Wikidata:Project chat

Wikidata project chat

Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.
Requests for deletions and merges can be made here.

IRC channel: #wikidata^connect

Start a new discussion

Edit

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/09.

Jimbo Wales is not registered on Wikidata

For almost two years I've been watching his void user page. How is it that our beloved Jimmy didn't even care to log in and see how a random item looks like? --Ricordi samoa 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we care? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Sjoerd here. It would be nice for him to pop in, but it doesn't really matter. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious oddity on this side, a global User:Jimbo Wales page exists and works, but not here. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the account isn't activated here (sulutil:Jimbo Wales) any user page should not exist. And there are hundreds of projects that account is missing on, so we are in good company. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the sentiments here. Personally I don't think Jimbo really does anything on the projects he does visit, so its really not a huge loss IMO. In fact IMO he should just cut ties and move on because even in the English Wikipedia he really doesn't do anything other than comment on the occasional discussion. Reguyla (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to connect storage media and the devices that read (and possibly write) them

For example, it seems like there should be some kind of connection between floppy disk drive (Q493576) and floppy disk (Q5293), or between optical disc drive (Q4492) and optical disc (Q234870), or CD-ROM drive (Q8015040) and CD-ROM (Q7982). Or phonographs and phonograph records; no reason to assume anything digital. Are there any properties that area already appropriate, or does someone need to propose some? —SamB (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "mating component" (bidirectional?) would be appropriate. You can't express this with part of/has part, nor use, which are probably the immediate basic generic properties that I can think of. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, has use (P366) is not explained at all well for a property as generic as it's purported to be now, and I can't help but think that "mating component" seems awfully vague as well. At the moment, I'm wondering about "storage medium" or "reads medium" and "writes medium", and I'm really not too sure what to call the inverse(s). And of course I just had to go and think "what about other kinds of formats, like file formats?"... —SamB (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links between months categories before 1918

frwiki and ruwiki both have categories for months, for instance fr:Catégorie:Janvier 2015 = ru:Категория:Январь 2015 года = Category:January 2015. Between 1582 and 1918, Russian categories use the Julian calendar while French categories use the Gregorian calendar. Should they be linked to each other? Some of them are already linked (Q18191027), but some others are not (for instance fr:Catégorie:Mars 1904 and ru:Категория:Март 1904 года have no Wikidata item yet). Orlodrim (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tough question. We have two possibilities, obviously:

Have two (or even three) items per month (Julian calendar month, Gregorian calendar month, Calendar month without specific calendar?), since they are indeed different things (different start- and end-dates etc.)
Have only a single item for all of this, and e.g. the start and end date could be discerned through qualifiers.

I would prefer the latter option, have a single item, mostly because it is consistent with how we handle years (i.e. the year 1902 is only a single item, even though the Gregorian 1902 and the Julian 1902 are a week or two off).

So in short, I'd say, link them, it's consistent to what is already happening. --Denny (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your answer. I will also link categories before 1918. Orlodrim (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flow

I think we can enable Flow here for testing and later to a discussion page, which in my opinion would be Wikidata:Contact the development team. Others' thought?--GZWDer (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of last year I talked to Danny (the product manager for Flow) about using Wikidata item talk pages as a next target. He wanted to finish a few other features first and fix some issues. If you want I can ping him for a status update. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for the development team to signal that they're ready to deploy flow on production sites. Looking in phabricator and on mw:Flow gives me the impression that there is currently no active development going on. WMF is constantly shifting priorities and I would hate to be the guinea pig for an unfinished product. I filed phab:T95109 to update the roadmap. Multichill (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge, Multichill. There are plans to overhaul the docs a.s.a.p. (please see this topic if you have suggestions on what other-examples it should try to follow (VE's docs? etc)).

Re: phabricator - the team does all their work in the #Collaboration-Team board and the individual 2-week-sprint boards linked there.

Re: a test page here - that could be done at any time, but Flow has recently been enabled in a number of wikis (see mw:Flow/Rollout#Done) and will start replacing LQT at mediawikiwiki this week (announcement and planned timeline), and the team has getting a ton of useful feedback recently (feature-requests and bug-reports), so I'd personally suggest delaying testing here until the team has a little bit less backlog to contend with, so that they have time to focus on any feedback that a test page here would surely result in.

Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Flow in its current state is any improvement to our current system, and way more complex to understand. Vogone (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used Liquid threads on the WMF development wiki a few years ago and if Flow has even half of the feautures that system had then I think it will be a major improvement on our current system. Imagine a going to a 'Your Discussions" page. It tracks discussions you have taken part in (unless you 'unfollow'). If anyone has added a comment to that discussion then the discussion gets added back to the top of this page. Project talk pages you left a query on three months ago; Project chat discussions which have gone quiet for the last few days; Property proposals you asked for clarification on a week ago; all there on one page where you can find them or better where they will find you. I want this so much. Filceolaire (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also used Liquid Threads a few years ago and it certainly was not an improvement. It was hard just to keep track of what was said, even more or less, not to mention its destructive tendencies. - Brya (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see flow tested here. I think that initiatives to make interaction easier could only benefit a project like Wikidata which is very complex to begin with. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to put up some test pages on Wikidata. Flow is in active development by the Collaboration team 1. In the last couple weeks, we released VisualEditor integration with a simple toolbar in the entry fields, editing other people's posts, and undo functionality. Pretty soon, we'll be working on Search, a toggle for full-width viewing, and improvements to the way Flow is presented in watchlists and Echo notifications.

Would it be okay to put up a couple test pages so that you can try it out? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that would be a great idea for this project. Wikidata is, IMO, in a much better place to implement Flow than the English Wikipedia because it isn't as reliant on the Talk page templates and other things that are issues with flow currently there. As a fairly new user of Wikidata myself I'm not sure which ones would be a good test though, but maybe the talk page of this discussion board? Maybe the talk page of the main page. I think it should be a page with a reasonably high volume but wouldn't affect the outcome of the project itself. If it would help, feel free to use my talk page as a test page. Its not very high traffic but you have my permission to do it as a test. Reguyla (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handling subsidiary titles of nobility

Given the concept subsidiary title (Q7632005), meaning that minor titles of nobility are in practice for long periods overwritten by major ones, it would be useful to have a property and opposite relation that express that. So, with qualifiers, Duke of Abercorn (Q1264451) would stand in relation to an item "Earl of Abercorn" (to create), from 1868. A look at w:Duke of Abercorn should explain why it would be handy to code up these relationships. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be as follows:

Each title should have a separate wikidata item.
Use noble title (P97) to link to all of the titles held by a person and mark the major title "preferred rank" and the minor titles "ordinary rank".

This will mean we can search for (and create a list of) the holders of each title just searching on P97.

There was a proposal to create a property which could be used as a qualifier to make properties more specific but it wasn't approved so I guess you could add the qualifier <instance of:Subsidiary title> instead. Filceolaire (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

junta (Q239463) and Junta Suprema Central (Q592285)

junta (Q239463) and Junta Suprema Central (Q592285) are two different articles in Spanish, but refer to the same article in English. This leads to junta (Q239463) having English link pointing to completely different article, which does not match the rest of the languages. What is the right way to handle such issue? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laboramus (talk • contribs).

