separate items for the business (organization) and the bookstore (retail outlet of that business), even if an independent bookstore has only one location? - PKM (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Where to put ISBN-13 (P212)?

I created Norwegian synonyms blue dictionary (Q92102687) (transitively Norwegian synonyms blue dictionary (Q92102687)instance of (P31)work (Q386724)). I would like to put the ISBN-13 (P212) (International Standard Book Number (Q33057)) identifiers for the version, edition or translation (Q3331189)s associated with this work somewhere but I really don't want to create all the editions as items now. Would it be acceptable to just add them all to Norwegian synonyms blue dictionary (Q92102687)? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Some of the properties that can be put on literary work (Q7725634) items, like date of publication and publisher, presumably apply to the first edition. It would be nice if it was accepted to add the ISBN of the first edition too, for cases where there's not much interest in creating edition items. I just omit the ISBN. Ghouston (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
My main concern with omitting the ISBN is that I want to do my utmost to avoid duplicate items from being created, and adding all ISBNs will help in this goal - but I guess on the other hand if it is wrong it is wrong - but maybe it should not be seen as wrong. Maybe the solution is, as you suggest, just to define the semantics of what ISBN-13 (P212) means on a P7725634 (P7725634) as opposed to on version, edition or translation (Q3331189) - though I would prefer to be able to add all ISBNs not just the ones of the first edition. Maybe another properly is needed, "ISBN-13 of edition"?. I guess that won't be ideal though. Qualified statements may be better but then the warnings being generated from duplicate ISBNs also won't be there anymore. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Type graph explorer

Wikidata generic tree (WGT) is very useful for finding types - however it is no longer showing labels. There is Wikidata Graph Builder (WGB) which is also pretty nice for the same thing but quite resource intensive and not quite as nice as WGT. Is there some other tools to achieve the same as WGT? I have looked at Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/Wikidata_Query_Help/Result_Views but I do not see much, it would have been nice if the graph view could do this but I don't think it can. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #413

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • zotkat's exporter for Zotero (a software to manage bibliographic data) allows you to export bibliographies to the QuickStatements format. It is helpful to easily create bibliographical entries, especially as Zotero can read metadata about works from dozens of other websites, and can thus be used as intermediary.
  • Development
    • More work on error screens for the Bridge
    • Use updated data for the Bridge (phab:T240223)
    • Display statements made with federated properties on item pages (phab:T246606)
    • Automated references: normalizing data that the extractor gets out of HTML pages (phab:T249004)
    • Create a distributed game so people can vet references easily (phab:T248997)
    • Cleanup rows from wb_items_per_site (phab:T249613)
    • Don't suggest initial uppercase in mobile termbox (phab:T241978)
    • Have the focus on field when adding new element on Sense (phab:T203461)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Automatic item/statement creation from a url

I want to work on some mechanism to facilitate import of books and articles - presumably you would give it some url - maybe to amazon or something, and then from there it would extract metadata, do a best attempt to find a duplicate and then prepare statements. I'm wondering if there is something like this already or if there are some tools/libraries that can facilitate this. Maybe https://newspaper.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ or https://metascraper.js.org/#/? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Iwan.Aucamp: If you go to test.wikidata.org, edit a random item and try to add a reference, there's a "Automatic" option that lists "URL, DOI, ISBN, or QID" as the entry methods. You might want to track down whoever's working on that and coordinate. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Interesting feature. looks promising. I couldn't get it to work, but maybe I just didn't find a DOI/ISBN it knows about. --- Jura 14:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Unable to update Q15060053

I hope this is the right place report this as I've never had to report an issue with a Wikidata entry before. On item Q15060053, I am having issues updating the enwiki link. Right now, the link is Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/Header when the link should be Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical)/Editing/Header. However, every time I try to update his entry, I receive the following error message:

Could not save due to an error.


The save has failed.

