Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2024/04

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.

The time value is malformed

I am getting this error as as of a short time ago, whereas I was not getting the error before. Restarting my computer and refreshing the pages does not seem to help. I am typing 2015 Jul 20, which used to work. I have tried several other formats, but anything beyond just the year is creating an error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

? This edit seems fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: If I type "2015-07-20", the date is accepted. But the system is not accepting words or letter months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Worked fine for me: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q24790664&diff=2116035548&oldid=2116034263 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Odd. It is still not working for me. The error seems to be limited to just that data item. I cannot replicate the issue elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a "refers to different value/object" reason for deprecation?

Should there be something like refers to different subject (Q28091153) but for the value/object instead of the subject? I feel like I've looked for that a few times when deprecating statements.

(The current statement I'd like to use it on is The Survivor (Q20026880)follows (P155)The Last Man (Q2323961) because I think The Survivor follows a different item with the same name.) dseomn (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would create a new item with the same name, but a different description, making clear why it's different. I created in the same way multiple Surinam plantations with the same name, but located at different rivers by adding the name of the river in the description. Nico5038 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of a city

Hello, I'm a newbie here and I ended up on Wikidata by contributing to Commons. I have a question about the best way to choose an image linked to a town. Many Wikidata items display the town hall, which I think provides little information. I noticed that in many cases, we could find fairly good images of the whole town or a significant view of it on Commons. Is this choice of displaying the town hall the result of a community consensus or decision ? Is there a page to help us choosing the best image for a town ? I couldn't find any specific instruction apart from the "San Francisco" example on the image help page. Thank you ! Anne Daemon (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Anne Daemon: The consensus would be stated on Wikidata:WikiProject Cities and Towns and the image example there clearly shows a view of the city, not just a town hall. So I'm pretty sure a view of the town would be perfect for image (P18) values on town items. Thanks for working on this! ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Portrait of Jose Aniceto Iznaga

My name is Diana Yznaga Gomez and Jose Aniceto Iznaga/Yznaga is my great, great grandfather. The portrait that is displayed when you do an Internet Search on Jose Aniceto I/Yznaga is not Jose Aniceto Iznaga. I am requesting that it be removed and replaced with the authentic Jose Aniceto Iznaga portrait. Because there are several websites on the Internet purporting this person to be Jose Aniceto I/Yznaga, we decided to send the picture shown on this website to two reputable museums for verification as to the time/era/dress to see if it coincides with the pictures we have of Jose Aniceto I/Yznaga. Here is their response. Hi Diana – This question was a bit out of my scope so I shared it with our Assistant Registrar Liz Paris, who did graduate work with 19th century photography. Liz Paris, has helped with costuming/19th century photography questions before.: Here’s what she wrote (she’s also copied here): I can elaborate more on this if needed, but the clothing looks like 1900-1910s—definitely not 1860s. The collar and tie are the biggest indicators that this is not from the mid-19th century; the comparison is even more clear with the context images we sent the last time, especially the image with one of Iznaga and his son from the 1850s. Hope this helps! Good luck with your research – Heather Heather Lammers Collections Manager & Curator McNay Art Museum P.O. 6069/6000 North New Braunfels San Antonio, Texas 78209 USA From New York City Museum. My brother contacted NYCM asking them about the picture in dispute. Hello Richard, See the e-mail below from our Costume curator regarding your query. Best, Sean -- Sean Corcoran Curator of Prints and Photographs Museum of the City of New York 1220 5thAvenue New York, NY 10029 Tel. (212) 534 1672 x3374 www.mcny.org From: Phyllis Magidson Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 11:42 AM To: Sean Corcoran ; Susan Johnson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance - Mr Yznaga I think that Mr. Yznaga is correct in his doubts: my feeling is 1880s, based on other period images that feature gentlemen with casual center-parted hair, as well as his very relaxed/jaunty demeanor for the photographer (we have comparable neckties documented on an 1894 Boston shot, so we might be safe to date it 1880s-90s). Because two very reputable museums have both said this could not be Jose Aniceto I/Yznaga, we are requesting that this picture be removed. Along with the proof from the museums, I am attaching a link from the Historia de Cuba displaying the authentic picture of my great, great grandfather. https://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/digital/collection/cubanphotos/id/3557/ Please see page 23 for the picture of Jose Aniceto Iznaga. Sandyiego23 (discusión) 12:47 21 mar 2024 (UTC) Sandyiego (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Cyanobacteria (Q93315)

Hello,

The French page as well as the Spanish one have been recently moved to "Cyanobacteriota". As a result, they are not linked any more to the wiki pages in other languages (and there are many, about 80 of them). The wikilinks for the Spanish and French wikis shoud be changed to Cyanobacteriota, instead of "Cyanobacteria" which is now only a redirect. This is impractical if you want to see the 80 links to other languages since they are on the redirect and not the main page. I tried to correct this but for an unknown reason the same wikilink cannot be used on two pages (already used in Cyanobacteriota (Q25577567)). I don't see solutions other than removing the Spanish and French links from Cyanobacteriota (Q25577567)) so as I can put them in Cyanobacteria (Q93315). I tried this too but got reverted each time.

Any guess of what to do?

Thank you in advance

80.215.169.25 17:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirects can be linked - see Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects. You can also add direct links on the relevant language wikipedia pages. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I'm not sure what you are talking about in your second sentence: do you mean that I have to add 80 interwiki links on the Spanish and the French pages? I thought they were discarded a long time ago thanks to Wikidata. Concerning Cyanobacteria (Q93315), the French redirect is this and the Spanish on is this, i.e. a redirect page with about 80 interwiki links that used to be on the main page before it was renamed. This is rather impractical, isn't it? That's why I suggest only changing the links in Cyanobacteria (Q93315) (the main page rather the redirect) so as to correct this messy situation. 80.215.169.25 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing extra languages

When I look at an item it shows me the description in English as well my two suggested languages: Maori and American English. I don't wish to have this as they never have a description. Looking at my settings they appear to be suggested languages yet I don't see a way to remove them. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-03-11. Translations are available.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot: MONA.artpublic.bot (Task: The bot's function is to add information about artists specializing in public artwork in Québec, Canada. The bot will initially only add that an artist's genre of work is public art for a set of known public artists in Québec compiled by MONA Montréal from open data sets.)

Events

  • Upcoming:
    • Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group call April 2, 2024: Come join us for fun data modeling discussions! We'll create breakout rooms in Zoom for people to discuss 4 examples of cultural heritage items to contribute to Wikidata. Each group will choose categories, brainstorm properties for basic and enhanced description, and discuss challenges. Then we'll have some quality time at the end to compare notes and discuss our processes! Agenda
    • Wikidata Leveling Up Days, everything you need to know about Wikidata: 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 April. The event is taking place online and the videos are already available on the program page.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

  • Blogs: Galerij der Groten op Wikidata (Dutch) - Wikimedia NL hosted an Edit-A-Thon on the Baroeg project, the task was to document and archive on Wikidata all of the bands that have played at the live music venue, the idea born from a stack of band flyers and posters hung in the bathroom(!) Join the next one Sunday April 14th.
  • Papers: Understanding Wikidata - Wikidata is extremely valuable as a data source to supplement, validate and extend existing knowledge bases and applications. To effectively utilize Wikidata in a Semantic Web application, one must understand its design, terminology and correspondence with ontological concepts (especially RDF and OWL). This paper attempts to explain and position this information. (by AWesterinen)
  • Videos
  • Notebooks: Gender differences in the number of sitelinks among members of the European Parliament, a statistical analysis based on Wikidata about the number of sitelinks by gender.

Tool of the week

  • Wikidatalite : Search, browse, and navigate Wikidata items with a mobile-friendly, simplified user interface.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • mul language code: We are continuing the work on fixing remaining issues for the next stage of releasing it (phab:T356200)
  • REST API:
  • EntitySchemas: We continued work on making it possible to link to EntitySchemas in statements (phab:T359419)

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.

Weekly Tasks

(5000) unconnected television season articles in the english language wikipedia after pages have been moved

Hello,

in the english language wikipedia, thousands of articles for television seasons have been moved to remove brackets:

As a result, at the moment about 5.000 articles are now unconnected, which have been connected to wikidata objects before:

Is there a way to reconnect these articles to the already existing wikidata items automatically again after moving the articles in the english language wikipedia?

@Mike Peel: for information.