You may submit the issue to Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts, or, better, fix it yourself if you understand the difference between the two concepts: create a new item and move to it the incorrect links, fix labels for "moved" interwikis on the original item, add appropriate properties and labels to the new item. You may find interest in Help:Split an item. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata API: Get Wikidata id

What is the recommended way using the Wikidata API to get the Wikidata id for a Wikipedia article of a certain language (so we know title and language and want to get the Wikidata id).

Example: "I Never Liked You","en" -> "Q4890860". --Jobu0101 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably /w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&format=json&sites=enwiki&titles=I Never Liked You&props=info

Or at the specific Wikipedia api https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=pageprops&titles=Barack%20Obama --T.seppelt (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. --Jobu0101 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want Special:ItemByTitle and its related API module. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-transliterating for names of humans

Hey, I finished a system to automatically add labels for items of humans for any given pair of languages. This is RfBA. Please comment and/or suggest. Amir (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid panels

Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine @Bluerasberry, Daniel Mietchen, DGG, Jmh649, Klortho, Hildabast: Hello, I just want to point a very bad thing which shows a deep lack of team working. Please have a look at the talp page of this item: three different panels to group properties and some properties are presented two and even three times just because people add their own panel. So do we have to stop this new mode, use category instead of panels in talk pages or do we share the properties between projects ? Snipre (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that the "panels" (navigation boxes?) indicate a lack of cooperation so much as an attempt to make it easier for user to find related properties. If there was an actual lack of cooperation, different groups would either be holding a flamewar about what the property meant, or [trying to] use distinct properties, but I don't see any evidence of a flamewar there, and if they were using different properties, the boxes would obviously not all be found on this one property's talk page. —SamB (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to choose right wikipedia language when creating new item

I've been trying to create a new item however I've found it impossible to enter the right language code. Putting in the language code ko, its impossible to scroll down to Korean which sits between kg and koi. I've tried using Hangul, and a single language code turns up ko, but as soon as I try to enter the page it flips back to kg. this has happened half a dozen times, I'm editing on a tablet running, Android 4.4.2 , I've rebooted twice, and cleared my cache.--KTo288 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worked around it by creating an article at enwikipedia, and linking the Korean article from wikipedia.--KTo288 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to edit with a tablet. Using a keyboard and keyboard commands is much helpful for me Oursana (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I miss having a mouse, but its a sacrifice I'm willing to make. so that I can edit curled up in front of the television. The thing is the menu thingy works fine at wikipedia but not here.--KTo288 (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection indicators, again

Per phab:T92384, you can now see padlock icons on semi- and fully-protected items and properties. The feature is enabled by default, but registered users can disable it in their preferences. --Ricordi samoa 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, cheers! Jared Preston (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ricordisamoa! :) If anyone has problems with the gadget or suggested improvements, please let me know or folks are welcome to go ahead and change the code. Aude (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging IP edits into Wikidata user account edits

As of 19:53, 8 April 2015 I made 342 edits today. I then created an account, named User:IP-80.134.90.212". Is it possible that my IP edits are merged into my Wikidata user account edits? 80.134.90.212 19:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC) - Confirming the above statement. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is Nope? IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope means "No, this can not be done". Edoderoo (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IP-80.134.90.212: That is phab:T31188.--GZWDer (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GZWDer: - Thank you for pointing me to Phab! Nice to see this as an item there. Best regards, IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: English Wikipedia blocked my account :-(. So, it was easier to edit without account. But without account, Wikidata does not let me see labels in other languages than the default ones - 50% of the default ones are absolutely useless to me. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/WikiGrok

May I please ask for a broader participation in this discussion? The request is stale at the moment, and I need to decide whether it should be approved or closed as unsuccessful.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miscategorization of letters - instance instead of subclass

All letters (letter as they exist in alphabets) that I found are miscategorized. A letter as a concept has no time or place. If an item has no time or place it is a class. The letters in a specific physical book or on monuments are instances. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are awards, materials, genre, ship classes, or taxa, but they are all considered instances. Please wait a little while before implementing your opinion as here. I have made about 1.4 million edits on this site and I still have to think hard about whether something is an instance or a subclass. --Haplology (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think having some official guidelines - any guidelines - on instance/subclass question would be great. It is a question which is IMO very subjective and context-dependent and each time I try to analyze it it makes my head hurt. If the guideline would have some arbitrary-ness and reflection of some taste, that's fine provided it is consistent. At least we'd have something. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not - at least not by people that understand the difference between class and instance. And the quantity of "edits on this site" seems to not be related to the efficiency of the thinking-process. Maybe better YOU stop immediately, if you have problems understanding the concepts of class and instance. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I ask why you were blocked on Wikipedia? --Haplology (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked merely for his username, which does not fulfill EnWp requirements. Looking at the way the user is conducting discussions, though, other reasons seem suggestive, too.

@IP-80.134.90.212:, please either learn to behave, or leave the project.

"If an item has no time or place it is a class." is wrong given the understanding of class and instances which has formed in this project. There are plenty of items which are perfect instances without having a time or space, e.g. Harry Potter (Q3244512), red (Q3142), or the examples given by Haplology. Whereas this, and many other decisions in Wikidata, are debatable, these debates will either happen in a friendly and constructive manner, or not at all.

I very much prefer a project with a minimum of toxic behavior, even if this means loosing the potentially productive edits of contributors exhibiting such behavior. It's just not worth it. --Denny (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would suggest to revert the changes done to letter. I do not consider the changes in the descriptions of the letters nor the switch from instance to subclass to be improvements. --Denny (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistagging of letters - followed by and follows

No, the letter C does not follow the letter B. In some series that may be so, and it also may be so for some instances, but the statement is not generally true. If placed without restriction it is simply wrong. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistagging of letters - part of

No, the letter Q is not part of "Latin script alphabet". It is part of the Latin script, and /some/ Latin-script alphabets. But there are Latin-script alphabets it is not part of. If the "part of" statement is made without restriction it is a false statement. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional human or fictional character?

What's better? See here and here. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As "fictional human" is a subclass of "fictional character" and both Vincent Vega and Mia Wallace are fictional characters clearly intended to be humans, fictional human fits them better, as it's a more precise classification. --YMS (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I fixed it. --Jobu0101 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also sex or gender (P21) is usually applicable only to humans (including fictional ones). --Infovarius (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of this page

Greetings: I'm a Commons admin following a photo from there to here... and I found https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15304735 to contain information about a high school cheerleader of no particular notability. Is this the sort of thing acceptable in Wikidata, or is someone gaming the system? Thank you for your reply. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is a sitelink to Commons, Wikidata's rules allow for an item about her. If the respective Commons-Category were deleted, I think the Wikidata item could and be deleted as well. --Denny (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seeing as there is a category on Commons, then there's going to be an item on Wikidata. Jared Preston (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 of WD:N says that having only a Commons category link does not render a main article item notable. —Wylve (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great. In that case we could probably delete Q15304735 (although I have been reading the point in WD:N, and I am afraid I do not completely parse the sentence about Commons) --Denny (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IMO that sentence is badly written. I think it means that if the item is not an instance of Wikimedia category (Q4167836), and has only one sitelink that points to a Commons category, then notability is not established. However if the item is a Wikimedia category (Q4167836) and has other category site links, then criterion 1 applies. —Wylve (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Your citation doesn't apply with WD:N. It does not say that having only a Commons category link does not render a main article item notable. The contrary is stated there. The linking to a commons-file is not sufficient for notability, but linking to a commons-category is notable.