What's going on here, and is there any way to fix this? Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Filters, right. I was puzzled that I couldn't even add a sitelink to Commons, but I actually hit a different filter, "Direct link to a file". Ghouston (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The task for the useless error message is at Phabricator:T247690. Ghouston (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Search going to a different project

If I type Wikipedia:Cat in the search box and press the search button, it takes me to the Cat article on the English Wikipedia. I think this could be very confusing, is it a bug? Ghouston (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be a side-effect of [24] redirecting to Wikipedia. Is that a MediaWiki feature? Ghouston (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Yes, this is a feature. Mahir256 (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Special:Interwiki, got it, thanks. Ghouston (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Basically, be wary of using the search box for anything with a colon. Now I'm surprised it took me this long to notice it. Ghouston (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What's confusing is that it has a search symbol, and "search" instead of "go" or something similar. Peter James (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So this isn't just a search box: it seems like it does various kinds of lookups and then passes the query to the actual search engine if nothing matches. Ghouston (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
See phab:T49215.--GZWDer (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Heh, so User:Reaper35 already noticed this one, a few months after Wikidata was created, and the task is still open. Ghouston (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated copy of wb_terms to be dropped on April 29th

Hello all,

This is a follow-up on previous announcements related to the migration of wb_terms table (March 23rd, April 6th) that concerns tool developers querying the database replicas on Labs.

As the last step of the migration, and as mentioned in the previous discussions, the table wb_terms_no_longer_updated will be dropped. We are doing this because the last steps of database migration have been achieved and announced a month ago, and we don’t want to keep a table containing outdated information accessible for too long. The table has already been deleted in production (without any impact on tools or users) and the replicas on Labs will be deleted on April 29th. (Ticket)

If you’re maintaining tools querying the database with the replicas, you can adapt your code to the new table structure (the former shared link doesn't work anymore). You can also have a look at suggestions to optimize your queries.

If you have any questions or issues, feel free to reach out to me. Thanks for your understanding, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Property:P3099 ID Internet Bird Collection

To whomever maintain this Property. You may know that IBC as a repository of Bird midia has been fully integrated to eBird. This property should be changed to ID HBW Alive (Handbook of the Birds of the World) which is the species page with taxonomy, description, etc., and the redirection should br properly set to that page, for example Furnarius rufus should be redirectly to this page and not to this, as it is today. This last integrated to eBird. Thanks for your attention.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

please help im being hacked every corner i go...

my ex is computer literate and is using this site and people iq to make fake obligations to hack my computer and phone...please help i have had enough its becoming depressing and getting me down cause i dont know how to get her out she killing me  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Holysmokingbatshit (talk • contribs) at 03:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

If that is true then I am sorry to hear that. However, there is nothing we can do to help you. Report the matter to your local law enforcement.
As your account only has a single edit, there is very limited opportunity for damage on this site. Any "obligations" your ex tries to place you under will be chalked up as the actions of an internet troll. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Holysmokingbatshit: If there is something real going on here, I believe you can write to info@wikimedia.org. The content of mail sent to that address should be kept confidential. Please be as specific as you can as to what is happening, so that someone has a chance to actually address it: the vague complaint you wrote above is not something anyone can act on. - Jmabel (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

qualifier for dict. pronunciation refs?

In dictionaries, when they give multiple pronunciations for a word, the usual practice is to put the one that they consider more common or standard first. Is there a qualifier that could record that order information when citing a dictionary as reference for an IPA transcription of a place or personal name? Levana Taylor (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: I would presume you could mark that value as "preferred"; maybe there is some good way to use series ordinal (P1545), but I haven't seen this modeled. - Jmabel (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Things are getting worse. When I compare several dictionaries, the details needed to accurately record what each one says about pronunciation multiply. (Maybe this is why almost no one before me added IPA transcription (P898) statements to placenames and surnames?) Three examples:
  1. Acre (Q126084): Collins English Dictionary (Q260453) says American English uses /ˈɑːkər/ or secondly /ˈeɪkər/; British, both pronunciations but the order of preference is the other way around. English Pronouncing Dictionary, 18th ed. (Q92431033) only lists /ˈeɪkər/ for either.
  2. Wesley (Q233193): Collins says American English prefers /ˈwɛsli/ but /ˈwɛzli/ is also used; British only uses /ˈwɛzli/. EPD writes, British is -z- or -s-, Am is -s- or -z-, "Note: Most people bearing the name Wesley pronounce /ˈwɛsli/."
  3. Carlisle (Q192896) EPD says "/kɑːrˈlaɪl/, locally: /ˈkɑːrlaɪl/;" Routledge says "/kɑːrˈlaɪl/ or /ˈkɑːrlaɪl/" for both British and American English.
Here's an idea: create two qualifiers: "standard in dialect x" [specify dialect], "variant in dialect x." Those, with a use of "quotation" in the reference to be more precise if necessary, should cover the cases above. We'd have separate statements for /ˈwɛsli/ "standard in Am., ref. Collins and EPD" and /ˈwɛsli/ "variant in Br., ref. EPD." Levana Taylor (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
And, on further thought, I don't like that idea. "Standard" or not standard is not a piece of linguistic data of the same sort as pronunciation variety (P5237) is. Labelling IPA transcriptions with their proper pronunciation variety is wonderful if you are able to do it. But I don't think I am, I don't know enough. I have been consulting dictionaries that aren't written with technical precision. So, my questions are two: is there a way to make it easier for non-linguists to use the pronunciation variety property; and how (if at all) can dictionaries like Collins be usefully cited as references?
@ArthurPSmith:, @JakobVoss:, @VIGNERON: --Levana Taylor (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism precautions?

