Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/11

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bruce Lee

Bruce Lee (Q16397)

I came here from the regular wikipedia.

I noticed that the wikidata for Bruce Lee (Q16397) seemed vandalized by user from 187.188.28.45 Someone incorrectly put Mohammad to his given name section, Ghandour to his family name, Mexico Place for burisl place, etc. SWP13 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It happens; now reverted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

activity periods with holes

Thanks to the wikidata game I found a case of complicated period of activity for a music band : es:Decibel_(banda) (Decibel (Q20014444)) (see the infobox). I don’t think we have something to model such complicated things.

My proposal(s), just thinking about it would be, with a property « history » to link an item to the storyline of events in its lifetime : 1)

  • ⟨ decibel ⟩ history of topic (P2184) View with SQID ⟨ history of decibel ⟩
  • ⟨ history of decibel ⟩ has part Search ⟨ first period of decibel ⟩
    ⟨ first period ⟩ start time (P580) View with SQID ⟨ 1973 ⟩
    ⟨ first period ⟩ end time (P582) View with SQID ⟨ 1980 ⟩
  • ⟨ history of decibel ⟩ has part Search ⟨ second period ⟩
    same idea as above
  • ⟨ history of decibel ⟩ has part Search ⟨ third period ⟩
    same idea as above

Or, with a property that link an item directly to items about a part of their story 2)

  • ⟨ decibel ⟩ has activity period Search ⟨ first period ⟩
    (with no value Help as first period if we don’t have or don’t want an item for this period, maybe qualified with work period (start) (P2031) / work period (end) (P2032) in this case)
  • ⟨ decibel ⟩ has activity period Search ⟨ second period ⟩
    idem
  • ⟨ decibel ⟩ has activity period Search ⟨ third period ⟩
    idem

author  TomT0m / talk page 19:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Or you can use
    ⟨ decibel ⟩ significant event (P793) View with SQID ⟨ dormancy (Q55909176)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
    for the periods of inactivity, with appropriate start & end dates as qualifiers. - Jmabel (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Don’t solve all problems but interesting idea. Although I’d use no value Help as a special value to note the abscence of something.
    One problem that would remain is, for example, if there is a dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) View with SQID statement for a date the band dissolves, it’s sourcable. Do we need to deprecate it ? It’s still true that the band dissolved at this date. One other is, would the semantic of significant event (P793) View with SQID appropriate to express a statement with the same meaning as
    ⟨ decibel ⟩ history of topic (P2184) View with SQID ⟨ history of decibel ⟩
    • ⟨ history of decibel ⟩ has part Search ⟨ first period of decibel ⟩
    with
    ⟨ decibel ⟩ significant event (P793) View with SQID ⟨ first period of decibel ⟩
     ?
    (note, my proposal would be compatible with
    ⟨ history of decibel ⟩ has part Search no value Help
    start time (P580) View with SQID ⟨ … ⟩
    end time (P582) View with SQID ⟨ … ⟩
    ) author  TomT0m / talk page 11:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I personally would expect to keep but deprecate a statement that was accurate at the time it was made, but has now been superseded. I don't know if that view is universally shared. - Jmabel (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      @Jmabel: It’s disputable. I would say that it’s still true that the band dissolved at that date, isn’t it ? (That’s almost a philosophical question). The reunification of the band maybe better modeled as a re-creation. If you’re right, maybe we should be clear about the fact that a « dissolution » is meant to be « the last definitive action of the entity ». If the entity is reformed, then what was reasonably supposed as a dissolution become indeed false, and become an « indefinite cessation of activity » or something like that. It make sense to take this definition to be sure that an entity has a single time interval between its creation and dissolution however. The « indefinite cessation of activity » date then become the time before an inactivity period. Anyway it’s an interesting edge case, I did not imagine querying the deprecated rank could be necessary in some cases to retrieve some true datas. In your model, to discriminate between a sabbatical like « we decided to pause the band 1 year » that is not a dissolution, and a real « we decided to dissolve the band » and the reformation of the band 1 year later, we might want to check if the « cause of deprecation » property is used with a value like « the band recreated ». It might however be better modeled as a qualifier
      ⟨ band ⟩ significant event (P793) View with SQID ⟨ second period ⟩
      caused by Search ⟨ band reformation vs. band sabbatical end ⟩
      or something like (together with
      ⟨ band ⟩ significant event (P793) View with SQID ⟨ first period ⟩
      end time (P582) View with SQID ⟨ _ ⟩
      end cause (P1534) View with SQID ⟨ band dissolution vs. band sabbatical ⟩
      author  TomT0m / talk page 18:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      My interpretation of the practice on Wikidata is that dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) is final. If something "comes back" after that, it should be a new item. Or if you want to continue the same item, then the dissolution and reformation should be marked in some other way than dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) / inception (P571). Ghouston (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      When it's done that way, it has consequences. Firstly, the past can change, since a valid dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) statement becomes invalid when the thing is restarted. Secondly, the item represents different things over time: it's a band for a while, then its a nonentity, then it's a band again. Should this be represented with start/end qualifiers on multiple instance of (P31) statements? Titanic (Q25173) still exists, now in the form of a shipwreck; if somebody raised her and fixed her up, she'd be a ship again. Ghouston (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: So we need to split The Shield (Q247125) as it has dissolved twice? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to. It looks like a typical case. Enwiki has decided not to create a new article for the refounding, so Wikidata presumably needs an item covering the whole history for its sitelink. The item doesn't currently have any dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) or inception (P571) statements, but has a misused start time (P580). Ghouston (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, is there a entry of a commons file of a journal?