Thanks a lot! M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@M2k~dewiki: The bot should have moved them in a way that updated the sitelinks at the same time, if not then the bot operator should fix it. Pi bot will search for matches and load them into the game, if it can't find them that way then it would create new items for them soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Pinging the bot operator @Qwerfjkl: so they are aware of this and can fix this problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Also see
M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_for_admin_bot_to_create_local_accounts_for_users_in_other_wikis.--GZWDer (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
For example, en:American Idol (season 1) is now a redirect to en:American Idol season 1. The redirect en:American Idol (season 1) is still connected to d:Q655900, while the actual article en:American Idol season 1 is now unconnected. M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Also see
M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Checking into this more, User:Pi bot has already created a bunch of new items for the affected articles already this morning, see [1]. Those now all need to be merged... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've turned off the Pi bot script to create new items for now, until this is cleaned up. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Sitelinks have been modified:
Duplicates haven been merged, e.g.:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@M2k~dewiki: Thanks for the update. Can you confirm if I can restart Pi bot's task for creating new items then? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T143486
Hello Mike, I only have the information above. Is there some test mode or dry-run-mode for Pi bot, in order to simulate what would be done, without committing the changes to the database? What will happen next time, if there is similar action executed by a user without wikidata account? Is there something we could do or improve to avoid this in the future? M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
E.g. Krdbot moved some of the pages to the new name, while leaving out others. What was the cause for not moving them? M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@M2k~dewiki: I've looked through the latest database query results for unmatched articles, and I can only see a few entries mentioning 'season' so I think this is back to normal. Pi bot will work through them again from tomorrow onwards. I don't know what Krdbot does as @Krd: doesn't seem to publish the source code for it. I'm hoping phab:T143486 will help solve the longer term problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

How to handle vandalism

On Wikidata, is there a series of warnings that a user should be given before they can be blocked for vandalism? At what point can they be reported to Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard? Kk.urban (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Vandalism. TL;DR: If it’s just some childish one-off nonsense edit, just undo (or rollback, in case you have this right) and don’t waste any more time and energy. If it’s more, feel free to report to WD:AN. --Emu (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I will report them after only 2 edits. Kk.urban (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Misidentification of individual (one individual is actually at least two)

For https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6262795, this is actually at least two individuals. The Canadian photographer John Wallace Jones who is linked to his copyrighted photos in Wikimedia Commons was born around 1854 in Ireland. He started out as a photographer in Manitoba, Canada, then spent the rest of his working career as a photographer in Victoria and Esquimalt, British Columbia, Canada. He died in Victoria on 7 Mar 1938. For some details about his career see David Mattison's "Camera Workers" website entry: https://www.cameraworkers.davidmattison.com/getperson.php?personID=I162

The American politician and judge are someone else (or two) entirely.

Thanks! 70.66.254.4 20:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that error! I moved the photographer to John Wallace Jones (Q125289004): (1854-1938) Canadian photographer --Emu (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Way to store inter-station distance, for subway and railway

I am seeking the right qualifier Property used under adjacent station (P197).

Example: Xizhimen station (Q847791)adjacent station (P197)Chegongzhuang station (Q5089563), the distance is 0.909km, stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_2_(Beijing_Subway) JuguangXiao (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ni hao! There is a related discussion here: Property_talk:P197#Distance_between_stations. I don't like using "length" as it is ambiguous. Does it mean line-of-sight distance or track length? We don't need to store line-of-sight distance as we can simply calculate the distance based on the coordinates for the two stations. But maybe we need a new property for "length of roadway, railtrack and similar"? Infrastruktur (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
linear reference (P6710) seems common in railway terms. You could then calculate the difference between pairs of stations. It has the good feature the operator defines it. Vicarage (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking good! I just tried, but linear reference (P6710) is not a valid qualifier for adjacent station (P197) . JuguangXiao (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
你好 (= Ni Hao) :-) Track length is on my mind. Thank for pointing out old discussion. I am wondering if I move the discussion to Property_talk:P197 , will it be less attention to draw rather than posting in Project chat? JuguangXiao (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

David Napier (Q5237922)

The image on this page is incorrect as are the images where it is used on the Wikipedia entries. This is an image of David Napier marine engineer Born.10.11.1790, Died.23.11.1869 and not of David Napier the precision engineer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Napier_(marine_engineer)

I have an image of a portrait of the correct David Napier here https://npht.org/about-napier/napierians/key-napierians/david/ Unfortunately I don't know how to amend this information. Maybe somebody can help? NapierNige (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you upload your image to Wikimedia Commons, we can't link to images on external sites. Then you can edit the reference here and check that its use on other wikipedias (some will use our value, others will hard-code the image name. Vicarage (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I removed the uses of File:David Napier.jpg and corrected the description; the source filename https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/File:Im1870EnV29-p102.jpg refers to an obituary published in 1870 (https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1870/02/18) and used in https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/David_Napier_(1790-1869) but it was uploaded to Commons with the date as 1873. Peter James (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks Peter
I added the correct file to Commons. Maybe somebody could kindly add the image
David_Napier_Engineer_1787_-1873
to the correct page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Napier_(precision_engineer) NapierNige (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata Leveling Up Days, video contents and live event starting on April 5th

Hello all,

As a reminder, the Wikidata Leveling Up Days are coming up this month!

We prepared for you 14 short videos to cover everything that you need to know to get involved with Wikidata. You can watch them at your own pace on Wikimedia Commons or on Youtube. English captions are available, and you can contribute to translate these captions on Commons.

You can also join us for the live online event taking place during the upcoming week-ends, on April 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14. On each day, you will be able to explore a specific topic, watch or re-watch the videos together, ask questions to the speakers, or attend additional workshops. We will also have sessions dedicated to asking questions (Wikidata Clinic) and to edit Wikidata together (open live editing). You will find the schedule and all the details on the main event page.

For event-related announcements, discussions and questions, we will use the Wikidata Help Telegram channel - feel free to join it ahead of the event, and if you’re an experienced editor, you can join it as well to help answer newcomers' questions.

We’re looking forward to seeing you at the Wikidata Leveling Up Days! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Which session covers establishing notability for created items? Bovlb (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Just a note for the community that my reasonable question remains unanswered. More discussion at Wikidata_talk:Events/Leveling_Up_Days_2024#Notability. Bovlb (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Help with query

https://w.wiki/9gnG

Why does deprecated identifiers still show up? It completely defeats the purpose Trade (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trade Actually the purpose of your selected syntax IS to show all statements, not just the true ones. If you want to keep this syntax and filter out only non-deprecated statements, you'll have to modify the query: https://w.wiki/9guT Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

{{List of properties/Row}} Update

I have updated {{List of properties/Row}} for clear syntax and clear result when using a property with a qualifier.The previous syntax still for backward compatibly . This is an example of new syntax: 

{{List of properties/Header}}
{{List of properties/Row
 | id                = 22
 | qualifier = 143
 | example-subject   = Q9682
 | example-object    = Q280856
 | example-predicate = Q328
}}
{{List of properties/Footer}}
Title ID Data type Description Examples Inverse
father with qualifier imported from Wikimedia projectP22Itemfather: male parent of the subject. For stepfather, use "stepparent" (P3448)Elizabeth II <father> George VI
<imported from Wikimedia project> English Wikipedia		child
The previous
{{List of properties/Header}}
{{List of properties/Row
 | id                = 143
 | contextualized-qualifier = true
 | description       = source of this claim's value
 | example-subject   = Q9682
 | example-property  = P22
 | example-object    = Q280856
 | example-predicate = Q328
}}
{{List of properties/Footer}}
Title ID Data type Description Examples Inverse
father with qualifier imported from Wikimedia projectP143ItemWikimedia Foundation project: source of this claim's valueElizabeth II <father> George VI
<imported from Wikimedia project> English Wikipedia		-

حبيشان (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hyneria

Does anyone know why Hyneria lindae (Q132969) (currently titled Hyneria lindae) has sitelinks to many articles titled Hyneria? Kk.urban (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It was considered a monotypic genus until last year; the corresponding Wikidata items just haven't been updated to account for this. Taxa aren't exactly a high traffic part of the site, it's mostly bots. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Most active Wikidata WikiProjects?

What are the most active WikiProjects in Wikidata?

"Active" may include number of participants, number of WikiProject talk page posts, size and frequency of contribution to WikiProject campaigns, development of project documentation, or whatever else indicates activity.

Thanks for any suggestions. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, during the pandemic it might have been Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19.
Other projects are for example:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, often wikidata projects are discussed in the wikipedia language versions, for example:
M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings - PKM (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata:WikiProject Manuscripts - PKM (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks both I cross posted this to Wikidata_talk:WikiProjects#Most_active_WikiProjects so that others would find it. I would not have guessed about some of these. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

When should I add wiktionary sitelink?

I tried to add hy:wikt:աստղ to star (Q523) and got a warning about notability. It said that "Wikidata's notability policy does not allow links to Wiktionary entries unless the interlanguage links cannot be automatically provided. By clicking on "save", you confirm that this is the case. In general, connecting Wiktionary words to Wikidata concepts is not correct." is there any policy page where I can read about this? How do I decide if it is or it is not okay to add Wiktionary link? ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, documentation can be found at Wikidata:Wiktionary/Sitelinks M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @M2k~dewiki. ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I’ve now reverted the edit and also posted an edit request that the mentioned documentation page should be linked in the error message you saw. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #623

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-04-08. Translations are available.

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Anti-Pattern Analyzer is a static website capable of checking the existence of 'anti-pattern 1' (AP1) occurrences given an entity from Wikidata. It can also check if a new statement would introduce new violations.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Only 13 more days to go! The deadline to submit your project proposal to Wikimedia Deutschland's Open Call for Software Contributions is coming closer and closer. With this call, Wikimedia Deutschland aims to support projects that make Wikidata's data more accessible and usable for a wider audience.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • REST API:
    • We continued the work on the endpoint for creating an Item via POST /entities/items (phab:T342990)
    • We continued the work on the endpoint for modifying data of a Property via PATCH /entities/properties/{property_id} (]]phab:T347394]])
  • EntitySchemas: Work on making it possible to link to EntitySchemas in statements is continuing.
  • mul language code: We are fixing remaining issues uncovered during testing. (phab:T355059, phab:T356200, phab:T135871, phab:T356201)

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.

Weekly Tasks

April 2024 Wikidata content pie chart

April 2024 Wikidata statistics

We have an updated pie 🥧 chart for Wikidata:Statistics! Wow the Wikidata:WikiCite slice sure is large and tasty.