WD:N:..

…An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the criteria below:

1. It contains at least one valid site link to a page on …or Wikimedia Commons.

To be valid, a link must not be a… file

Oursana (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Criterion 1 also reads, "In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. However, it is allowed to link Wikimedia Commons categories with categories in other Wikimedia sites in items." This prevents Q15304735 from being notable. —Wylve (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personnaly don't see anything interesting into fighting into this. I has an item ? fine. It does not ? I don't care. But more than the item itself, lets imagine possible usecases. I search images related to university or school life. The image could show up in results throw the fact that she is a student and that she's depicted into some common image by a request here.TomT0m ^(talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to retain or to fight for the deletion of this item. I'm simply trying to show what the community has decided on the notability policy. As to the use cases above, I think it is risky to make assumptions about an entity using a photo some user uploaded to Commons. The verifiability of claims that could be obtained from the photos is in question. How do we know that her name is really "Daniela Abarca González"? Her Commons category is within commons:Category:1994 births, but how do we know that she was really born in 1994? Although quite unlikely, but how do we know that she is really a student and not an actress dressed up as a student? A photo doesn't seem to give clear and trustworthy information about the entity depicted. —Wylve (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in this particular item, but would rather see the policy on WD:N be clarified (and then applied to this). It seems, from this discussion, that the policy is not readily understood, maybe ambiguous. --Denny (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with TomT0m and Denny. If there are images in Commons for an item that is an instanceOf X (here X=human), Wikidata seems the easiest Wikimedia place to store machine readable data like first name and second name. The Commons category title is not well made for this task. Maybe the file namespace e.g. File:X can be used one day to store structured information. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons. —Wylve (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening with block when enforcing P279=rdfs:subClassOf and P31=rdf:type and other problematic behavior by User Denny

A) For enforcing

Property:P279=rdfs:subClassOf and
Property:P31=rdf:type

which is even stated on that Wikidata property pages, a user named Denny threatens to block me. [1].

B) S/he suggests to revert changes because s/he does not "consider the changes in the descriptions of the letters nor the switch from instance to subclass to be improvements". This, without giving any explanation, why the changes are not improvements.

C) S/he also writes "please either learn to behave, or leave the project." - I have learned to behave, and I do behave. Of course not in the way Denny does. My edits are based on applying scientific logic to items. I am not interested in applying what Denny can see as improvement or not. And this probably won't change.

On the Wikidata main page it says "Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and others."

It does not say "Wikidata acts as central storage of what Denny understands and wants".

IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same old behavior? You was blocked here too. --Succu (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. I also think you're wrong about letters being subclasses. But let's discuss this in the thread your're reporting here (on this very page), and please in a constructive manner and not in personam. --YMS (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a new user whose behavior is a lot like an old one ... The issue is nethertheless interesting, so I'll take it as an opportunity to push my Help:Classification page whose goal is to find way to solve this kind of issues. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never threatened you with a block. I couldn't even follow through with such a threat, which makes it rather futile to even threaten it. I was suggesting that you behave, and I am afraid that you continue to have a not very helpful approach towards discussions, which I consider toxic for the project and which I would prefer not to see.

Regarding your actual points raised: a letter like C (in particular in the sense of the abstract letter like C) is more useful to be regarded as an instance of a letter, than as a subclass of all letters, where the actual instances are the occurrences of the letter C in the real world. Because this allows us to make a query like "Give us all instances of letters", and we would get A, B, C, Đ, Д, etc. If we ask for all subsets, we would get a much bigger set, and not all of these would be letters (like, "letters for vowels" would be such a subset which would be a subset of letters, but also "Capital C" or "the letter C written with more than a single stroke" would be such subsets).

So purely pragmatically, to be able to ask for all letters it seems helpful to regard C as an instance of a letter (it certainly is not the only way to do so).

It also is useful to add further information to letters: maybe to which alphabets they belong, from what other symbol they were derived, their frequency in a given language corpus, etc. Not many of those have a sensible interpretation if regarded as sets: it sounds not intuitive to claim that the set of all occurrences of the letter A is derived from the set of all occurrences of the Greek letter Alpha. That's not a relation between the sets (as a subclass would indicate) but rather between the instances of letter (note, not of their occurrences).

Wikidata is not a project to develop an top-level ontology and to explain the world in terms of that novel ontology. It is a data backend primarily geared towards supporting the Wikipedias, but also other use cases. The data here should be potentially well referenceable. We do not try to create a taxonomy and put everything into it, but rather we want to reflect what sources state about the world. And whereas I can find plenty of sources which state "B is a letter" or "the letter B", which I will provide if so challenged by your sources (if you have children, try their first grade books), I would like to ask to see sources saying that "B is a subset of letters".

It obviously can mean that if you define letter as the set of all tokens of letters in the world, and then B as the set of all tokens of the letter B in the world. But if I define letter to be the set of all types of letters - i.e. as {A, B, C...} - then it is just as correct to have an instance of relation between that set and B.

Unlike the way you try to paint it, there is no clear true or false. But since it is both pragmatically more useful as well as better supported by literature, regarding B as an instance of letter seems to me to be more aligned with the way Wikidata is set up, and this is why I suggest to revert your changes with regards to that topic once this discussion has been resolved with sufficient consensus. --Denny (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Set theory and type-token distinction

Denny:

Is set theory the right discipline here? "In disciplines such as logic, metalogic, typography, and computer programming, the type–token distinction is a distinction that separates a descriptive concept from objects that instantiate the concept, seen as particular instances of it." Source en:Type-token_distinction. And http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/#Set
Regarding the query: If the items have no instances or subclasses, then a query can find them. But if they have, then there would be instances (e.g. physical objects) of instances (abstract objects). Instances of instances?
"it sounds not intuitive to claim that the set of all occurrences of the letter A is derived from the set of all occurrences of the Greek letter Alpha." - And no single Latin A nor the class of Latin A nor the changing set of "all occurrences of the letter A" is derived from the still changing set of "all occurrences of the Greek letter Alpha".

Could it be that set theory is misleading when working with rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type (instanceOf)? IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf, Set theory seems quite a safe bet - the 2004 RDF standard was a Model theory 'couched in the language of set theory', and the 2014 version is also using the terminology of set theory throughout [2].

Instances of instances are no problem. Clarence the lion is an instance of lion. Lion is an instance of species. Lion can be endangered, without Clarence being so.

Let's try another example: there is an interpretation where Germany is a Subclass of Country - if you regard Country as the "set of all land that that belongs to a country", and Germany as the "set of all land that belongs to Germany", then yes, Germany would be a subclass of Country. I'd still say that this is an unusual interpretation - and so I do for letter and A. I think stating that letter is the "set of all occurrences of letters" and A is the "set of all occurrences of the letter A" is an unusual interpretation. In both cases having an interpretation "Germany is an instance of country" or "A is an instance of letter" seems to be much more aligned with literature. Also, the identity criterion of sets is usually its membership. And by writing new As, I would be changing the set 'A'. I would be changing the set 'letter'. I do not think that this is what we mean when we talk about A. I am arguing that when we talk about A, we mean the abstract idea of the letter A, independent of the actual set of occurrences.