I know that artwork is already available on Wikidata but I was wondering, do we have something on journals here? Someone on pt-wiki helped me and uploaded a few pictures of Brazilian journals noticing the end of World War I with the signing of the Armistice of Compiègne. In this file, various world leaders and generals are depicted.

My questions are:

1) Could I create a new item about a page of a newspaper? Is there some kind of policy or WikiProject involved in this?

2)Is there a QID as an example?

Thanks! Tetizeraz (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we merge underground station (Q22808403) with underground railway station (Q55491)?

Likely why not station located on surface (Q22808404) and railway station above ground (Q11424045)? How can an underground station not underground, and a ground station not ground? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: It looks like underground station (Q22808403) and station located on surface (Q22808404) include bus stations and possibly other forms of public transport, while the others are exclusively for railway stations. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: underground bus stop? example? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: en:Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel for example - I've used it when it was just for buses. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Constraints for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)

I was trying to import some values of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for train stations from Polish Wikipedia, using the Harvest Template tool. However, it seems that there are constraints which prevent a number of administrative units found in the former Soviet Unions countries from being used in this property. The examples I encountered are village (Q532), city (Q515), posyolok (Q2514025), urban-type settlement (Q2989457) and hamlet (Q5084). Could someone please take a look at this issue? Here's a little sample in CSV (about 50 records) of my harvest's log. Thanks in advance! Powerek38 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I got the impression that some Russian users might be deleting historic administrative layers and just keep the current ones. This tends to breaks things. --- Jura 12:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Why Russian instead of Polish admins e.g. @Rzuwig:? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Jackomiste?

543 Commons categories are now subcats of a nonexistent Commons:Category:Jackomiste? (given name). I'm virtually certain that this is due to an error somewhere here on Wikidata, but it's not obvious where. Cans someone work this out? - Jmabel (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: This was caused by vandalism on Jack (Q1159009) (I think this was propagated by the Commons Wikidata infobox adding categories based on the first value of given name (P735) for each category's item). I think some page purges and/or null edits would fix the errors. Jc86035 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
So this is going to require 543 null edits on Commons? - Jmabel (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm bot-running the null edits now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
All done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! - Jmabel (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Relevant discussion (given the provided geo-location of the IP address causing the vandalism). Mahir256 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Stranger