BTW - there is not particular news published for sharing but developers at the Wikimedia Foundation and WikiCite contributors are discussing a split of the Wikidata Query Service Graph. See Wikidata_talk:WikiCite#WikiCite_in_continued_limbo for background, and post to the WikiCite talk page if you want to join discussions and get updates.

Thanks user:VIGNERON for generating this. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Only one name item per name?

Replies to my question here are very welcome: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Names#Which_items_should_be_added_as_P735? D3rT!m (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Something has gone wrong with the authors here...

2018 American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Annual Meeting & Exhibition (Q57498725) duplicate entries, duplicate "object named as"... Magnus Manske (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a problem at source that was imported in the original edit. If you check the PubMed link, you will see the same author names repeated multiple times. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

NOMBRE OFICIAL DEL PUEBLO Y PLAYA

Daimús es el nombre oficial de la población, con lo cual solicito que se sustituya el uso de 'Daimuz' por el oficial, tanto en el pueblo como en la playa. Daimús y Playa de Daimús. Robert Miñana (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding item for a book that is self-published and has ISBN

About adding Wikidata item for a book that is self-published and has ISBN: is this allowed? I seem to recall Wikisource does not allow self-published works; does Wikidata allow them? If there were no requirement of ISBN, I can see problems (too many Internet pages could lay claim to be self-published works worthy of a Wikidata item), but the item I am considering to add does have an ISBN. (I am not the self-publisher.) Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is unlikely for a self-published book to be notable. But most books with a proper publisher are probably ok assuming you add a couple decent references (identifiers count here). ISBN doesn't establish notability by itself. You can find the policy here.
There are some exceptions of course. Andy Weir's “The Martian” is self-published for instance. This was used as a basis for a major movie.
You gave me a good idea by the way. I think I'm going to add a "complex constraint" to check for known self-publishing houses. Infrastruktur (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course WD has the distinction between the creative work and the published physical book. As more authors start with self-publishing and if successful either stick with the model or get picked up by others, I think its likely we will have notable works with both self-published and publishing house editions, with different ISBNs. And I'd be wary of making judgement calls as to which commercial organisations are 'proper' publishers or are merely assisting with the self-publishing revolution. A work that features in its genre websites, like Internet Speculative Fiction Database (Q2629164) seems a good candidate irrespective of publishing method. Vicarage (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
English Wikisource will allow certain kinds of self-published works, provided they meet stringent criteria, and some self-published works have historical, scientific, or cultural notability.
But when you say "book", I assume you mean a specific edition of that work, since there is an ISBN? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I mean ISBN 0954029100, found in Google Books and Amazon. I have only a tentative grasp of the "book" vs. "edition" distinction; my guess--but only a guess--is that I mean an edition.
Wikidata:Notability item 2--the one that could theoretically apply--is too generic/vague for me to understand. Thank you all for answers so far. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Move request

Hello everyone, how do I create a request to rename/move a lexeme? Due to the renaming of a company, I would like to request that Plastic Omnium (Q3391735) be renamed to "OPmobility". See the French WP for sources. Thanks for your answers. --Thingol (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That is an item rather than a lexeme. A move isn't necessary. You just add a new alias with the alternative name. If other editors don't object, you can swap the alias with the main label, but you must keep both. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the quick reply. --Thingol (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflation errors

It looks like a dozen entries from one source have conflation and typographical errors, can someone look at Karel Sicha (Q95151151) and Josef Gerschon (Q61912800) and Václav Mach (Q95138276), which looks like a conflation, while I take care of the typographical errors. RAN (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) If you find other conflations, please report them to me. These were manually paired based on suggestions provided by the reconciliation service, but it seems that I mis-clicked in a few out of the 1800 entries. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Vojtěch Dostál: Do you have a contact at REGO where they can fix their typographical errors, there were maybe 10 where they typed dates that should be 1800s as 1900s. We used to have a contact at VIAF that would fix typographical errors at the source, then we could delete them here. REGO might have someone that can do the same. --RAN (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    I will try to pass the information to them, please compile a list of these and e-mail them to me, if you can. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I will have to do a search for values we deprecated where they are the source. --RAN (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

questions go here?

Is this the right place to ask questions? My apologies if not. I would like to ask these questions about best practices and community etiquette:

This newly created record - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125408315 - has at least two problems: the pseudonym and the name. Because the name is wrong, I'm inclined to make a duplicate entry for the person and merge them. Would it be better to attempt to move Q125408315 so I can correct the name?

The pseudonym is incorrect; he did not use that pseudonym. But I know where the misinformation came from; the contributor mistook a generic ironic phrase and applied it specifically. Should I simply delete the bad data? Delete it and leave a note on the discussion for the entity? Delete it and leave a note for the individual contributor of that info? What is the proper way to correct the data? Jerimee (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place to ask questions. To make an internal link to an item, you can write it like {{Q|125408315}} which produces Henry Fournier (Q125408315). Next, there is no point creating a new entry and then merging it; you may as well edit the existing item. The pseudonym is supported by a reference that seems to be guessing the pseudonym; I'd deprecate the statement (see Help:Deprecation). What change are you wanting to make to the name? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much! That reference is a single line of text on a blog that reads "nothing is known about him, he might have well as signed his name blotch." It is an easy enough mistake to make; it is like saying "he might as well have signed his name X" or "he might as well have signed his name John Doe."
His name is Henry, not Henri, despite his being French. Source 1: https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/147360 Source 2: https://archives.var.fr/ark:/73531/s00512dd01ec64bd/512dd01f10e92 Alt Img for Source 1: https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Fournier-3954-1 So Henry Fournier (Q125408315) needs to be moved to label "Henry Fournier."
The pseudonym issue is separate from the label issue. And thanks for letting me know it is better to simply move, than to create new and then merge. Jerimee (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I got confused, and thought for some reason labels could not be edited without doing a move. My apologies. I think I have my answers now. :) Jerimee (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible merge needed.

1. Q20423164 / 2. Q125491384

These both seem to be the same person. "Muhammad Ali Tamim" is the correct spelling according to various sources. If needed, could they be merged? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Merged. For more information on how you can merge items yourself see Help:Merge. -- William Graham (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (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. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please merge

Q2384903 and Q122232511 are identical persons.

Next time I will try it myself. Ronald Weiss (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

→ ← Merged, thanks for noting us! For the next time you can find help at Help:Merge. –Samoasambia ✎ 17:19, 16 April 2024 (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. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Where an item uesed in wikimedia projects

How to check where an item used in wikimedia projects? حبيشان (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@حبيشان: Navigate to the item. Click "Page information." Scroll down to "Wikis subscribed to this entity." Now you can click on each wiki to see which pages on that wiki use the item. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek Thank you. حبيشان (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2024 (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. --حبيشان (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

throughput (P2957)

I am looking for a property to indicate the storage capacity of buildings such as silos or granary. This case (Silo of Allo (Q99790705) has the throughput but it is limited and gives an error. Is there any other property more suitable? Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

volume as quantity (P2234) but it looks like it should only be used with units of volume, not units of mass. Peter James (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate for throughput (P2957) to allow tons to be entered? One of its aliases is capacity and in Spanish load capacity, which are measured in kilos or tons. For example, the wheat storage capacity of a building such as a silo or granary. All the best. CC: @Epìdosis: @Multichill: @Madamebiblio: --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Abián: wrote to me to tell me the problem that the use of tons can bring. It is not a very reliable measure, therefore we should not use it, so thank you all. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Written work

Peek at Rem Cashow (1768-1816) biography (Q125417076) where instance_of=genealogical biography (Q125417108) is not being recognized as a written_work, how can I get rid of the error massages? RAN (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I updated Q125417108 BrokenSegue (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
For written works like that, shouldn't instance of (P31)written work (Q47461344) plus genre (P136)genealogical biography (Q125417108) be used? I think genres aren't usually used as values for P31 statements. --95.90.253.130 17:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
yeah that is more appropriate BrokenSegue (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Query Count in Table

Hi,

Kindly requesting, How to add an auto-updating 'count' (number of items) in a table on a project page? Wallacegromit1 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to add the following query value into a table; 

SELECT (COUNT(*) AS ?count)

WHERE {

?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .

?item wdt:P27 wd:Q408 .

?item wdt:P106 wd:Q60461966 .