You state that 'If the items have no instances or subclasses, then a query can find them' - which is correct. The problem is rather that it would find far too many results if you ask for all subsets of letters. Let's put it this way: if we make A a subclass of letters, what is the query to get all letters (and only the letters) back, i.e. a query that results in (A, B, C, D ..., X, Y, Z) (for the common English alphabet).

What annoys me is mostly your tone earlier to Haplology and also in the discussion of your ban on English Wikipedia. The questions discussed here are not as trivial and clearcut as you seem to believe, and not everyone who believes otherwise does have 'problems understanding the concepts' or issues 'related to efficiency of the thinking-process'. In my opinion, you should apologize, independently of the result of the discussion we are having here. --Denny (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denny - To get all letters one just asks for all subclasses of a given class. If you want all that are in ISO 646 you query for items that are in the subclass tree of "Letter in ISO 646". Germany is not landmass but a state that has sovereignty over some landmass and some non-landmass. I would never regard Country as "set of all land that that belongs to a country". Did you read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/#Set and en:Type-token_distinction? IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vowel (Q36244)  

is a subclass of all letters. And it is obviously not a letter. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What TomT0m says. --Denny (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denny: What TomT0m says is wrong. Vowel is not a subclass of "all letters". Vowel is a subclass of speech sound. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. "letters representing vowels" or whatever you want to call it, the set {A, E, I, O, U}, is a subclass of "letter" and yet this set should not be part of the result set as I described it. Did you really not understand what was meant? --Denny (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classes in Wikidata are normally not named as being the plural of its members. Any letter could represent a vowel. 'w' sometimes is a pulmonic consonant, sometimes it is a semivowel. There is no one-to-one correspondence between speech sounds and letters or letter combinations. Unicode has designation "Letter" for some of the characters it encodes. So you could try to query by "has Unicode designation letter". IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As said, whatever you want to call the set {A, E, I, O, U}, that's a subclass of 'letter' which should not be returned to the query that I described, but would when using subclassing instead of instantiation. --Denny (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such set in Wikidata, so it would not be retrieved. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metaclasses

Indeed, I wrote stuffs about metaclass (Q19478619)   in knowledge representation in the semantic web. The well know ontology software. Some uses of metaclass with protege (to model some "fuzzy" concepts) could even be very useful in Wikidatas context, as the person (Q215627)   whose two wikidatians of different languages are not sure they actually refers to same definitions. (see this presentation in which the author models part/whole as metaclasses, instanciated by real whole/part classes, like engine/car. TomT0m ^(talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomT0m: you created:

20:34, 26 February 2015 Q19361238 metaclass [3]
18:56, 7 March 2015 en:Metaclass_(semantic_web) [4]
18:57, 7 March 2015 Q19478619 metaclass [5]

also added

'metaclass is a part of a programming language' to the third metaclass item in Wikidata [6]

The Wikipedia article lacks references for claims you inserted there. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior discussion

Denny: "What annoys me is mostly your tone earlier to Haplology and also in the discussion of your ban on English Wikipedia." - OK. And I am annoyed by people that base discussions on number of edits they made and by nonsense. Admins at enWP now admit that the original message regarding the block - not ban as you say - was misleading. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "OK"?

And here you use the term 'nonsense' to discuss the contribution of other editors to this discussion. Are you seeing why this could be considered hurtful to other contributors?

What is the difference between a 'ban' and a 'block' in this case? But I freely admit that the usage of the word 'block' would have been technically more correct.

I also don't see what the admittance of the original message being misleading has to do anything with the fact that your contributions to that discussion was sprinkled with expletives.

You were claiming that I was threatening you with a block (which, by the way, is still the title of this section). Are you still standing to this claim? --Denny (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denny:

With "OK" I wanted to tell you that I received that message, but I don't know what I can do about it.
"And here you use the term 'nonsense' to discuss the contribution of other editors to this discussion" - That is false.
"What is the difference between a 'ban' and a 'block' in this case?" - These are different concepts in English Wikipedia. In a thread on edit merging I openly wrote that I was blocked in English Wikipedia, which was then used by User:Haplology in a completely unrelated thread, namely about Wikidata content. Now you made a false statement in relation with my account and I prefer to be portrait correctly.
If you want to proceed with talking about my contributions in English Wikipedia, I would like you do so in the English Wikipedia. If you want a centralized discussion I suggest Meta.

All in all I prefer to focus on content discussions. No, idea why you re-opened this behavior stuff. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you do not know what to do about it, I suggest to apologize.

What do you mean with the term 'nonsense' then, since my understanding was false?

I was not aware that bans and blocks were different concepts in the English Wikipedia. What I did mean was 'block', although I used the term 'ban'. I apologize for misusing the term.

I am not sure with what you mean with "No idea why you re-opened this behavior stuff", as you were the one creating a subheader here in order to discuss this.

In general, if someone does not behave appropriately, that person should be called out and asked to improve their behavior. If you prefer to focus on content discussion, then do so and do not attack others in person.

You did not answer my last question regarding your claim about me threatening you. --Denny (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense - referred to text in the blocking message(s?).
reopening - referred to your "What annoys me is mostly your tone earlier to Haplology and also in the discussion of your ban on English Wikipedia." in a section about "Set theory and type-token distinction"
"In general, if someone does not behave appropriately, that person should be called out and asked to improve their behavior." - That would not be my approach. It sounds as if there are people that think they have the knowledge to divide behavior in wanted and unwanted.
threat - I perceived it as such, when you said "The user was blocked merely for his username, which does not fulfill EnWp requirements. Looking at the way the user is conducting discussions, though, other reasons seem suggestive, too.".

Cheers. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And [7] instead of discussing supports my point of view. Good that everyone can see our behavior. :-) IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. You are not discussing things. You continue to delete information like "P is a letter", "Hydrogen is a chemical element", "the English alphabet is an alphabet" without consensus. If you would be merely discussing these changes it would be different, but since you are not but rather continue to make potentially disruptive changes to the database, I have asked administrator's to keep an eye on you. --Denny (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denny: You claim I removed the information

"P is a letter" - I did not delete that information.
"Hydrogen is a chemical element" - I did not delete that information.
"the English alphabet is an alphabet"- I did not delete that information.

Three false and defamatory statements by you. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[8] --Denny (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denny: What do you want the reader to tell with that link? Take care, all your edits are public. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Denny: give away, he's just an idle troll who want to maximise chaos by maximising provocations. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denny - do you think this is nice behavior? IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. I prefer to answer such behavior as yours with kindness instead of name-calling, but since you are dealing out I am surprised by you being surprised to be receiving as well. --Denny (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not surprised. But I notice that you don't ask TomT0m to "learn to behave". IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP-80.134.90.212, edit warring without consensus? --Succu (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me, since the two cancelled each other out, even before you posted here:

(cur | prev) 18:59, 10 April 2015‎ IP-80.134.90.212 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,641 bytes) (-405)‎ . . (Undid revision 209896501 by IP-80.134.90.212 (talk))
(cur | prev) 18:58, 10 April 2015‎ IP-80.134.90.212 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,046 bytes) (+405)‎ . . (Undid revision 209894848 by Denny (talk))

IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your edits within the last hours are based on a consensus? You was asked to reach one ebfore continuing. --Succu (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has now started with removing "instance of: alphabet" from topics like English alphabet (Q754673). --Denny (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP-80.134.90.212, this person has plenty of usernames and a history of being abusive. Multichill (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars U? No E.