Is there really no preexisting item for en:Stranger? This seems too basic and I must be missing it. GMGtalk 12:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I can't find it - go ahead and create, we can always merge later. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I am frequently amazed at the basic concepts that don't have WD items. They often correspond to disambiguation pages.- PKM (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Q48928408 edit wars

Can anyone focus on this item West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408)? There's conflict about located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). ---218.68.229.122 08:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue is still unresolved, and one IP address reported at WD:AN, which is not civility and I've told them that No personal attacks. @Jc86035: would you please help a lot in this topic? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions about names : « unofficial » names given by foreigners and the future of names in the lexeme era

Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
Moebeus
Dcflyer
Looniverse
Aya Reyad
Infovarius
Tris T7
Klaas 'Z4us' van B. V
Deborahjay
Bruno Biondi
ZI Jony
Laddo
Da Dapper Don
Data Gamer
Luca favorido
The Sir of Data Analytics
Skim
E4024
JhowieNitnek
Envlh
Susanna Giaccai
Epìdosis
Aluxosm
Dnshitobu
Ruky Wunpini
Balû
★Trekker

Notified participants of WikiProject Names

How do we store names for a place that foreigners gives to the place

I think I asked this in the past, but it’s becoming a question with immediate importance as we’re implementing the display of « dated entities » in infobox in frwiki to avoid anachronisms in the name of things at a certain date (place of birth should be displayed at the name of the place at the date of birth of the person, and not with the current label of the item), and discussing the matter on how to store the names of foreign place in french. official name (P1448) View with SQID obviously does not fit, but name (P2561) View with SQID seems intuitively too generic, unless qualified to make the kind of nameclear. I guess I however would not mind or prefer a dedicated property « foreign name » to place face to face with « official name », which could be qualified with the kind of adaptation of the original name it is (translitteration, « francisation » (adaptation of a name in french, translation, …) but it may be better put in lexeme to do this properly, hence my second question below. author  TomT0m / talk page Addendum : a lot of exonym (Q81639) have been added to London, at the current version, it's not really the right usage according to the property description. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Just a remark that it's not unusual for places organizations to have a secondary quasi-official name in a "foreign" language. For example, I presume pretty much every country in the world has an official choice as to the form of the country's name to be used in all five languages used for simultaneous translation at the UN. - Jmabel (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the technical term for "name that foreigners give to a place" is exonym... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Even within that, though there are distinctions to be made. For example, "Soviet Union" would have been an exonym, but didn't have official status of any sort, whereas "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" did. (Also, I suppose calling the whole this "Russia" was a mix of a metonym and an exonym.) - Jmabel (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, plus it's not tight to a language but to a state. There is official denominations for states by France, but it might be that other french speaking countries gives another name. I propose that for this kind of relationship we use a model like
    ⟨ Germany (Q183)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ exonym Search ⟨ Allemagne(fr) or a french lexeme ⟩
    name given by Search ⟨ France (Q142) ⟩
    . If we use the lexeme option however it might by modelled as "LAllemagne(fr) denotes Germany ; name given by : France". author  TomT0m / talk page 17:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The future of names in the lexeme era

Does anyone has a vision on how « languaged string » values properties will coexist with items and with lexemes ? In theory we could probably create lexemes for a lot of values of « name » property and even migrate those property to lexeme datatype … author  TomT0m / talk page 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I've been thinking of starting a lexeme WikiProject to collect current data modeling in that space, and I guess we could also use it for discussion of additional ideas like this. Do you think that would be helpful? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Best practices for US NRHP