}
Try it!
@ArthurPSmith Thanks for the suggestion, but it does not seem to work.
There must be an easier way to just get the count? Wallacegromit1 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Getting a filter error with reference URL entrepreneur.com

"Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. The text you wanted to publish was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a forbidden external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: entrepreneur.com"

Not sure why that website would be blocked on Wikidata: American magazine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur_(magazine) Piecesofuk (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time I see this kind of error. I had a similar error, if only I had read project chat before posting I would not need to post my issue. Anyway I thought this was so unique of a problem that only I had it. Now I see that you also had an issue with entering references. I guess someone is working hard right now to fix it...I'll actually log out, then I'll log in again in a few hours...perhaps its fixed by then...who knows. Thanks for reporting! TooFewUsernames (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It could be that admins have deemed links to that website mostly unwanted. So even if the site itself is ok, it might feature often as a reference in promotional spam whilst not being useful for establishing notability. But that's speculation of course.
I have no idea if admins are exempt from the blacklist, but bots are, so I guess. What claim were you trying to add? I'll try adding it for you. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has it as "No Consensus" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources so it shouldn't be blacklisted here. Anything listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22entrepreneur.com%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 should be allowed as a valid reference on Wikidata Piecesofuk (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to point out that this is an invalid argument. Wikidata is not English Wikipedia (as the majority of English Wikipedians are eager to point out whenever there is an opportunity to work with Wikidata). The issues that Wikidata faces are not the same as English Wikipedia. An argument that something is okay "here" because English Wikipedia says it is okay "there" holds little weight.
On the other hand, if you would like to bring up similar points to those discussed at Wikipedia, you may gain a separate consensus here that goes the same way. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Have I misunderstood the purpose of Wikidata? (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:About_data) Shouldn't it store all the structured data within all Wikipedias including references? Piecesofuk (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Two key principles of the Wikimedia movement are that (with the exception of breaches of law) decisions are made by consensus and that a consensus on one project can't dictate how another project operates. Wikidata can't dictate how things operate on English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia can't dictate how things operate on Wikidata. You have to reach a separate consensus in both projects.
I have no knowledge of this blocked source other than the Wikipedia article you linked. My issue is solely that you can't point us to a consensus on another project and expect changes to be implemented without discussion. The consensus must be formed here too. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
As stated below the change was implemented here without discussion. Piecesofuk (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Has been blacklisted locally since January 2021 by @Lymantria for long term abuse, see here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Long term abuse? It's a legitimate magazine published since 1977. Can it be removed from the blacklist? Piecesofuk (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
You make a good argument, but let's hear from Lymantria first. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It may be a legitimate magazine, it's been the base to a lot of spam as well. The latter has been the reason for blacklisting it. Feel free to debate that decision here, I will be out of office from tomorrow onwards for a few weeks. If it is decided that this blacklisting is to be removed, I will accept so. --Lymantria (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the discussion which alleged that the magazine was used as a base for spam, I can't find any evidence of that.
Wikidata editors should be able to copy any and all references that are stored in Wikipedia into Wikidata. Isn't that what Wikidata is for, to store all the structureed data in Wikipedia? Piecesofuk (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There has not been such a discussion as far as I remember, which is not uncommon @Wikidata. Your statement on what Wikidata editors should be able to, may be a bit too general. --Lymantria (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This is my understanding of "Instead of supporting the structure and common elements of a web page, Wikidata provides structure for all the information stored in Wikipedia, and on the other Wikimedia projects. " https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:About_data Piecesofuk (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This is WD:UCS territory. Wikidata does not exist in a vacuum, it needs to consider the needs of the wiki-sphere, but ultimately local concerns take precedence. If you've seen how much promotional spam there is, I think you just might change your mind. What's even worse is when people decide to abuse the appeal system even if they have no case at all, wasting the time of others. Some admins (and since I can only speak for one that kind of narrows it down) have even stopped deleting promotional items because of this, instead focusing on other types of deletions. If this does not sound sustainable, it is because it is not. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful if someone would provide a single example of spam abuse from entrepreneur.com Piecesofuk (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
From a quick look at Entrepreneur's marketing materials on their "Entrepreneur Partner Studio", it appears that sponsored content and paid placement contributor networks are some part of their business model. Contributor network content being larger on their international franchises.
Whether it's to a level that is so pervasive that it overwhelms the value of their reported editorial content is beyond me. I contrast them with Insider/BusinessInsider who is not on the blocklist, but has a well known and significant level of sponsored content/paid placement contributor networks. --William Graham (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

main_subject/major_subject versus secondary_subject/minor_subject in Wikidata entries

How can we provide secondary_subject search terms in a Wikidata entry for an obituary? I may be looking through Wikidata for an obituary of someone associated with a particular Olympics or associated with a particular company, but it appears main_subject can only be used for the name of the deceased person. Is there any way to include search terms other than the deceased person's name? For instance at Commons in structured_data you include all search terms and mark the deceased person's name as "prominent" and leave the other search terms unmarked. How would we do this here at Wikidata? Can I include all useful search terms and mark the deceased person's name with "preferred rank" and leave the other search terms as "normal rank"? I can understand not including every name in the index at an entry for a book, but an obituary may only have 5 or 6 secondary_subject search terms. What is the best way to include useful search terms without violating the rigid definition of main_subject? RAN (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe main subject (P921) has a rigid definition at all - see for example the (long) discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal/subject facet. I believe it can and should be used for any sort of useful keyword on an item for a work. Did somebody revert you for using main subject (P921) for another term on an obituary? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The change was made at this entry: David Emanuel Wahlberg (1882-1949) obituary (Q105337575) to remove all the search terms but the name of the decedent. I am not against making the decedent's name "preferred rank". I do that when the obituary is also at Wikisource, since changes at Wikisource now cause links to form for all the terms at Wikidata, if they have Wikipedia entries, and I only want them for the decedent. --RAN (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
When you say "this entry," were you intending to link to a specific item? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Ha! I went back and added it, sorry for the confusion, I went to cut and paste it in as David Emanuel Wahlberg (1882-1949) obituary (Q105337575), but it looks like I just cut and pasted an empty space. I do not think that the number of search terms that I had added were unreasonable. The text is in Swedish so having the links to Wikidata entries for the people/places/things mentioned are very useful. As in most news articles abbreviations are used to save space, and linking to the actual term is very useful. For USA news articles, I know what NY and NJ mean but I cannot expect someone from another country to know what they mean. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I can see your point but these types of discussions are never resolved unless we allow the other party to provide their perspective. @Quesotiotyo: would you like to comment here as the one who reverted the edit? Would you be willing to let the information be restored either under main subject (P921) or another property? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I dont read Swedish but it sound that any decent obituary if the man would cover his Alma mater and his sporting prowess, so adding the terms is superfluous. If I wanted obituaries of 1912 olympians I'd ask for the people, and then obituaries, and not go through main_subject, and get a thin set of results Vicarage (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Not every obituary has an entry for the decedent. There is a current project to load all the obituaries from the New York Times. And we should have a standard rule, not ad hoc deletion. We also should not restrict how someone may search for an obituary they are looking for, because that is not the way any other individual would search for it. I prefer to use Google to search through Wikidata, and the more relevant search terms, the more precise a Google search becomes. As I said before, we do not need to include every term listed in an index if we have an entry for a book. --RAN (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Why would you accept an obituary without a decedent? If the obituary is worth recording it should be able to populate a person entry. I think this is a clear case of using WDs structure to remove duplicate information. Vicarage (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Because an obituary comes from "serious and publicly available" resource. An entry for the decedent, that does not have a Wikidata entry can have one created at any time. The same argument could be used to not host scientific articles because we do not have an entry for the author, yet we have over 10,000 scientific articles with no link to an author or a topic. We host scientific articles because they are a "serious and publicly available" resource. --RAN (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You have it slightly wrong. Wikidata:Notability allows for entities described by serious and publicly available references. The vast majority of articles that we have are not being used as a reference source.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It may not be clear what property (educated at, affiliation, qualifier on degree) you would find an "alma mater" under in Wikidata - if it was even listed on the person's item? I don't see how adding it to the obituary item hurts anything here - it's redundant only in a very indirect sense. But maybe @Quesotiotyo: can clarify. If it was on a "keyword" property instead of "main subject" would it be acceptable, or also "redundant" and to be deleted? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
By all means, include this information using an appropriate property. I wasn't suggesting that any of it was redundant, just that it in no way fit the description of P921 ("primary topic of a work").
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Quesotiotyo: despite the description text, main subject (P921) also has aliases that indicate it is (and has been widely) used for "non-primary" topics. Are you familiar with previous discussion regarding alternate property proposals for non-primary topics (such as Wikidata:Property proposal/subject facet)? Would you strongly support such an alternative? We don't seem to have had a consensus on this up to now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
See, I would view those aliases and uses that you refer to as point-blank wrong since they do not fit the definition of this property, and in my opinion they should be removed without question. If any users really want this information to persist, it should be up to them to request a property specifically for such a purpose (and then add the statements in the correct manner). As you have noted, this has been attempted several times before and there has never been clear support to have one. I must say that I find that very telling. I would be in favor of having such an alternative though if it means a reduction in the number of P915 misuses and the time needed to fix them (and transferring the statements to a new property using something like the moveClaim gadget would be an ideal way of doing so).
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I am reversing the deletion, I am looking at instance_of=obituary and over 100 entries have more than one main_subject. We should not have ad hoc changes, the rule should apply to all Wikidata entries. If a hard rule is made that there can only be one main_subject, we can delete all others. Or if we create secondary_subject, they can be migrated there. As a compromise I have up-ranked the name of the decedent, which appears to be the only way to add in search terms unless we create secondary_subject. --RAN (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 Note The above user created many of those 100+ obituary items and is the reason that they have multiple main subjects. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Add corresponding depicts (P180) statements if depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) is present

There is a rather big number of depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) statements (~47k) on items with no depicts (P180) statement, cf.: 

SELECT ?obj ?objLabel ?IC ?motiv ?motivLabel Where {
  ?obj wdt:P1257 ?IC .
  MINUS { ?obj wdt:P180 ?x . }
  ?motiv wdt:P1256 ?IC .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en".}
}
Try it!

I think it might be useful to additionally convert the depicts-statement that is implicit in depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) into an explicit depicts (P180) which is definitely easier to work with. Do you see any problems here?