At associativity (Q177251), I just corrected 7-week-old vandalism to the English-language label of the topic. Mightn't it be a good idea that if someone who is not logged in changes an existing label there is some place this enters a queue to be checked? - Jmabel (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: See Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism. You'll note from the graph at the bottom that patrol actions are still far fewer than the number of unpatrolled edits we get. There are lots of tools to help, queues, etc, but not enough people working on them. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be easier if we could mark edits as patrolled in the 'History' section of items instead of having to open each individual edit and mark them one at a time --Trade (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You can use User:Matěj Suchánek/patrolRevisions.js to patrol all the revision of a page from history section, but before patrol make sure to check each of them. There's a script that also make easy to check all the diff from history page itself, see en:User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/inlineDiffDocs. Feel free to contact me if you need help regarding this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper

Is it just an impression of mine or do we keep getting valid Wikidata descriptions overwritten with some that may be suitable for Wikipedia only?

The script seems to have two options:

  • add a description also to Wikidata when there is no Wikidata description
  • overwrite Wikidata descriptions

I suggest the second option be made unavailable to users by default.

@Galobtter: --- Jura 05:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Overwriting by script should not be standard behaviour, but without a clear example of (some) item(s) I'm not aware of any problem. Edoderoo (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • According to the page above, it's not the default option for the script, but users seem to activate it too lightly. --- Jura 09:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
IMHO Wikipedia:Short description is just colossal waste of time and resources based on a false accusation, that vandalism rate on Wikidata is higher than vandalism rate on enwiki. Thus overwriting Wikidata descriptions using these from enwiki is definitely a bad idea.--Jklamo (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: I disabled the option to automatically override Wikidata descriptions upon edits on enwiki. By default the script adds a description to Wikidata if there is no Wikidata description. Now the only other way for a user to edit Wikidata through the script is if a user explicitly enables the "export" button and clicks on it. Galobtter (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary identifiers in catalog code (P528)

There are a bunch of items with ?itemsinstance of (P31)European standard (Q1377447) and ?itemsstandards body (P1462)European Telecommunications Standards Institute (Q899383) that have their primary identifier in their labels. I would like the clean these up a bit, add proper descriptions and titles.

Some examples:

Ideally their identifiers should not just be in labels but somewhere else on the items. I have considered some options for this:

Option A:

Use a property for arbitrary text, I was thinking of short name (P1813) - but this is a language specific property so not ideal. Someone else suggested I look at catalog code (P528). Presumable the approach will be then to create a item ETSICatalogueinstance of (P31)catalogue (Q2352616) and then add the following statements:

Option B:

Create a property proposal for an arbitrary freetext identifier and use it similarly as Option A. Possibly with issued by (P2378) as a qualifier or maybe some other qualifier with a value that is subclass of (P279)identifier (Q853614) and has some property to indicate format.

Option C:

Request properties for ETSI Identifiers. These norms also have some other identifiers. such as GSM and 3GPP sometimes. So I will have to request those also.

Option D:

Request a URN (Q76497) property, as there are URN schemes for ETSI and 3GPP. This would be somewhat similar to ITU/ISO/IEC object ID (P3743)

Any suggestions and input will be appreciated. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Alexiev Jonathan Groß Andy Mabbett Jneubert Sic19 Wikidelo ArthurPSmith PKM Ettorerizza Fuzheado Daniel Mietchen Iwan.Aucamp Epìdosis Sotho Tal Ker Bargioni Carlobia Pablo Busatto Matlin Msuicat Uomovariabile Silva Selva 1-Byte Alessandra.Moi CamelCaseNick Songceci moz AhavaCohen Kolja21 RShigapov Jason.nlw MasterRus21thCentury Newt713 Pierre Tribhou Powerek38 Ahatd JordanTimothyJames Silviafanti Back ache AfricanLibrarian M.roszkowski Rhagfyr 沈澄心 MrBenjo S.v.Mering

Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control

Would it be a good idea to model these in a similar way to ISO standards? For example, ISO 9001 (Q1060682). From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
For ontology, something based on what is done for ISO, IEEE, ITU and IEC is more or less fine (some details here User:Iwan.Aucamp/WIP/3GPP). The real question I'm asking is where to put the identifier for these items. What is happening with the ISO items in terms of identifiers correspond to Option C, and as I said there would have to be at least 3 properties (ETSI ID, 3GPP ID, GSM ID). And then the identifiers would also sometimes contain version numbers and sometimes not like ITU-T Recommendation (P5688) - which I don't particularly like.
@From Hill To Shore: While Option C is workable I think it would be good to have a place to put identifiers for items without having to create a new property for the identifiers first. Otherwise the import ends in a situation like this where we have a bunch of items which are not that easily identifiable. I think another benefit of option C is that it would make it easier to automatically render the item for human consumption. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about 5-year-old vandalism

Hi everyone, I have a question about how Wikidata works. I recently updated the description for Christina Courtin, a living person. Wikidata had previously described her as "little out of control with men." I thought this might have been recent vandalism, but the page history shows this description had been there since the entry was created 4.5 years ago, and it had been edited 48 times since then, with 30 of those edits being human edits. I'm wondering - how does an error like this get into an entry and why didn't anyone notice it until now? Clayoquot (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As a little tip, you can use the {{P}}, {{Q}} and {{L}} templates to link to most Wikidata pages. This has the benefit of translating the link into the local language of the reader (if the label in that language has been set). For example: Christina Courtin (Q5110762). There are a few reasons why this vandal edit may have been missed:
  1. Wikidata is a very large database with a relatively small number of editors. Unfortunately, vandalism can easily be missed.
  2. Language labels only show up by default in the language of the editor. If the human editors were not English speakers, the vandalised label may have been hidden from them or they may have been unable to understand the text written in a language they didn't know.
  3. The human editors may have been using a script to edit the page from a set of pre-entered information, meaning that they weren't on the page long enough to review other information.
As this is a multi-lingual project, it is unfortunately a little too easy to slip a vandal edit onto a page in a language that other editors can't read and won't be able to check. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. Best, Clayoquot (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • NB: Wikidata has the potential to be the best and the worst of the Internet. A backbone of all knowledge, but a weak backbone. It provides free information to any source that wants to use it (that's good!), whether it be Sanskrit Wikipedia (Q2587255) or Google Search (Q9366). But it's all crowd-sourced and/or bot-imported, and anyone can change it at any time (that can be bad!). The quality of the information on Wikidata should always be viewed skeptically. It should at a minimum expected to be incomplete, and should never be assumed to be reliable on face value. Any property of any of the 80 million+ items are subject to be changed at any given moment. It's nobody's job to curate or QA/QC the data. Nobody, anywhere, should ever use it uncritically, they are just asking for garbage. With free data, you get what you pay for. -Animalparty (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is just the nature of Wikis. I've found the same on the English Wikipedia, vandalism that has persisted for years. There isn't any quick fix besides abandoning the Wiki model and forbidding anonymous editing, but then you'd really want to rename the project. It's hilarious when people editing one Wiki complain that some other Wiki is unreliable because it's a Wiki. Ghouston (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
All open Wikis are inherently unreliable. I'm not complaining (indeed, I do my best to improve Wikidata almost daily), I only urge caution. I think Wikidata has the potential for more insidious/covert misinformation (albeit possibly more easily corrected), as the self-proclaimed and de facto central storage source for all that is Wiki, and that is lesser understood by the general public. Errors and falsehoods have the power to propagate far beyond a few Wikipedia articles. Thousands of Wikiproject templates and infoboxes mindlessly suck at the teat of Wikidata, at their their own peril. Legitimate, grant-endowed external databases like SNAC and Virtual International Authority File (Q54919) use Wikidata values for their images and descriptions, so it wouldn't be hard for a vandal on Wikidata to make SNAC display a picture of feces for some relatively obscure figure. -Animalparty (talk)