Is there documentation somewhere for best practices for qualifiers and references for <heritage designation> = National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910)? Boston Common (Q49132) looks like a good example, but not all of them are done this way. - PKM (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This seems fine. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thierry_Caro, Ipoellet: Thanks, Thierry. I've also just run across Ipoellet's work with adding the National Register of Historic Places nomination form (Q47123453) as an item and using that as an additional reference, which I really like (see example at San Juan National Historic Site (Q281149)). Lots to do! - PKM (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@PKM: I was involved with enwiki:WPNRHP for quite some time, and several months ago decided to devote effort to NRHP coverage on Wikidata. Since then I have been working manually on many different NRHP items, working out through trial-and-error what I think are the best ways to structure NRHP data, with some cooperation from User:Fralambert. Boston Common (Q49132) and San Juan National Historic Site (Q281149) are both items that I have worked on, although I have developed my approach further since then. Stephen and Parthena M. Blank House (Q7610917) is a fully built-out example of my ideas.
I have reached what I think is a good approach, but I have done nothing so far to document my approach for other contributors. I guess I ought to get moving on that. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ipoellet: thanks for the info. I followed your approach on Lanterman House (Q6487560) - I think I got all the critical points! - PKM (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I added instance of (P31): standardized test (Q3244907) to ACT (Q288826). Does that makes sense, or should I follow the example in SAT (Q334113)?

SAT (Q334113) is a subclass of reasoning test (Q44209773). I have to be honest here, I never heard the term "reasoning test", which is why I'm asking here. Tetizeraz (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: I think the SAT and the ACT should each be subclasses of both reasoning test (Q44209773) and standardized test (Q3244907) (a reasoning test is not necessarily a standardized test); subclasses of and not instances of because the same test paper is not reused every year. I'll update the items. Jc86035 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

List of ERC20 Tokens

Hello

I want to form a table, which lists ERC20 Ethereum tokens, with the following columns:

Name of token. Official logo of the business issuing the token or of the token itself if it has a logo. Abbreviation (Ticker) of token. Short description of the purpose of the token. Contract Address of token and official webpage of token. Market capitilisation (I do not know where this will be linked to and how, but i am sure someone else will know. The column will probably be linked to various sources because, "market capitalisation", cannot be easily generalized in the sphere)

The reason to form the table is simple. Currently maximum-profit-per-individual (empipi-i) media companies are publishing information about Initial Coin Offerings after receiving payment. Much of the information supplied by media is not true. Consumers and low budget issuers of coins need a place where they can get and give reliable information, not influenced by paid advertising under the guise of reported news.

The table must be an alphabetical list according to Tickers and be sortable.

Do you think the table will be acceptable? Mdpienaar (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Website and Authority control merged?

Is this merge correct? How can it be both a website (Q35127) and an authority file (Q36524) at the same time? It has triggered hundreds of Bot edits e.g. because of the new redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The versions before the merge were [1] and [2]. Do they actually form separate authorities where it would make sense to link to one or the other? Normally we don't have a separate item for an organization's website, just a official website (P856) statement. Ghouston (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And aside from the correctness of the merger, the several values for instance of (P31) on the newly merged item are incompatible. Which values are correct and which should be removed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It is a strange merge and does not really make sense. The website apparently only has an item because frwiki has a page. - Brya (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Notifying JakobVoss as author of the merge. The bot edits are here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/editgroups/b/KrBotResolvingRedirect/Q20666306_Q19938912/ − Pintoch (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for notification. The frwiki article is about both the authority control database BNF and the portal data.bnf.fr where it is accessible at. The bot edit make sense to me because the database is the original reference. I removed website (Q35127) because there is already the subclass online service (Q19967801) -- JakobVoss (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