21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Awinkler3 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I probably added the majority of these two years ago based on the iconclass data I got. I did look at adding more depicts (P180), but didn't do it at a large scale. I would probably do it semi-automatic. Some things to be aware of:
  • Quite a few iconclass topics don't match with items here. Too specific or just a bit different
  • Some iconclass topics are better as main subject (P921) (or genre (P136)) than depicts (P180)
  • In some cases you can only add a couple of depicts, but not all. If you do that, you'll remove the item from the list and no easy way to come back to it
  • If you're doing this, would probably be useful to add something like inferred from (P3452) to keep track of it. This might also a way to solve the previous point. So if you can make a query of items that don't have depicts (P180) or only have depicts (P180) inferred from (P3452) iconclass, than you can just work your way don't the topics
I hope you can do something nice with this data. Multichill (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Russian labels

Currently, there are two types of Russian labels for persons. Some labels start with the surname separated from the rest of the name with a comma, while other labels keep the usual order starting with the first name. Is there a consensus on what should be used as label? D3rT!m (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@D3rT!m: There seems to have been a long-running discussion about this with no clear consensus. You might want to "ping" the people who have raised this before to see if you can come together on a rule. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Former kind is seems to be imported from article names. Infoboxes use later kind and it should be used for labels EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese vs. (non-existent) European Portuguese

Hello,

For a long time, I have had doubts about the use of label in the Portuguese language. We are well aware that there are considerable differences between the Portuguese spoken on both sides of the Atlantic; Brazilian Portuguese is somewhat different from European Portuguese, especially concerning the spelling of words, as well as vocabulary to refer to certain concepts. I notice that alongside the language Portuguese, there is Brazilian Portuguese, but there is not European Portuguese. That being said, my main question is which variant should be given priority in labeling the language Portuguese in Wikidata items. Should it be the Portuguese spoken by 200 million people, or the one spoken by the rest of the Lusophone world, which does not even reach half of its total? The same happens with description. Should priority be given to the first term used? Portuguese is a term that generically refers to various variants of the same language, whether it is the Portuguese of 19th-century Brazilian writer Machado de Assis, the Portuguese of 16th-century poet Luís de Camões, the Portuguese spoken by millions of Brazilians today, or the Portuguese of 13th-century troubadours. Pinging Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton in case he has something to add.

Thanks,

RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t speak Portuguese, but if the only distinction provided by Wikidata is “Portuguese” vs. “Brazilian Portuguese” and there is no “Standard” Portuguese, I feel inclined to understand “Portuguese” as “European Portuguese” (i.e. the language spoken in Portugal). Whether consistent usage following this distinction can be achieved is another issue though… --Data Consolidation Officer (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Lisa Sotilis (Q17101800)

Lisa Sotilis (Q17101800) is getting some vandalism (being labelled a 'scam professional'). Can an admin protect the page? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see the text box at the top of the page. Requests for page protection should be made at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Are there more than just the two new accounts that have vandalised the page today? If not, it may be better to just report the two accounts for vandalism and request protection only if further vandalism occurs. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like an incorrect editing is not recurring. --Wolverène (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2024 (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. Wolverène (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lexeme reference failure

Have been trying to add this reference URL as a source/reference for ages but it fails every time: https://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?page=1&lq=γουδί

I am using Lexeme:L944697 as a template for my contribution to Lexeme:L1319516 which I recently created.

On Lexeme:L944697 the reference URL is https://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?page=1&lq=τραγούδι but I can't add the url for https://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?page=1&lq=γουδί, fails every time.

Do I need to be more trusted in Wikidata for me to add references or is the problem that its in Greek? I also tried adding the URL https://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?lq=%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B4%CE%AF and it also failed(no Greek characters visible)

Also why isn't {{L:944697}} not working? It does for Q items, so if anyone got the time to fix it, please help. TooFewUsernames (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@TooFewUsernames: I had no problem adding the reference. I cannot find any evidence why it should have worked for you (e.g., spam blacklist).
Also why isn't {{L:944697}} not working? {{L|L944697}} (τραγούδι (L944697)) is. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

🚀 Join the Wikidata Open Online Course - Class Starts April 22, 2024!

Hello everyone,

We are thrilled to announce the launch of the Wikidata Open Online Course - a fantastic opportunity for anyone eager to explore the world of Wikidata and enhance their editing skills.

🌟 About the Course

The Wikidata Open Online Course is designed to simplify learning how to edit Wikidata through a structured online program in English. Originally developed in French by Wikimedia France, the course content has been updated and translated into English. Whether you're a beginner taking your first steps, an individual in need of a refresher on Wikidata concepts, or a seasoned trainer looking to level up your skills - this course is right for you. Participants will gain insights into how Wikidata works, its rules, its vibrant community, and how to contribute effectively.

📚 Course Structure
  • Chapter 1: The Wikimedia movement and creation of Wikidata
  • Chapter 2: Understanding Knowledge graphs and Queries
  • Chapter 3: Discovering Wikidata, open data, and the semantic web
  • Chapter 4: Contributing to Wikidata, the Community, and Data Quality
  • Chapter 5: Bonus Resources on Scientific Bibliography from Wikidata
⏰ Course Schedule

This program will be offered in iterations, the first of which will start on April 22 and last for 5 weeks. Be sure to register before that. Subsequent iterations will be scheduled later, so don't worry if you're not able to take this one. Make sure to watch the landing page, and we will announce them on our usual communication channels as well.

Don't miss out on this opportunity. We encourage you to spread the word and invite your friends and colleagues to join us on this learning adventure.

For more information about the course structure and how to register, please visit Wikidata:Open_Online_Course

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out directly or leave a note on the project discussion page: Wikidata_talk:Open_Online_Course

Cheers, -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-04-15.
Translations are available.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • AzBot - Task: adding a space in over 7k malformed Dutch descriptions per this request.
    • DifoolBot 3 - Task: fill in empty English/French/German labels and basic statements for persons with VIAF ID (P214) and a VIAF authority source GND ID (P227), IdRef ID (P269), Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268) or Library of Congress authority ID (P244)

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • Join the Wikidata Open Online Course starting April 22, 2024! Whether you're a beginner taking your first steps, an individual in need of a refresher on Wikidata concepts, or a seasoned trainer looking to level up your skills - this course is right for you. Register here: Wikidata:Open Online Course
  • Only 6 more days to submit your project proposal to Wikimedia Deutschland's Open Call for Software Contributions. With this call, Wikimedia Deutschland aims to support projects that make Wikidata's data more accessible and usable for a wider audience.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • mul langauge code: We are finishing the polishing for the first proper release coming soon.
  • EntitySchema: We are continuing the work on the new datatype that will make it possible to link to EntitySchemas in statements.
  • REST API:
    • We continued work on creating an Item via POST /entities/items (phab:T342990)
    • We continued work on modifying data of a Property via PATCH /entities/properties/{property_id} (phab:T347394)

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.

Weekly Tasks

Cross-wiki article queries

Is there a way to generate a list of Wikidata items where the article on one Wikipedia is in a particular category and the article on another Wikipedia is in another particular category? Kk.urban (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

An example would be a list of people with different birth or death years on different wikis. Kk.urban (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Information about which categories the linked article is in is not stored in Wikidata. PetScan may help. Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jklamo Do you know how to use PetScan for those purposes? Kk.urban (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle or similar?

Does Wikidata have Twinkle or some similar tool for dealing with vandalism? Sjö (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sjö: Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism lists the counter-vandalism tools used here. Edits in Wikidata are generally very different from edits in regular wikipedia projects, so the tools applicable there don't work so well here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Merger

Pages Q113336174 and Q125552166 should be merged Futurolog21 (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

→ ← Merged
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. RVA2869 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Items to be careful with, controversial topic

We should watch out for items like unborn child (Q63177820) human embryo (Q63177917) human fetus (Q26513). They are currently appearing on a subclass loop report. Considering the controversial nature of the topic I think it's best to think about this with a wider audience and think about what we should do about this together. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

regarding the controversy can't we just add qualifiers to capture the disputes (which might mean the loop remains) BrokenSegue (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
From what I can find on Wikipedia for humans embryo refers to the stage before fetus. As long as "unborn child" and "human" are strictly superclasses I think we can avoid any controversy and still fix the classification. So "unborn child" should not be a subclass of "human fetus" or "human embryo" and I think you're good. The levels will then look like: 1. Human, unborn child 2. human embryo, human fetus.
I don't do classifications, but it looks like you do, so what do you think? Infrastruktur (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

old-computers.com ID Property:P5936

The site is definitely down (the creator said that Will not fix the availability). Can we modify the property to use/link towards the Wayback Machine ? Arosio Stefano (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

i updated it but it takes a little time to update on the interface BrokenSegue (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New update about splitting the Wikidata Query Service graph is out

There is a new update relative to the experiment with splitting the Wikidata Query Service graph.

For those who don't know about this, the Search team is currently running an experiment to split the Wikidata Query Service graph and use federation for the queries that need access to all subgraphs. This is a breaking change, which will require a number of queries to be rewritten, either to access a new SPARQL endpoint, or to use federation. We want to have a good understanding of the trade-offs before we commit to any long-term solution.