Interesting comments, thanks everyone. BTW, when I discovered the vandalized entry I did a Google search to see whether Google was scraping the vandalism. It wasn't - Google described her as "American singer". It looks as if Google is sometimes capable of getting better information than what's in Wikidata for a given subject, but unfortunately doesn't bother putting that better information into Wikidata. Clayoquot (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot wrote 'Google described her as "American singer". It looks as if Google is sometimes capable of getting better information than what's in Wikidata for a given subject,' Is that true, better than what is in Wikidata? Wasn't the information US singer in Wikidata at that time? They are maybe just clever enough not to use free text from Wikidata. So, a way to fix things like the above is to get rid of free text manual short descriptions in Wikidata. @Animalparty, Jmabel, Ghouston: what do you think? For humans the short descriptions should be generated from the propeterties. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I think this is the sort of thing where overwhelmingly where humans and bots will differ, the humans will to a better job. And it's not like it's easier to vandalize that particular field than any other statement. - Jmabel (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
One other point worth noting is that the vandalised description in Wikipedia was stored in such a way that it was not shown to readers. Getting this information in front of many eyes is one way to spot vandalism early. Bovlb (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Jmabel, can you prove your claims? And this thread is about "Question about 5-year-old vandalism" and not about whether something can be easily vandalized. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
MrProperLawAndOrder, I'm not sure if you're clear on what happened. Or maybe I'm not understanding you - just so we're on the same page, when Google described her as "American singer", Wikidata was describing her as "little out of control with men". Obviously Google's description was better. Clayoquot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Clayoquot, you wrote "'It looks as if Google is sometimes capable of getting better information than what's in Wikidata for a given subject,'" - was the information US singer in WD or not? You wrote "Wikidata was describing her as "little out of control with men"." - That was part of how Wikidata described her, that is what was in one data field. I suggest to think about disallowing free editing of that field. Humans can be described without that free-text field. And if this field is needed, it could be filled from data existing in the other, more structured, fields. "little out of control with men" isn't something that can be said via the other fields. And since the other fields are more structured they can be verified more easily against other databases. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
MrProperLawAndOrder, the information "US singer" was not in WD. WD's more structured fields had "singer-songwriter", "composer", and "violinist". Clayoquot (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Clayoquot, so the occupation-related information "singer" was there. What about US citizenship? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel, I'd see it as a net positive if Google employees (not bots) edit Wikidata if they have good information. If my understanding of how Google uses Wikidata is correct, they'd only have something different from what's in Wikidata if someone complains about it, so there's probably a human employee involved somewhere. Clayoquot (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb, I agree. One of the reasons wikis work is the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" principle. When we hide data from casual readers or editors we lose a lot of eyeballs.Clayoquot (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Clayoquot: Yes, Google employees are certainly as welcome as anyone to edit, but Google doesn't do much of it's online content via direct human activity, so I wouldn't count on it happening. - Jmabel (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: what exactly are you asking me to "prove"? - Jmabel (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: "humans will to a better job" - after I suggested to disallow free editing of the description field. For "instance of = Wikimedia category" there is already a bot enforcable text in the description field. Maybe for "instance of = human" this can be done too. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrProperLawAndOrder: I stand by what I said: yes, descriptions can be vandalized, and we need better ways to detect and revert that when it happens, but in my experience humans are much better than any bot or program at identifying what is salient. Bots routinely "bury the lede". For example, Bernie Whitebear (Q11328585) is accurately described as an "American Indian activist", exactly what he is most notable for. That information is actually completely missing from the data about him at the moment, so a bot would have zero chance of knowing that. Rainer Werner Fassbinder (Q44426) is usefully described as a "German film director, screenwriter, and actor," but have a look at the country of citizenship (P27) values there: would a bot hae worked out "German"? Would it have known which if his many occupations he was best known for? - Jmabel (talk)