disjoint union of

The English labels states that both the main item and items listed using this property should be classes. Is there any way to indicate e.g. that X (class) have three and only three instances (i.e. X is either A or B or C; A, B, C are not classes)? Or maybe this property is correct in this case, only the English label is not? Wostr (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Could you give an example? This might be easier to think about on a less abstract level. - Jmabel (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    So I'm looking for an answer what is the best way: (1) leave only proper P31/P279 without clear indication that (+/-)-propyl lactate (Q27266686) is either (-)-propyl lactate (Q27265954) or (+)-propyl lactate (Q27259235) (in that case there should be at least different from (P1889)), (2) use disjoint union property for this, (3) use has part(s) (P527) (with many other values like has part = carbon, has part = carbonyl group mixed in one property), (4) ... something else. Wostr (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Without wishing to detract from the thrust of your general argument, I'm pretty sure that what is labelled as "(+/-)-propyl lactate" in Q27266686 can exist in reality as a simple mixture of the enantiomers, such as the 1:1 racemic mixture, at least according to the IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature. This illustrates the problem of confusion between a group of isomeric entities (Q15711994) and a racemate (Q467717), either of which may be in the reader's mind when adding data to entries labelled in the same sort of way as the example you gave. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    user:RexxS, yes, maybe some additions of 'has part' are caused by this, but I don't know how to solve this, usually group of isomeric entities (Q15711994) is present and racemate (Q467717) is not, also the (English) label states that the item is about 'group of isomers'. The agreement in WikiProject Chemistry is that the compound without fully defined stereochemistry is always group of isomeric entities (Q15711994) and items about racemate (Q467717) are created if needed, as these two cannot be mixed into one item. Wostr (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, Wostr, now I'm confused – where does the English label states that the item is about 'group of isomers'? Sadly, you'll find that – despite the wishes of WikiProject Chemistry – their agreements have no binding authority over contributors, so any editor who thinks that (+/-)-propyl lactate (Q27266686) is the item representing a racemate will treat it as such - and I think that what we see is the consequence of that.
    Nevertheless I do agree that where an item represents an instance of a finite or bounded class, there should be some way of indicating the size of that class, at least. The other part of the question is then how we facilitate the user's ability to find items that are the members of that class. That is also something that requires careful thought to find the best way of implementing. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    RexxS, as I wrote above, this item has wrong P31 (like thousands of items imported by bots). Slowly, we're trying to do something with that, but it's not easy given the total number of chemical compounds present in WD and many other things. I choosed this item, because I have it on my bookmark bar in 'to do' folder; after cleaning it would have subclass of 'chemical compound', instance of 'group of isomers' and descriptions changed. If someone wants to treat this item as a racemate, he or she should delete all the InChIs, SMILESs, mass etc. – but this is not the problem here nor is the issue whether WP Chemistry has authority over anything. As a matter of fact, this approach follows ChEBI ontology, so it's not our idea to treat 'compound without fully defined stereochemistry' as 'close class' of compounds. The problem is as you wrote: where an item represents an instance of a finite or bounded class, there should be some way of indicating the size of that class, at least. E.g. in ChEBI this problem does not exist, because you always see all the subclasses but also all the superclasses as well. In WD this is achievable using gadgets only. Wostr (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Wostr: Yes, I understood that you feel that the item has the wrong value of P31, but my point is that there is nothing that intrinsically distinguishes whether an item represents a family of compounds or a mixture of those compounds. If you look at (+/-)-propyl lactate (Q27266686) mass (P2067) or InChI (P234), or several others, they are surely perfectly correct properties of the racemate.
    The other point you raise is also crucial: third-party users of our data do not necessarily have access to gadgets; most notably Wikipedias have no direct access to external queries like SPARQL. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, the discussion about whether parameter X or Y is correct for racemate or not is quite theoretical right now and I don't think it will bring us closer to the solution ;) But the point is, the solution should be based on some property, but disjoint union of (P2738) seems incorrect as well as has part(s) (P527) for something not being racemate. Wostr (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Item about Template with only one sitelink