Things like [9] don't make sense to me because Obi-Wan absolutely exists in the canon Star Wars story and so putting "from fictional universe" = "Star Wars Expanded Universe" makes no sense. I guess I'll create a "Star Wars universe" item and replace all "EU" claims with "U"? I just wanted to check here before I went on editing a bunch of items. Also, I've created Wikidata:WikiProject Star Wars for anyone interested in improving Star Wars-related items. Thanks, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Obi-Wan be in both? Is it really necessary to replace "EU" claims? Dancter (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Both. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with Star Wars (since I am more of a Star Trek-fan) or the use of from narrative universe (P1080) here. From what I know of Star Trek, I would regard the canonical Star Trek-universe as a subset of the non-canonical ST-universe. What is true in the canonical universe is more or less always true in the non-canonical. (But the story-line can be reinterpreted, for example if Troy really was fully unharmed when she gave birth to an alien.) There is of course always contradictions in a fictive universe, but I guess we have to live with that.

In ST we also have the problem with multiple alternatives. Should Kirk of Star Trek Into Darkness (Q171711) really use the same item as Kirk of Where No Man Has Gone Before (Q25366) or the Kirk of the Mirror-alternative? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the official Expanded Universe is mostly a subset of the old Legends, but that’s about to change, since Legends is now sealed AFAIK, and new characters from episode VII and onwards won’t be part of it.

By the way, the new Wikidata:WikiProject Star Wars should be mentioned in this discussion I think :) —DSGalaktos (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Property proposal: Moviepilot identifier

I'm not so in this formal property proposal stuff. So I'm just asking you if you think that we need a Moviepilot identifier property. Moviepilot is one of the biggest German film webpages. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Property:P1411 (nominated for)

Why do movies like Birdman or The Artist don't have the property nominated for: Academy Award for Best Picture but only award received: Academy Award for Best Picture? Is there some tacit agreement to not give the nominated for property to items which also won? --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a tacit agreement but just a lack of users adding such statements. Note that nominated for (P1411) is used on 1316 items whereas award received (P166) has more than 174,000 claims.--Pasleim (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked a little bit strange to me that almost all movies which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture this year got the property but the winner. But maybe it's unhappy coincidence. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked it using a WikidataQuery: There is not a single film which received the Academy Award for Best Picture and also got nominated for it according to Wikidata. But there are 290 films in total which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture according to Wikidata. This obviously shows that the people who set the nominated for property had some tacit agreement to not give the property to items which also won the Award. --Jobu0101 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

academic degree: professor

49 items have that claim (autolist) which I think should be replaced with P106: professor because Q121594 is not an academic degree, but it is a profession. It would help a lot with value type violations for P512 overall --Haplology (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on svwp Professor (Q495871) and professor (Q121594) are proposed to be merged. The first is not a disambig-article on svwiki.

sv:Professorstiteln i Sverige (professor in Sweden) maybe should have an item of it's own. It's a kind of Bonnie and Clyde-article, about Swedish professors under two different laws. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I think it's a separate issue from the concern that I have, which is that professor (Q121594) is not academic degree (Q189533) and therefore it is inappropriate to use Q121594 as a target value of academic degree (P512). But fortunately it is appropriate for occupation (P106) so I am proposing (a) -P512:Q121594 and (b) +P106:Q121594. It might also be acceptable for honorific prefix (P511) but only for Dutch professors (?) and it seems redundant anyway. --Haplology (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the word have multiple meanings. Earlier a Swedish professor was a profession with some very special rights connected to it. (Since they were always assigned by the Government.) Today it tells more about somebody's income than anything else. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eastern European countries including Russia professor is both an degree (I am not sure whether it could be properly called an academic degree, since no thesis should be submitted to get it) and a position. Someone can occupy the position of a professor but not have an degree of a professor.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I didn't know that. In that case maybe a claim along those lines could be added to Q121594, by somebody knowledgeable in that area. --Haplology (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that there should just be two items then, one for the degree and one for the profession. I can't think of a any reason why they should share the same item. Hazmat2 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, there might be a similar situation in Germany. I recall hearing about a court decision that declares "professor" to be a lifelong title, unconnected to whether you are employed. But I don't remember any of the details, and my memory may be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of award received?

Was this a proper use of Property:P166? Technically speaking it wasn't Rain Man which received the award but its director. Is there a better way to deal with that issue? As you can see here also others dealed with that issue in that way. --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popups extension now also working on items and properties

Hi guys, I've just deployed a little default gadget which makes the Popups extension, also known as the Hovercards beta feature, also work with Wikidata items and properties. If you have not yet, you can enable the beta feature here. This feature is really useful on Wikidata now, because it includes the description of the item you hover and also an image if image (P18) is set. I can only recommend you to enable it. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You may have to purge your browser cache in order to make this feature work the first time. Here are some links which work pretty well with the popups: Earth (Q2), Calocedrus decurrens (Q1399164), instance of (P31). I'm happy about your feedback. I already thought if including aliases or other information like general statements would be a good idea.

Thanks so much for making this work, Bene! :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, no more /*<![CDATA hovercards! Thanks! :) —DSGalaktos (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice indeed! Displaying the target label and Qid would however be useful for links like this one. Any place where we can comment on that feature? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 12:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

\o/ TomT0m ^(talk) 12:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laddo: You can add comments on the gadget's talk page for the Wikidata specific hack and on the beta feature discussion page for the Popups extension itself. Including the label and item id might indeed be useful in this case but will be redundant in other cases. I will think about how to find a user-friendly solution here. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 21:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old RfCs

Just to inform you than one third of the open RfCs are more than one year old. If people involved in these RfC can have a look at them and evaluate the possibility to close the discussion, this will be a good action. Snipre (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards confirmation rules

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode characters

hello,

Is there a project to import (all?) Unicode characters in Wikidata? I think mainly for arrows, bullets, pictures, emoticons... With GNOME, we now have a new application that lets you quickly and easily search for characters (like heart, which gives us ♥), but it only works in English. I am not aware of an international translation project for Unicode. To have the characters on Wikidata, would easily link to Unicode and HTML sequences (U+2605 and ★ for a black star), but above all, to be abble to translate official names, which would be useful to external projects (like free desktop environments, applications...) Okki (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=2605 solve your problem? I'm not sure if wikidata intends to mirror about 200,000 assigned Unicode points, or even 17*65536 slots (most unassigned) covered by UTF-16 with surrogates, let alone 2^31 -1 in UCS-4 before they decided that some bits too much are almost as bad as not enough bits.