A new proposal for the split has also been published, everyone is encouraged to read it. We are open for feedback until May 15th 2024. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Problems with naive user merges with Distributed game: duplicate authors

I just spent several hours going through and fixing this new user's edits which were almost all merges of human items based on Magnus Manske's "The Distributed Game (88): Duplicate authors #distributed-game". Of the 59 merges done, I assessed 26 as wrong or unjustified - 44%. Many of them were merging people with wildly different names (the tool seems to only check last name and at least one matching initial?). I know there's some underlying logic regarding common co-authors, but whatever it's doing something there is broken. Can the tool be limited to only at least auto-confirmed users who have done something else in Wikidata first? Does anybody have another suggestion here? It's certainly a useful tool, and a (slight) majority of the edits here were good, but it's an awful lot of work to fix bad merges - and that would have been worse if I had waited until the bot redirected all the associated articles to the new items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm troubled by experienced editors have to spend hours on a cleanup that should have been unnecessary. The game has a tiny notice that's barely noticeable: "Please make sure that the items are really about the same entity!". Gamifying merging is giving people the impression that this is something they can take lightly (!). In my opinion it's not enough to limit this game to people who are autoconfirmed. The message should be visually more noticeable and read something like "It is important to make sure the two items really are the same before merging, so please click on each of the links to examine their contents before merging." Along with a "Please confirm you've read this and understood" labelled checkbox, that saves the confirmation to the user's settings. This way it's harder to claim ignorance. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. @Magnus Manske: Can the labeling be at least changed? Or maybe the underlying logic needs a look? It shouldn't be merging "Yonghoon Choi" with "Yunsoo Choi", or "Chang-Bao Li" with "Chuanyou Li" for example. Also I have a concern that one bad merge will lead to others - if two people were not actually coauthors of the same person, but a bad merge makes them seem like they are, this can have cascading effects. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I have also had to spend a fair bit of time recently checking and unmerging edits made via this game and I echo the points raised above. For me, it shouldn't be possible to merge items with different ORCID iD (P496) claims and a constraint to prevent the merger of such items would avoid most of the issues I have encountered. Having looked at the tool, I am suprised how little guidance is given about how to identify items that can safely be merged. There really must be a warning that the information provided in the tool is insufficient to make an informed decision about whether two item represent the same entity. Have to admit I'm not a fan of gamification but this trivialises something that is actually quite complicated, hence the amount of time required to fix the incorrect merges. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I will amend the message in the game, and have a look at the duplicate candidate generator. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. It really is useful to merge duplicates, but bad merges can be quite hard to fix. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sic19, Magnus Manske: A followup - I've been tracking these edits recently and they seem much improved, though there are still several problem cases. One frequent problem now is caused by a Wikidata entry based on an ORCID id where the name does not match the ORCID - rather somehow the name is that of a different author on some co-written articles. I'm guessing there are some data flow issues between ORCID and publishers and Crossref and whatever data source was used for wikidata imports (usually Europe PubMedCentral?). Can some sort of look-up be done on the ORCID id's before merging to confirm the names actually match? Not sure what best steps here are. There are definitely a lot of duplicate ORCID cases too and it would be a shame not to put together those duplicates on our end. Another common case I'm running into is where two people have the same name, and one of their ORCID records includes papers from the other person, usually because the paper list was supplied by some institutional search rather than the person themselves. Hard to fix issues where ORCID records themselves are incorrect. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The mismatching names in ORCID and Wikidata is quite a subtle problem. From the examples I've seen, the problem is usually caused by an ORCID being associated with the wrong co-author on the version of record and then being replicated in Crossref. To identify errors, I've compared the names in the ORCID dump and Wikidata labels. There are ~3500 items that are very likely to represent a different entity to that of the attached ORCID and a further 800 merged items with 2 or more ORCIDs that are now conflating different identities from ORCID. I'm not sure what to do now as the relationship between these items and any authored papers is messy. Do you have any thoughts about how to fix these items without ending up with papers with incorrect authors? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sic19: Ooh hey that's great that you've already done this! Here's how I've been fixing these so far, but it's labor-intensive:
1. Fix the label(s):
  • If there's not much metadata (ie. no sitelinks, maybe just P31 and P106 main statements) and only the ORCID id, change the English label to match the ORCID label and remove other labels. This is only appropriate if the ORCID label is in Latin text of course.
  • Otherwise deprecate the ORCID id on the item with a reason for deprecation that it's about a different subject.
2. Go to "What Links Here" and see what articles are linked (should be P50 relations).
  • If it's a relatively small number (up to 5) go through them by hand and check the name on the original article against what Wikidata has, and correct the entries by hand if necessary (adjust series ordinal and/or object named as values, or remove the author (P50) relation completely and replace with a author name string (P2093) instead.
  • For larger numbers I bring up the author disambiguator author page and look for any patterns I can to mass-fix the entries. For example if there are a clear group of papers with a different object named as (P1932) qualifier from the actual name, those can be filtered and mass reverted in the tool. Unfortunately a lot of these cases are missing object named as (P1932) qualifiers, which makes this harder.
Could you make your list available for others to work on to fix these? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: The lists of items with an incorrect label and bad merges are in this file: Wikidata-ORCID data issues 20240417.zip.
That approach to fixing the issues is similar to what I've been doing but the author mode in the author disambiguator will save time, thanks! It would be great if we could develop a process to bulk update some of these items. I'm going to experiment with using the Crossref API to check the authors on linked the papers at some point. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 17:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't edit Wikidata

Hello! I'm a project manager for the Albanian Wikipedia and we were trying to do an activity dedicated to Wikidata today but we quickly noticed that very few of the involved members had the "Edit" button. Can someone tell me what is going on? I assume there should be a kind of threshold that maybe they have yet to reach but I have limited knowledge in that direction in regard to Wikidata. Any information would be appreciated. Thank you! - Vyolltsa (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Were the people involved using a mixture of devices? The Wikidata interface on mobile devices is fairly limited. Alternatively, can you give an example of a page where the problem occurred? It may be that the page has been semi-protected due to vandalism by users that aren't logged in (semi-protection also blocks newly registered users. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Vyolltsa: can you give us an example username that's having a problem? In general pages are open for editing even by new users. Though generally we suggest you preregister an event to prevent users from getting banned. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue where do events get preregistered? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Systematic error related to patrollable edits

If an entity has/have unpatrolled edit(s), and if any established user will do a new edit to this entity, then there is no header message that actually previous edits are unpatrolled. See e.g. at Q12376063. Is it really so, that this important topic is not discussed somewhere?! Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The UnpatrolledEdits gadget were only checking the last edit. It also did so by analyzing the DOM of the diff page. It seems cleaner just to ask the API and check for all unpatrolled edits in one go, here's a prototype rewrite that does just that [2]. An interface admin can replace the existing gadget. There are 3 lines commented out that has to do with translation, but it should be obvious how to enable that. Infrastruktur (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
If this works correctly I have no objects to replacing the code, will probably save some server calls and be quicker too. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Audited my own code for safety and fixed one minor issue. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Merged Uzbek ministries

In 2023, a number of Uzbek ministries was merged. Most notably, Ministry of Economy and Finance of Uzbekistan (Q17072985) was merged with Ministry of Economy of Uzbekistan (Q16952230). I cannot merge the items nor keep one for historic purposes because of the doubled interwikis. Any suggestions on what to do? Best, Fordaemdur (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Use replaced by (P1366) and replaces (P1365). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Fordaemdur (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Link to other wiki projects

Is there a format `[[]]` or template `{{}}` to compose a link to other wiki projects, within Wikidata page, to display rather like an external link? Example below :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout vs https://www.google.com/

Like in en-wp, 

[[Roundabout]]

. JuguangXiao (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You can prefix the page name in the square brackets with : and a language code to link to a specific language Wikipedia page. So [[:en:Roundabout]] renders as en:Roundabout. In addition you can do things like [[:en:Roundabout|arbitrary text]] to render to arbitrary text. This page on enwiki goes into the concept in greater depth: en:Help:Interwiki linking. It also lists some of the interwiki prefixes for multilingual projects. -- William Graham (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Property documentation / Current uses

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, and I'll just repeat: the little box on the properties' talk page that summarizes the usage of the property in a table hasn't been working for a while, I think. Maybe this is it: Module:Property_documentation. Pallor (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The bot that updates this information runs once a week, has it been longer than that? Infrastruktur (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Infrastruktur You're right, it was updated today. I didn't know that, thanks. Perhaps it would help to understand how it works if the date of the next update was written in that section. Thanks for the answer! Pallor (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Expanding the scope of network bands (P8097) to cover all frequency bands

If you are interested, feel free to join the discussion about expanding the scope of network bands (P8097) to cover all frequency bands at Property talk:P8097. Thanks! –Samoasambia ✎ 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Sachsen-Anhalt

Hi, the German state Q1206 correctly has inception 3 Oct 1990, the day of German reunification. Located in the administrative territorial entity has two entries:

  • Germany, starting 7 Oct 1990. Can somebody change that to 3 Oct 1990, please? It was a German state starting with reunification.
  • East Germany. However, this state is a "federated state of Germany", so this does not apply to former East Germany. Sachsen-Anhalt's territory belonged to East Germany, but not this federal state. Could someone please remove this second value?

I'm not allowed to make these edits. Also, if I've overlooked something, please tell me. Thanks.--178.201.237.227 19:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the edits. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

merge of Cyanobacteria (Q93315)/Cyanobacteriota (Q25577567)

Hello,

These two pages should be merged, Cyanobacteriota being only a recent change (last year) for the former phylum name Cyanobacteria. The two names are, for all practical purposes, synonymous. Since the change is recent ("Cyanobacteria" remaining far more common), only two Wikipedias (French and Spanish) have renamed their page to Cyanobacteriota. This is quite inconvenient since only their redirect is now linked to the other language wikis concerning cyanobacterias (about 80 languages), but their main page is not anymore.

Thank you 80.214.24.201 04:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please also see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2024/04#Cyanobakterien_(Q93315) M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Dealing with different Google Knowledge Graph IDs for same item

Atoiya (Q4286366) has two values for Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671), triggering a Potential Issue. The first value, /g/12264jtz, was added by Lockalbot (@Lockal:); the second value, /g/122z2rt5, was added when 芝高 merged Q15621844 into Atoiya (Q4286366) (to Q15621844, the value had been added by Lockalbot, too).