I'm not sure if I understand well the notability point 1.2: "If a link is a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks... Items for non-subpages can be created with 1 sitelink, but shouldn't be created in great numbers." Now we have 630319 item of template with only one sitelink (1.2%). Are they notable? It's better delete them or change the notability criterium or I'm missing something? --ValterVB (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It says "Items for non-subpages can be created with 1 sitelink", so that means they're notable. That section is mixing notability (whether an item belongs in Wikidata) with acceptable user behaviour (users shouldn't mass-create items for them even though they're notable). I think acceptable user behaviour should be documented elsewhere. - Nikki (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The beginning confuses me: "If a link is a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks" --ValterVB (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The idea is that there should be 2 sitelinks. The problem is that there is one user that creates 10000s of items blindly for anything that isn't explicitly excluded in the notability policy. So admins end up deleting 1000s of items a few weeks later. Nothing really productive. Apparently, there is some consensus for indiscriminate empty item creation. At least the bot request for that was approved. --- Jura 16:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it's useful to link templates from other items (e.g. with route diagram template (P3858)); there might be other valid reasons for creating items for templates with only one sitelink. Jc86035 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think trying to stop GZWDer from mass-creating items doesn't belong in the notability policy. There plenty of cases where we have no reason to delete items with only one sitelink, so shoehorning it into the notability policy makes it confusing and contradictory. There are better options. Wikidata:Bots explains how to ask for approval of a bot task to be revoked. Other policies which apply to bots could be updated (e.g. there's currently nothing on Wikidata:Bots which says what bots which create new items should/shouldn't do). It would also be useful to have a policy covering mass-editing in general. - Nikki (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
True, that is confusing, since the second part contradicts that and explicitly allows template items to have one sitelink. - Nikki (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would be sufficient to say there should be two sitelinks unless there is some structural need, but existing items are grandfathered. The problem is if you write 2, some person will then list for deletion every single item that was just created .. which isn't really helpful either. So one ends up with a more complicated policy. Maybe someone could formulate some better for categories .. they seem to be created and deleted without much going on at Wikidata. --- Jura 18:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    Grandfathering is pointless when every item becomes an existing item as soon as it is created. I think the change to the wording should just be reverted, since as currently written, it's logically absurd and impossible to apply because items are simultaneously notable (according to the second sentence) and not notable (according to the first). - Nikki (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Origin of Chemical Elements (Q54010750) (see also: Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory (Q2166490) )

Is it the same as Q2166490?--2001:DA8:201:3512:CD63:1E6B:D2C:A80D 21:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Surely it's not the same. Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory (Q2166490) has a lot wrong statements, because it's about theory described in The Origin of Chemical Elements (Q54010750). Wostr (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not the same thing. The first is the Wikidata entry for the scientific paper itself. Wikidata is becoming a depository for bibliographic information about scientific papers. The second is the item for the Wikipedia articles that describe the events surrounding paper's publication and its theory. For some reason the en.wiki article's name was changed from "theory" to "paper".StarryGrandma (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Q55868521, Q56047249, Q56378563

Are they the same?--2001:DA8:201:3512:CD63:1E6B:D2C:A80D 21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #337

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Helped get MediaInfo deployed on Commons
    • Reduced load on the query service from the constraint checks (phabricator:T204469)
    • Worked on getting constraints checks run regularly in the background so their results are complete in the query service (phabricator:T204714)
    • Enabled access to arbitrary items and properties for Wiktionaries
    • Working on infrastructure parts of the new termbox (the one showing labels, descriptions and aliases) on mobile

Instance of ?

Please help me to find the best instance of (P31) for these two items (you can read about them here in English):

Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an odd use of eosin. The use of eosin in English I'm familiar with is for a histological stain (en:wikt:eosin, from a very definite group of similar chemical dyes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but after reading en.wiki article I still don't know what is eosin and pyrogranite. Type of ceramics? Some sort of ceramic glaze? Material used for producing this type of ceramics or maybe material used for preparation the ceramic glaze? Unfortunately, I don't speak Hungarian, so I can't say what the hu.wiki article is about. Wostr (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, Wostr: Thanks for trying to help me! It is hard for me to describe them in English, that is why I asked help. Please read this and this official websites; do they help? Bencemac (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bencemac:, I think the first (eosin) may be a 'subclass of' ceramic glaze (Q335404) and the second a 'subclass of' ceramic (Q45621). Wostr (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I added them. Bencemac (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"song" or "single"?