If a wiki already covers all code points in a block you are interested in with individual pages you could add it here. Otherwise, if "your" block is only covered by a list, or redirects to a list, or bitmaps on commons, knowing the rules here would help… Please post what you figure out, I'm curious. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to commons

I wanted to ask something about linking articles to commons. I have seen it done 2 different ways on here and I wondering if a certain way was preferred over the other. In some Items people use the properties for commons to link to the corresponding item such as [10]. On the same article I also linked to the category in commons under the Other wiki's section. In this example we can see them both togather, but I have seen other items with one or the other or both with no particular standard way. Which made me wonder if this was done in error or if there was even a standard way to do it. IMO, I think in the case of commons it would be better to do that under the Other wiki (in fact I think we should create one specifically for Commons in all honesty) and eliminate that from the properties but I would like to know what others think before I submit that suggestion in case this has come up before. I'm still fairly new to Wikidata so I don't know all the history of things. Reguyla (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reguyla: Both are acceptable but in linking via sitelink, You'd better link articles to galleries and categories to categories (but you need't fix old links). See Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links and Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2014/Properties/1.--GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reguyla (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plural in English item label

For "Q867570" I changed the label "Cyrillic alphabets" to "Cyrillic alphabet" and was reverted by User:Succu [11].

S/he left a message on my talk page "Hör bitte auf... ... Labels nach deinem Gutdünken zu manipulieren. " which translates more or less as "please stop to manipulate labels at your discretion".

IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now s/he deleted this very thread in the project chat [12].

I am looking for input by third parties. What I can see is, that items generally are written in singular form, e.g. "human", "car", "hand" and not "humans", "cars", "hands". IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this was a private message to you and not an other showact for you. BTW: You understand german very well. --Succu (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand German, but you seem to have problems with English. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IP: I will not tolerate blatant insults like this. Consider yourself warned. --Haplology (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to change the label, because there is no thing as "Cyrillic alphabet". Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sjoerddebruin: Your claim is false, e.g. the Kazakh Cyrillic alphabet is a Cyrillic alphabet. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a group of languages, not a individual language. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sjoerddebruin: Your claim is false. An alphabet is not a group of languages. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind to reread the above „claim” of Sjoerddebruin, IP-80.134.90.212? --Succu (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succu : What is your interpretation of "it" in the claim by User:Sjoerddebruin? I read it as the subject in my sentence and that was "Kazakh Cyrillic alphabet". IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My initial „it” was here. Twisting things is not helpful. If you want to change a label move the article and have fun. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succu: User:Sjoerddebruin didn't reply to your text. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic is a script.. It is used by many languages. It is singular. GerardM (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous alphabets are based on the Cyrillic script (Q8209)... --Succu (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are subsets per language... GerardM (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GerardM, Succu: The item is not about the script, but about the class of alphabets based on that script. There are various types of Cyrillic alphabets, like there are various types of aircraft. Boeing 747-400 (Q906937) is not called "Boeing 747-400s". How does Succu justify the plural? IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard for scripts; ISO 15924. There is only one script Cyrl. GerardM (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good for Cyrl, less clear for Latn+Latf. And figuring out the script(s) for IPA and UPA would be seriously bad.

–Be..anyone (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial deletion marked as non-controversial housekeeping

I created Help:Class or instance, which was deleted by User:John F. Lewis. The deletion broke links that I had made to that page. IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was not controversial, perhaps using 'non-controversial housekeeping' was not the best summary, 'deleting unnecessary redirect' or similar may have been better. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Lewis: 'deleting unnecessary redirect' when there were links from talk pages to it? Why delete a redirect that was in use? IP-80.134.90.212 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between 'used' and 'useful'. When a page had no content on it which was actively used (e.g. around for less than a day), then it doesn't need a redirect to its new location. Instead updating the links is easier and more helpful than keeping around a page which is not helpful and provides no purpose to the knowledge base. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikidataQuery question: Items which are humans

Using wdq.wmflabs.org how can I say that I'm only looking for items which are humans? CLAIM[31:5] does not work since it covers no subclasses of humans. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

claim[31:5] shouldn't have any subclasses. --- Jura 20:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in Wikidata there are many humans which don't have claim[31:5] because they have claim[31:?] where Q? is a subclass of Q5. Since thouse items are also humans I want to cover them with my query but I don't get them covered with claim[31:5] because wdq.wmflabs.org is not concerned about subclasses. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a sample item? --- Jura 20:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for claim[31:(tree[5][][279])]. However, the difference to claim[31:5] is only marginal: 2,765,488 vs 2,767,718 items. --Pasleim (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference should be zero. --- Jura 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the items on this, there might actually be no humans among those items. --- Jura 21:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about them: https://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=claim[31:14943515]%20and%20claim[31:5]? I think this list should be empty because Q14943515 is a subclass of Q5. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Q5 shouldn't have any subclasses. Besides, we don't want religious wars either. --- Jura 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean we should remove all subclasses of Q5? --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the purpose of your query, you can assume that all humans have P31:Q5. At least, that's what many other tools do. --- Jura 10:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is the marginal difference of 764 items. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out with my link to Autolist above. --- Jura 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

322 of them are biblical character (Q14943515)'s, many of the others listed appear to be positions or figures from Greek Mythology. Popcorndude (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101: I wrote a template to write these queries parts : CLAIM[31:(TREE[5][][279279])] ({{WDQ/instances|Q5}} gives this. It's usable with {{WDQ}} to generate a link to the WDQ corresponding query : {{WDQ|{{WDQ/instances|Q5}}|human instances}} gives human instances. TomT0m ^(talk) 10:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: I don't see why there should not have any subclass. There is no reason and we are technically ready to allow this. It's just a matter of queries and WDQ and the future query engine of Wikidata will perfectly be able to handle this. This is a limittion with no real reasons. And absolutely not a community consensus. TomT0m ^(talk) 10:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. --- Jura 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: This ... does not seem like an answer, what do you mean exactly ? TomT0m ^(talk) 12:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A human is a human is a human. When it is not possible to say that someone is a human he is not. There is absolutely no consensus to think otherwise. Thanks GerardM (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GerardM: There is consensus on Help:Basic membership properties, that's all I know. And instances of human is totally possible, I know that too. TomT0m ^(talk) 12:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse the rule with possibly the exception. Either a human is a human or he is not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GerardM: I'm sorry, what ? TomT0m ^(talk) 12:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that on {{Item documentation}} there is a link to generate all instances of a class, and that if you look on Talk:Q5 there is a call, and that's true for any other class, to get all instances of that class. The exception is that to get all elements in a class you just query the P31/Qitem pair. TomT0m ^(talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GerardM "A human is a human unless he (or she) is not" or unless we are not sure. legendary figure (Q16934977) for instance is an entire class of people who might be historical or might be fictional or might be a bit of both. Filceolaire (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is a legendary person human. As far as I am concerned I do not care ... they certainly do not have a story that is verifiable in any way. So no. GerardM (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #153