What is the best way to deal with this? Judging from the descriptions of the items prior to merging, it seems that Q15621844 referred to the cape (and as part of Japan, which has an ongoing dispute over the region in question with Russia, which controls it) while Q4286366 has the English description “human settlement in Yuzhno-Kurilsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia”. Should the two items be unmerged perhaps? --Data Consolidation Officer (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I restored the separate item for the cape. Both Google Knowledge Graph IDs are currently "Cape Atoiya" with no additional information so I don't know if they should both be in the cape item. Google Knowledge Graph has many duplicates, sometimes for the same name and others with different names; this is usually the result of merging pages and is not an issue - the constraint should probably be removed or have deprecated rank similar to VIAF ID (P214). Peter James (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. We should consider removing the constraint limiting an item to a single Google Knowledge Graph identifier. There are often multiple knowledge graph ids describing the same thing. Iamcarbon (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
What’s the point of having Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671) as an external identifier if it does not uniquely (and comprehensibly) identify a concept? (For transparency, I remark that this very property has always appeared fishy to me. Its values simply redirect to Google searches, without any means of telling which concept, if any, the “knowledge graph ID” represents, as opposed to a simple but ambiguous search string.) --Data Consolidation Officer (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
In most cases, these ids are unique and comprehensive -- and when used with the knowledge graph API (https://cloud.google.com/enterprise-knowledge-graph/docs/search-api), can be used to verify item details. One particular case I've found them super helpful is with identifying works of art via Google Vision, which returns a Google Knowledge Graph Id / Freebase Id. These can be used to lookup the Wikibase item and find additional object details.
In some rare cases, some entities have multiple identities, usually with a slight name difference. For example: "iPhone" and "Apple iPhone". The both describe the same thing. Iamcarbon (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Data Consolidation Officer: the kgids disambiguate between identically named items. it looks like it just redirects to a search for a string but it isn't really. BrokenSegue (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: I suspected it does, but it always looked to me as if when following the link, Google just searches for a specific term. In the case of Atoiya (Q4286366), the term was identical (“Cape Atoiya”) for both identifiers (and the search results contained pages of online shops where you could buy a cape, way off), something that has always made me question the usefulness of these identifiers. (Users of Google’s enterprise API may be able to make more use of them, though, judging from Iamcarbon’s post.) --Data Consolidation Officer (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671)

Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671) was recently vandalized by a user, who switched all the info to "Pluntar Athletic Club". For some reason, some of that is still appearing on the page, even if everything has been reverted. Does anyone know how to resolve it? Bricks&Wood (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Simply purged the page with gadget... Seems now it appears in a proper way. --Wolverène (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually it does not, purging/cache cleaning was not enough. (Also, I believe that such frequently-used properties should be indefinitely semi-protected). --Wolverène (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
All properties are already indefinitely semi-protected. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and why I did not know this... Every day's a lesson. :) --Wolverène (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: I hope you are right about protection. I full-protected it. The user related to this vandalism was clever: did 50 good edits, then waited some days (when got autoconfirmed) and then mass-vandalism! Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Spam filter exception?

I am trying to add an old domain, seen on https://web.archive.org/web/20061017125903/https://vgcats.com/badmushrooms/?strip_id=0, to the entry for en:VGCats (Q1290453). The spam filter, however, prevents me from adding the CJB domain. How do I ask for an exception for the spam filter for Q1290453?

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Did some checking for you. cjb.net site seemed to have been a free hosting provider who at some point allegedly was caught pushing spyware on unsuspecting users. It would be inadvisable to add any sort of local override. This sucks because I know many people like Scott's stuff. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

On Vandalism Tracking

Since around the turn of the year, I have been working on a tool to efficiently track bad edits on Wikidata. The effort was motivated by my observations regarding patrolling work on Wikidata:

  • Special:RecentChanges lists too many changes. Even if you narrow it to unpatrolled changes and filter out other generally low-risk changes, you are left with a haystack that is replaced by another one in about two hours. Except for obvious cases, fast reviewing is impossible since you need to gather some context first.
  • Special:AbuseFilter works well for isolated cases/patterns or can help add tags to recent changes. But it is not scalable to all properties/languages/etc. and has access only to limited context.
  • Property constraints are a very well maintained, integrated and understood system. Every property has some constraints, and violation of a constraint means something is wrong or someone is doing something wrong. But reports of violations are scattered over thousands of pages with no indication of recency and no available integration with RecentChanges and AbuseFilter.
  • More ideas: [3][4].
  • See also Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2024/02#An unexpected effect of Covid-19 on the Wikidata project?

I took the best of each and started compiling weekly reports of changes during a time window that introduced some constraint violations. It involved creating a Python library with algorithms for some (not all) constraint types and some custom ones.

The reports are available here: Special:PrefixIndex/User:MatSuBot/Reports/Vandalism. The most recent reports should be the most accurate since patrolling status is available for them. (Reports older than a month cannot use patrolling status, some entries could have been solved in the meantime.)

This is just a single step for better counter-vandalism on Wikidata, it cannot replace the inefficient patrolling process yet. The reports are not real-time, they cover cases of more-or-less obvious vandalism, and deal only with changes to claims (i.e., not labels and descriptions). More effort would be needed to establish an automated (maybe AI-powered) system for countering vandalism.

I'm curious if others find such reports useful or if there is a way to make them (more) useful. (Daily reports instead of weekly? Cover more types of violations? Missed cases of vandalism?)

--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

this is really cool work. you might want to reach out to the people in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T341820 where they are working on a new anti-vandalism model for wikidata. incorporating your library into their workflow seems like it'd be useful. the newest model is much better than ORES.
Did you consider incorporating ORES into your reports? In theory it should be ok at predicting vandalism.
I think enwiki has bots monitor vandalism rates and report that in a template (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Vandalism_information). not sure if it's really useful though. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I am aware of that initiative (I recall providing a handful of labels) as well as the Automoderator (which I believe is more focused on Wikipedia, though).
However, I don't think it's necessary (and a good idea) to insist on incorporating right now. I can see there is already some progress that I don't want to steer down. Also, my library reflects a community-maintained system, i.e., something that can change any time. If they had the model trained w.r.t. some snapshot of constraints, but we had it changed later, it could lose its precision (i.e., instead of , they'd need something like , which is definitely harder to model).
I think we can just keep them separate, and benefit from advantages of each.
Did you consider incorporating ORES into your reports? I'm not sure what you mean. Like indicating its score in the reports in a separate column? The problem with ORES is it evaluates each revision independently, not as a sequence (like I do).
enwiki has bots monitor vandalism rates Looks like that is based on the amount of recent reverts (real-time). However, I am dealing rather with backlog.
Idea: Instead of (or as another alternative to) a complex ORES model that tries to handle everything, have a very simple one using limited context (type of change, language changed, property involved, etc.) such that it allows to simply filter for changes that have somewhat higher probability of being reverted (IP changes to instance of (P31), sex or gender (P21), pseudonym (P742), English description, etc.). The goal is to allow synchronous patrolling using RecentChanges filters, while leaving the rest to report-based backlog. IMO, just using the "reverted" tag (mw-reverted) for training should be sufficient. (But see also phab:T357163.)
Another idea: see phab:T358729, but ignore the AbuseFilter part. (I really need to save my ideas somewhere.)
--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: I am sure you are aware of Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism - that would be a good place to save your ideas and add links to what you've done. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Update: There is now a link to the reports on Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism. I intend to generate the newest report every Tuesday. I have also made improvements to detecting whether an instance of vandalism has already been dealt with. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Next / alongside

New Shuttle (Q846381) is a people mover system that is constructed alongside the Jōetsu Shinkansen (Q912219) and Tōhoku Shinkansen (Q900665) railway lines. Is shares border with (P47) the rigth property?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #624

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-04-22.
Translations are available.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • OpeninfoBot - Task: Importing financial data (assets, equity, revenue, EBIT, net profit) from openinfo.uz to entries on public Uzbek companies in Wikidata.
    • IntegrationBot - Task: retrieve information from Wikidata and contribute data back

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • Mishramilan (মিশ্রমিলন), a tool listing words/phrases in different language catalogs and allowing users to match the entries in those catalogs to existing Wikidata lexemes or to create new lexemes based on those entries.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

  • It's not too late to join the Wikidata Open Online Course, open from April 22 to May 31! Whether you're a beginner taking your first steps, an individual in need of a refresher on Wikidata concepts, or a seasoned trainer looking to level up your skills - this course is right for you. Register here: Wikidata:Open Online Course
  • There is a new update relative to the experiment with splitting the Wikidata Query Service graph. A new proposal for the split has also been published, feedback will be open until May 15th 2024.

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

  • mul language code: We are continuing the roll-out. It is now available on https://test.wikidata.org and https://wikidata.beta.wmflabs.org.
  • REST API: We are putting finishing touches on the following:
    • Create an Item via POST /entities/items (phab:T342990)
    • Modify data of a Property via PATCH /entities/properties/{property_id} (phab:T347394)
  • EntitySchemas: We are continuing the work on the new datatype to link to EntitySchemas in statements.
  • Leveling Up Days: We are wrapping up the event.

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.