Jmabel, thank you for these two examples.
@Whitebear: I am very distant to the topic, actually "American Indian activist" is not very transparent. Probably it means US citizen of Native American descent that was an activist for something - but for what? Maybe for Native Americans? So, a US Pro-Native American activist? So, English Wikipedia says one of his father was "a Filipino who largely assimilated to an Indian way of life" - imagine he would not be Filipino but have India-related descent assimilated to an Indian way of life ;-) ... Was he an Native American cultural activist, Native American rights activist? To the structured fields I added occupation=activist and country of citizenship = United States. Any idea how to add his activism for Native Americans?
@Fassbinder: the field country of citizenship has one value as preferred value, namely West Germany, and this is more accurate than Germany - he was born 1945 and died when the stat of East Germany still existed and his country of citizenship was West Germany. This case would have been easy for a bot, just take the preferred value. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Whitebear's father was Filipino, but married a Sin-Aikst and assimilated to his wife's culture. I'm not sure whether the Sin-Aikst have a formal process of adopting someone into the tribe, if they do he certainly would have qualified. "American Indian" always means "Native American" (from India would be "Indian American"). "American Indian" or "Indian" was Whitebear's own preferred term (he found "Native American" too "anthropological". For Native Americans, cultural and rights activists are almost impossible to separate, and Whiteber was both, certainly among the half dozen most important every in the Pacific Northwest, maybe the most important since among the most prominent in terms of activism, he was the only successful builder of institutions. A source we would generally consider reliable calls him "the most influential Native leader in the region".
Good on nationality for Fassbinder, but not sure this would work for occupation. Also, how will a bot know when someone is most notable for occupation vs. something else? - Jmabel (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Jmabel, how will a human know? How can that be stored in structured data? There could be a "field most known for": "occupation" / victim of ... / father of... .then it is structured and it can be translated by translation of the components. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: (1) Humans, unlike bots, tend to edit in area where they have actual knowledge. (2) Humans, unlike bot, can read (for example) a Wikipedia article and judge what is salient there. "Most known for" is always somewhat subjective, which is why it is very hard to do with citeable structured statements. This is an editorial question, and so far that is something bots are not notably good at. - Jmabel (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
RE (1) often not, see below the section "4-year-old misstatement ...", and if vandals do it, it is even worse, because they would know how to insert vandalism that will not be detected so easily. RE (2) Also statements in structured form can be "subjective". But at least they are readable in hundreds of Wikimedia languages, while free text contains a not-language-specific claim only made in one language. Can all contradict each other. Leads to inconsistency. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for vandalism-hunting bot

MrProperLawAndOrder's suggestion of disallowing free editing of the description field is intriguing. It would help to prevent some vandalism, but I'm concerned it would also have side-effects such as perpetuating existing cultural biases. But the concept could be the basis of a vandalism-hunting technique: Someone could make a bot look for descriptions of humans that are highly unusual, and just generate a list of those records so the community could take a closer look at them. Clayoquot (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts, anyone? Clayoquot (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Clayoquot: Two ideas: about protecting only labels/descriptions, it would be useful in many cases and it has already been proposed but it is technically impossible at the moment (T189412); about vandalism-hunting, users can already visualize edits which are probably wrong in different colours and the system is becoming more and more precise (see Wikidata:ORES). --Epìdosis 11:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Epìdosis, ChristianKl: you both mentioned ORES. Is it possible to get a list of changes of descriptions of instances of human tagged by ORES? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I was actually thinking of using bot to search all BLP records for old vandalism, not for scanning for vandalism in recent changes. As described above, vandalism can remain in records for years and not be picked up by human editors. Clayoquot (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    Clayoquot, the detection mechanism would be the same? But so far, I have not seen any example of ORES doing anything against misdescriptions on humans. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

4-year-old misstatement - copied to descriptions in various languages

Clayoquot: [26] - I can undo the one edit for the structured field, but how to undo all the descriptions? What, if there are some that I cannot read. Free text field is not well manageable. @Epìdosis, ChristianKl: what about ORES? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

5-year-old given name equal to family name Adler

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1497463&diff=208296262&oldid=205487219 MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

German association football player dying at age of 9 years

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1511794&diff=1115062695&oldid=1114102355 MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

1856 born linguist died 1855 - one year before his birth

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12641449&type=revision&diff=1114481055&oldid=1113904142 MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

7-year-old duplicate found thanks to GND and Deutsche Biographie

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3803884&action=history MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For 7 years human missing GND ID which is in connected VIAF for 9 years

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4381&diff=1182711750&oldid=1135025839 MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may ask, why are you making a new section to tell us about every error you find? From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: why do you claim that I do something, what I am not doing? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: I'm asking you about the sections you have created immediately above and below this comment. You now have 6 sections with a title and a link telling us that you have found errors in Wikidata. What is the purpose? If it is to prompt a discussion, it would be useful if you could indicate what you are wanting to talk about. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

4-year-old ids for type corporate on item of type human

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q23010787&action=history - leading to various other batch and bot edits. Found thanks to GND IDs from Deutsche Biographie. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1605162&action=history - similar, including headquarter location for item about human. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrProperLawAndOrder: Most of this errors can be found through constraint violations of single properties (e.g. Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P227); unfortunately these lists are very long, so correcting all the problems is a long process. --Epìdosis 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Epìdosis thank you, will think about what can be done. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/04&oldid=1191263762"