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Events/Blogs/Press
Other Noteworthy Stuff
- Build a RSS image feed based on a query
- Periodic table based on Wikidata data by Ricordisamoa
- ~8000 biographical items with dates in the description, but no birth/death date statements
- Magnus says ~8% (~1.4M) of all Wikidata items do not have any site links to Wikipedia etc.; knowledge that exists exclusively on Wikidata
- Bene* wrote a user script that adds a filter bar above the statement section and lets you filter it
- Magnus wrote a quick user script to move identifiers into the right sidebar to show how a statement section without identifiers would look like. This came up as part of a longer discussion on the mailinglist about moving identifier statements into their own section. Progress is being tracked at phabricator:T95287.
- Samsung releases Freebase-Wikidata mappings in CC0: 4.4M pairs generated from Wikipedia links and custom code
- Thanks to Bene* hovercards now also work for items and properties
- New tool by Magnus for Wikidata item labels
Did you know?
- Newest properties: short name, list of episodes, named as
- New task forces: Star Wars, Open Access
Development
- We are going to change the way value suggestions are ranked when entering a new statement. This will help with "male" and "female" not showing up among the top suggestions. Previously we ranked by number of sitelinks. We will change this to the maximum of sitelinks and labels. So if an item has labels in many languages but no sitelinks like "male" and "female" it will still show up high in the suggestions. (phabricator:T94404)
- Discussed how to move forward with identifiers. Outcome: They should get their own datatype. (phabricator:T95287)
- Implemented arbitrary access for the {{#property:…}} parser function. This can be invoked on the wikis that have arbitrary access enabled by using {{#property:P123|from=Q42}}. So far this is only Wikidata itself.
- Did further performance work on the client (Wikipedia and co) in preparation for arbitrary access
- Improved the performance of wbgetentities significantly when loading a large number of entities
- Wrote more browser tests for different datavalues
- Further work on RDF mapping and dumps
- Fixed in other language box showing old data (phabricator:T90893)
- Fixed language fallback on Special:Recent changes and Special:Contributions
- Added language fallback for the tooltip on badge icons
Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
- Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thriller subclass problem

Is it okay that thriller is subclass of film and literary work? I think that is wrong. If you use the subclass property for some item then that means that all instances belong to that class. Since in our case there are thrillers which aren't films and other thrillers which aren't literary work we should remove both subclass relations. Do you agree? --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes It's wrong. It would mean with classical meaning of subclass of that the instances of this class are both films and texts. Thriller is more a genre. The subclass of film (Q11424)  

should be something like thriller film, which would mean that all its instances are implied to be of genre (P136)

<thriller>.

Here we can see it: all instances of class X belong to class Y. So this is clearly wrong. If I delete this claim can I somehow refer to this discussion here? Maybe we should also tell the user who did that that he didn't understand the concept of being a subclass. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use undo function and mention this discussion in the edit summary. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that you can use the undo function to leave an edit summary. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek: Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you mean I should remove the claims and then try to undo my removal where the software instead of really undoing my removal will give me the possibility to leave an edit summary to justify my removal. But what you meant was simply to undo the edits of Infovarius (talk • contribs • logs) and leave there an edit summary. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could undo your change twice, and leave an edit summary on both undos. I agree this is not a nice thing, but it's a possibility. -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix double redirect

How can I make Q1158394 point to Q2128144? --- Jura 11:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solution seems to be "to undo the redirect" rather than attempt to edit it.

@Jura1: It is not recommanded to touch redirects, see Help:Redirects. I always found weird this custom of fixing double redirects. What if a merge is reverted in an article ? Then we have links that used to be good that may point to the wrong article when a more specific has been created. TomT0m ^(talk) 11:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, something has to be done about double-redirects, otherwise people end up on blank pages. --- Jura 12:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, never noticed that :/ that might be a problem for the policy. Not a big one though. I'll put something on the talk page. TomT0m ^(talk) 13:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. We fixed everything. --- Jura 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice cream

Hi, I've been looking into different kinds of ice creams, but not sure if they should be instances of ice cream or subgroup of ice cream. Example: soft serve (Q1397211) is set to be instance of (P31) ice cream (Q13233). Is this really correct? Another example: chocolate ice cream (Q3013199) is subclass of (P279) to ice cream (Q13233). Which one is correct when we talk about types of ice creams, not specific brands or products? //Mippzon (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mippzon: Maybe Help:Classification could be of any help :) The subclass form is correct according to the Token/type distinction, as children eats a lot of italian chocolate icecream. But if we regards in terms of class of classes, it's also possible if the icecream type is branded to include a

⟨ Whatever icecream brand ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ icecream brand ⟩

both with

⟨ Whatever icecream brand ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ chocolate icecream ⟩

. Icecream brand can in this case be regarded as a class of classes. TomT0m ^(talk) 17:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this twisted my head a bit! So, am I following this correct: chocolate ice cream (Q3013199) could be both a subgroup to ice cream (Q13233) AND an instance of ice cream (Q13233)? Since we both means the abstract concept and the physical actual chocolate ice cream that some of us eat? :) //Mippzon (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline I follow is that a class is a lot of instances and there generally aren't a lot of statements you can make about a class. An instance of an ice cream, on the other hand, is a particular recipe/brand and you can make statements about it - recipe, start date, brand owner, etc. Based on this guideline both soft serve and chocolate are probably subclasses of ice cream since there are various different recipes/brands of soft serve and of chocolate ice cream.

I don't think ice cream can be both an instance and a class but some other things can. For instance a model T Ford is an instance of a brand/model with an introduction date and a cancellation date and is also a class of millions of individual cars, each of which is an instance of a Model T and each of which has a construction date and a destruction date, which are different from the dates for the brand/class/model. At least that is my opinion. Filceolaire (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making it a bit more concrete! I think I got my answer there. //Mippzon (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mippzon: If you can help to write Help:Classification in a more accessible fashion, you're welcome :) because what Joe just said and what Joe said about car model is what I wanted to say, just replacing "Car model" with "Ice cream brand" :) TomT0m ^(talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treating a model of a car as an instance of a model makes sense to me too, but in practice it leads to thousands of constraint violations of P176, at least, maybe on others too. An instance of a model of a car is conceptually an instance of a product, but it's not connected to product (Q2424752), so how is a machine to know? We humans know, but it can't be queried. Meanwhile lots of other things like Canon Cat (Q1033523) are conceptually the same yet are treated differently: a Canon Cat (Q1033523) is an instance of computer, but a Volkswagen Taro II (Q10392384) is an instance of a car model, not a car, and is not connect to Q2424752/product anywhere. In truth there are two schools of thought about "ice cream" versus "ice cream brand" operating at the same time with no agreement or coordination. --Haplology (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource links

What to do with Wikisource linking in articles Q9372670, Q19796490, Q19796474, Q19142323. I can't understand why my edits are reverted. So far I can't keep linking other articles. --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subclass is class and instance?

I just saw that Q3965271 is subclass and instance of Q130901. Is that possible or is that also a violation to Help:Basic membership properties like thriller (see above)? --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101: It's not really possible to be both instance and subclass of the same item. My first impression here is that it is a subclass of relations as there is many possible subclass relationships depending of the system you work on. We could have

⟨ Wikidata's subclass relationship ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ subclass relationship ⟩

though. But here it is labelled as a relationship of some axiomatic set theory, then it could be a concrete relationship also.