Weekly Tasks

Edit groups tool seems to be broken

Per Edit groups discussion there seems still to be a problem. Pintoch is apparently busy, so could someone please look into that matter ? Kpjas (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This needs more attention. Sdkb talk 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

How to search many encyclopedias

My website Project Runeberg (Q933290) contains several old digitized encyclopedias and other reference works in various Scandinavian languages. I have no good way to search their contents, other than free text search. In order to link what two encyclopedias say about a topic, such as Copenhagen or gravity, it would be natural to use Wikidata. For example, Wikidata already knows that Copenhagen (Q1748) is described by source (P1343) Trap Danmark (3rd ed.) (Q80437693) with this URL. I could add such links in thousands. But then, how can this be presented as a nice search function? If gravity (Q11412) is "described by source" in dozens (though currently only five + nine that I added now), how can a user find out which ones are relevant? Each source has a year of publication and language. Maybe one user only wants 20th century sources in German, rather than 19th century sources in Danish. Should a map and timeline be part of the search interface?

Should we make a test case, with a few topics that we try to link to as many sources as possible? Or has something similar been done already? Is there already a set of basic topics that can be used for testing and demonstration purposes? LA2 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Wikidata is a good place to store information of all information in all encyclopedias. I think described by source (P1343) is best used to add those sources that are the most relevant and not hundreds of sources. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point. But now that I added 9 to the existing 5 such links for Gravity, which ones would you remove as being less relevant? That question could lead to a ranking of some kind, which would be very interesting for any search function. --LA2 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Unmerge

@Alessot merged BankID (Q116980761) and bank ID (Q116980735) a year ago, but they refer to different concepts. Here are the links before the merge:

  • BankID - name of a system used in Sweden (bankid.com)
  • bank ID - electronic identification system implemented in several countries

Could someone help unmerge these? Thanks! Skalman (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infrastruktur (talk • contribs).
Thank you very much! Skalman (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Useless User items

User:Kaliru Created some items for his User Talk page, User page navbar, User page template. If I am right, These items are useless and should be deleted. It's allowed to make a deletion requests in this subject? Please anyone clarify me. Thank you Sriveenkat|talk/{PING ME} 09:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request has been raised here. Dogfennydd (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
You're right. There shouldn't be Wikidata items for personal pages on other wikis. If you want to tell him, that would be great, since you speak tamil. You can tip him of this link as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking#Interlanguage_links . Most of the time people just write {{subst:Uw-notability}} ~~~~ on their user talk page. As well as requesting page deletion. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It's allowed to make deletion requests for any subject, it's just that some deletion request won't lead to a deletion. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Question

Is it correct for

⟨ former bridge (Q11486300)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ bridge (Q12280)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

and/or

⟨ proposed bridge (Q44665130)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ bridge (Q12280)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

? If not, what is the appopriate way to connect these items? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJː How about followed by (P156). (Folllowed by, at least for former bridge), I would not use subclass of in that way. Do you see a reason to do so? SM5POR (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how P156 would be relevant here. In my naive thinking, a former bridge is a bridge which has fallen down, and a proposed bridge is a bridge which has not yet been built, i.e. they are both bridges. But I understand that other views exist — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I would say that something is a bridge within Wikidata if there's a point in time where the claim of it being a bridge is true. There's no good reason for former bridge (Q11486300) to exist. As it's just bridge (Q12280) with end time (P582) and using it makes it harder for people to query correctly.
A proposed bridge however never existed so maybe proposed bridge (Q44665130) fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) bridge (Q12280). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Using instance of (P31) destroyed building or structure (Q19860854) might be better, but dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) could be used. As is common with edge cases in WD, you'd get tripped up. Ditto abandoned project (Q21514702). But I don't think the solution for structures is a shadow set of former_X items. Vicarage (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that would also be better. Replacing former_x items would be a step forward. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd not use P576 because I've often see wikipedia input closure dates whilst the bridge was simply rebuild/refurbished. So P576 does not automatically says it's demolished because of misleading data input by various wikipedias Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 19:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@ChristianKl I think, but this might indeed not be a very popular take, that in a query that a naive query that search for "bridges" (say, using "wdt:" in sparql) should only find actual bridges. There is no harm into it being more complicated if you look for historical data or bridges as a certain date. You'd have to write such a query anyway.
One way to achieve this is to set a "preferred value" to something else in instance of (P31) value. Viewed like that as a general rule, it does not make querying harder at all, just the opposite.
By not using that if you look for, say, french communes or department, you get historical data and you most likely do not want them and you have to after that do something more complicated to exclude the old one. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think properties can work like that. Just for an example. A dead person cannot be a spouse, but when a person dies we do not change statements like spouse to be deprecated. And when we query for a person's spouses, we usually do not want just the current spouse — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Persons are different from bridges or administrative juridictions. With persons you get a whole lot of philosophical issues and I think it's best not to change the way we treat people, or animals maybe. For business, or objects, it's not the same issues at all and we can afford something like that, in my opinion, if it's convenient.
With people we typically don't use subclasses of human (Q5) items, it's also generally an exception. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
(and also, the you most likely do not want them is not really valid for persons, as we regularly query for deceased persons, it's kind of reversed.) author  TomT0m / talk page 18:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
wdt:P31 wd:Q12280; wdt:P5816 wd:Q56557159 would be better for old bridges : you query "bridge" +"ruined" for instance Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know who you are responding to but it kind of, I think, is a point in my favor. If most people querying bridges actually searches for bridges they can cross know, they might not want to know all the different ways there is to note that a bridge is no more usable, forever. If there is several clauses to add to the query to take into account all the different possibilities it complicates further the querying.
This is why I'd push the simple principle « if you query (not living organism) entities using wdt: and, say, instance of (P31) you should get entities that are not destroyed or permently out of service ». Minimum knowledge should be the rule for typical usage. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
For a building, destruction is rarely total, castles become ruins then archaeological sites, and buildings are reused, factories become museums. Its always going to be muddy.
I think the combination X and NOT destroyed is better than having "former_X" for every sort of physical object. And checking the UK, with 4000 odd bridges, only a half dozen are marked destroyed or former bridges, so its not a common problem. (Oh and we have New London Bridge (Q56739652), now in Arizona!) Vicarage (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
One problem of "former bridge" is that it's unclear whether the items are about a ruin of a bridge or just spot were there used to be bridge in the past. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
You don't have to have a statement for every kind of physical objects, for 2 reasons :
  1. if no more appropriate value, you can use a generic "former object" item (high in the class tree) and use it as preferred value for instance of, this does the trick of not showing the result is simple queries
  2. if the instance of (P31) preferred statement change to something like "ruin", for example, this also works.
author  TomT0m / talk page 09:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@TomT0m: If you look at former bridge (Q11486300) it has a sitelink to a Wikipedia article about abandoned bridges and a link to commons about abandoned bridges. Over a long time, this item was about ruins of bridges until Aiaiaiaiaia reused it in 2020 and gave it the label "former bridge". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've thought about this some more and I still think they should be classified as bridges. Another example:
⟨ Battle of Hastings (Q83224)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ battle (Q178561)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
. This happened in the past (they are not still fighting!) but it is definitely a battle. In the same way, a former bridge is still a bridge. And: , a hypothetical war is still a war and is classified as such. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@MSGJ: do you think there should be a diffence between fictional and hypothetical? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes I think there is clearly a difference between fictional and hypothetical. But the point is, they should all be classified as wars (or bridges, whatever) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Under the same reasoning that a "project of bridge" is not a bridge, it's a project that may be cancelled, a hypothetical future war is not a war and should not be classified as such. There are such items on Wikidata, project items such as Q809470 and they are link to the kind of items they project to create with has goal (P3712) View with SQID (although this property as used is a bit of a kludge, I see that we have , and "going to" is a very different things than "building" a cathedral.
An "hypothetical war" is not a war, it's a theory or a fantasy about the future. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata operates under the open-world hypnothesis. If the status of an item changes, that change won't immediately show up in Wikidata. In the semantics in which Wikidata is founded a missing claim about a closure is just data incompleteness. If you think someone should have an expectation of all those items having information about being out of service, that would mean to say that we have wrong data in a lot of cases. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so, you just have to consider that "end date" might come anytime to an instance of statement, it's semantically totally equivalent to a non updated "conservation status" with no end date or point in time. The information is incomplete in both cases, exactly the same status for an open-world hypothesis.
Except if you gives a special status for instance of (P31) statement beside the OWI compared to over statements, I don't see the difference. Any statement with a "begin date" might be incomplete, any "timed" statement at least, and might even miss a "begin date" (this happens). This is just missing informations, all the time, for stuff that evolves in time. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Oversight candidacy

As per policy, candidacies for oversight here on Wikidata have to be linked to the project chat and administrators' noticeboard; thus, doing so for transparency: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight. EPIC (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Galicia

The table is incorrect. Galicia is in the northwest not southwest The content should be changed to:

”Galicia é unha comunidade autónoma e antigo país no noroeste de península ibérica.” 77.27.100.234 21:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It would help if you provided a link to the page where you have found a problem. There is not much we can do by guesswork. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The Galician-language label here does not contradict with the facts and Wikidata rules. It says just 'comunidade autónoma de España'. Probably not a Wikidata task. --Wolverène (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I took my time to read about every member and cast votes for each and I encourage everyone to do the same. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sitelink for voy:zh:白河

Hi, this Chinese Wikivoyage page is a disambiguation page, and we have Bai He (Q9164254) and Shirakawa (Q255636), both are Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) item but with different label. Q9164254 is for Chinese Mandarin pronunciation and Q255636 should be Japanese pronunciation. But for w:zh:白河 and voy:zh:白河, they are mixture of Bai He (Q9164254) and Shirakawa (Q255636) (and maybe White River (Q348739)), will create a new item for zhwiki and zhwikivoyage one be good idea?--S8321414 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2024/04&oldid=2143677150"