It's kind of hard to think of that example because it has a sense in Wikidata also :)

But I would say here the item is a for a kind of relations : those who respects some properties, such as the transitivity of membership of a class to its superclasses. So definitevely not an instance of relation. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if there are subclasses in two different senses, why don't we have two different items for them? --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101: Because no one did the clarification job yet :) Actually this is in a mathematics area here that is close to self-reference (Q1129622)  

so this might not be the easiest job in Wikidata :).

But maybe this link I also quoted in another discussion is a way to sort things out: http://protege.stanford.edu/conference/2003/hong-gee_kim_metaclass-kim.pdf In short, he uses a modeling trick to regroup stuffs with an abstract common pattern with class of classes, like whole/part relationships who can be seen in a lot of real world object relationship. Might be interesting to see if we can use a similar solution here. TomT0m ^(talk) 10:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101, TomT0m: Actually, i am quite certain that subclass (Q3965271) is not a subclass of binary relation (Q130901) but of ordered pair (Q191290). -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:@Jokes Free4Me: Why do you have a "_" in the username that is displayed in your signature and not in your real username ? That could make sense if a relation is viewed as an ordered pair set, but in this sense it's equivalent to say that

⟨ relation ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ ordered pair ⟩

and

⟨ subclass ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ ordered pair ⟩

. But I don't think this is really an advance for our problem, can you justify this a little bit, beyond provocation ? TomT0m ^(talk) 09:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because WikiMedia was intended to use underscores instead of spaces pretty much everywhere, including in usernames. But my underscore is a real intended character, and not a stand-in for a space. Fwiw, there was no provocation intended, i'm just trying to reach a valid categorization. As for the question, I ~~would agree~~^[1] with that first statement,

⟨ relation ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ ordered pair ⟩

, but would change the second one to

⟨ subclass ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ relation ⟩

(which would imply

⟨ subclass ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ ordered pair ⟩

). Anything wrong with these? -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

↑ No, actually, i had a vague notion that something was missing in my interpretation, but couldn't quite clarify my thoughts. I've just realized what it was: the 'relation' class is a subclass of the 'set of ordered pairs' class. I need to study this some more. :"> -- ~~~~

Oscar award received

I tried to generate a list of all items which received an Oscar. I used autolist and claim[166:claim[31:19020]] but I didn't get a result. Why? --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101: You need parenthesis to indicate requests to be executed before others: Query: claim[166:(claim[31:19020)]] -- LaddΩ chat ;) 22:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, what is the difference between Autolist and Autolist 2? --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101: Autolist 2 is the newer version with these changes:

Allow complement which is not possible in Autolist.
Allow 4 source sets, which are Manual list, Category, WDQ and Find. only Category and WDQ are supported in Autolist.
Allow setting namespace while doing quick intersection.
Allow setting size of chunks (default is 10000). In Autolist this is hardcoded as 50.
Allow adding more than one statement and removing statement from an item.
Labels will be loaded on demand. In Autolist all labels are loaded before displaying the result.
Items is sorted by alphabetical order (Q1, Q1001, Q11, Q2) instead of Qid (Q1, Q2, Q11, Q1001).

Note: Autolist is deprecated for editing.--GZWDer (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there some documentation for Autolist 2? I mean the most of it is self-explanatory but still a few questions remain. For example, what does "Mode WDQ NOT" mean? --Jobu0101 (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It allows you choosing what intersection you want to do with the sets you have loaded. Eg. to show all items in a category or with some label, but not in the result of a query. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template like {{query|...}} for Autolist 2? --Jobu0101 (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobu0101: I believe there isn't, but there is little need, {{Query}} does the work:

Autolist (1) can show extra property values, but Autolist 2 does not
You can easily cut-and-paste a query from Autolist to Autolist 2 if you want to

-- LaddΩ chat ;) 13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the parser function

In Wikidata weekly summary #153 I read that {{#property:P123|from=Q42}} should get parsed not only here in Wikidata but also in some Wikipedias. But as you can see () it doesn't even get parsed here in Wikidata, it just vanishes. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'll come with the next code deployment. Not available yet :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what does "So far this is only Wikidata itself" mean if it doesn't even work there? --Jobu0101 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it will come with the next deployment but since arbitrary access is only available on Wikidata itself this new feature will also only work there. The section usually contains things that are not live on wikidata.org yet but will be soon. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The big day is approaching .. put the champagne in the fridge . --- Jura 16:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P1056

Could we please have some resolution about the domain of product or material produced or service provided (P1056)? It was created to be about products of mines, such as ores or natural gas, but now, more items make claims of P1056 about finished products etc. (161 out of 221 total). Please leave input on the talk page. Thanks --Haplology (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking between two properties?

Trying to make the description text from one property (which already contained the text "P###") link to another one, the preview didn't seem to understand my intent. It showed "[[P###]]", and i guess it wouldn't have saved it as a link... My second attempt was to "add qualifier" to one of the property's existing properties, specifically the "obsolete Wikidata property" statement... But i got this message when trying to save:

An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed.
Details: Unexpected entity type property

Should i just add a new statement about that property, instead of trying to include the link into the description or a qualifier? Or is there some other option i'm not aware of? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can't link in descriptions. You can mention items or properties, see P:P21. --- Jura 11:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason for why we "can't link in descriptions"?! As for the second attempt, is there a similarly deliberate restriction that "values cannot be properties"? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every property has its datatype. Properties with item datatype cannot link to properties. Of course, there exist some properties with property datatype. Descriptions are used to describe, not to link. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What property are you having a problem with and what are you trying to do? It is difficult to give you real help without this information. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter?! Fwiw, i wanted to link p:P513 to p:P1477, or add a qualifier to the "obsolete Wikidata property" statement. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can use see also (P1659). Good to know. :-) -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wikidata parser function

Please, can you tell me where can I find some information about #property parser function? I was looking for it on Italian Wikipedia but I didn't find anything. Also, there is a parser funtion to read the label of a Wikidata item? Thanks. --FRacco (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awkwardly enough, not in the Wikidata help namespace. This search yields a little more to dig through. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try mw:Extension:Wikibase Client, mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions and mw:Extension:Wikibase Client/Lua. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autolist down

How come? --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happens a lot. How come indeed. --Haplology (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the API was still online. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a labs outage. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Vandalism (and a tag for gender changes?)

Coming from En.Wiki, this place seems almost like a vandalism free wonderland, but I immediately stumbled upon some person who had been labelled as transgender for over six months. This got me wondering whether WikiData had recent changes tags, which you do, and why there isn't one for changing the gender field. When you think about it, once set the gender field shouldn't have to be changed, and any changes to it should be watched as it is likely they are vandalism. What's everyone else think? Keep in mind I have no idea how tags work, but I'm sure it would be possible to have a tag for changing Property:P21. EoRdE6 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't as far as I know at least, and I agree that it would be helpful to pay more attention to changes in existing data because in my experience, new or anonymous users who change values are more likely to be vandalizing them than users who add new data. I know it's not quite the same but the closest thing for P21 is abuse filter 13. --Haplology (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being both, class and instance

Inspired by Subclass is class and instance and Help:Basic membership properties: Can an item be both, class and instance? I think, in programming languages it is forbidden for good reason. In Wikidata we have many (30,426) counterexamples: Query: claim[31 and claim[279]]. Frankly speaking, in most cases it is obvious bullshit. --Jobu0101 (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1]