Hi, some times ago I started to notice (especially for well known ones) some odd things about items being "instance of" "song" and "single" (Ex: Love of the Common People (Q3837833) or The House of the Rising Sun (Q478928)): These are a mix-up of song and single:

Q478928 please see its Talk-page
Q3837833 has much the same disorder, under "performer" are listed 5 persons and/or bands, but you have to guess who has performed on the single ("part of = No Parlez"), who covered the song an who first sung the song. The "publication date" has 2 entries one for the song and one for the single, ok this is easy to guess, but a database query would not work with that.

So, has this been discussed here earlier? And if not, somebody else thinks that's real issue? DanSy (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@DanSy I feel you. User:Jc86035 will probably sympathize as well ;-) We're working though it, one song and single at a time... Moebeus (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@DanSy: I guess this is just an unplanned effect of most Wikipedia infoboxes not having that distinction, and import scripts assuming that there is a one-to-one relationship between articles and items. Of the online music databases which we have identifiers for, MusicBrainz and Discogs have the most comprehensive identifiers for sorting out this information.
(Incidentally, AllMusic is also fairly comprehensive but doesn't seem to have well-organized data; for example, if a song is on 20 different albums then the composition will have 20 different identifiers, even if some of the recordings are duplicates. Classical compositions are also separated from songs, with classical/"art music" recordings sometimes given performance IDs and sometimes given song IDs.) Jc86035 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Moebeus: Have you done QuickStatements runs before? I think if imports were done semi-automatically, one artist at a time (i.e. mass-creating new items for compositions, singles and album tracks, linking them, and then cleaning up the original items and moving the sitelinks), then progress would be made much faster. Adele might be a good place to start, since she only has three albums and some scattered EPs (e.g. iTunes Festival), and most online data about her music is probably going to be complete.
If you know how to use regular expression searches (e.g. with BBEdit, Notepad++, grep/sed or similar) then importing might be even easier, since it would then be easier to vacuum data from the various HTML pages into a nice tidy spreadsheet. Jc86035 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, and how should I handle it? Lets say I walk across Love of the Common People (Q3837833) how do I correct it? Separating single from song and put a "part of" and "has part"? DanSy (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@DanSy: You would probably have to create one item for each distinct track, one item for each distinct single (possibly including multiple different singles including the same song) and one item for each music video, and separate them out from the composition, as Moebeus seems to have done. I find it's quite time-consuming so I would probably avoid fixing it for now unless you're importing an artist's entire discography. Jc86035 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035:. I have seen Without Me (Q57393247),BTW: "vocal track"? *confused* I know things like "MIDI Track", "Multitrack recording" or "album track" so in this sens is the "vocal track" the separate track with the voices... at least for my understanding. What about vocal music (Q685884) or musical work (Q2188189) instead?. You have made the song part of a single, ok, I understood why, but now how do I link the singles (or whatever) from different performers to that song-item, with "part of" in the single-item too? DanSy (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@DanSy I had a go at Love of the Common People (Q3837833) , take a look and see if that helps. Feel free to hit me up at my talk page with any questions Moebeus (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@DanSy: I think changing the label to "track with vocals" might work.
As Moebeus has done it, the track is linked from the single with tracklist (P658), and from the composition with a statement is subject of (P805) qualifier to performer (P175); the track's item links to the single with part of (P361)/published in (P1433) and to the composition with recording or performance of (P2550). Jc86035 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help! I would just propose to use (additional to "instance of" > "cover version"/"original") > "of" > "Love of the Common People" instead of "recording or performance of". At least for me, this would be more intuitive. DanSy (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC) ==> I see what you mean but the problem with that approach is that "cover version" is kind of a soft term, meaning that it's not always clear which version is the cover and which is the "original". And that's if an original recording even exists, for many traditional/folk songs that won't be the case, and the best we can strive for is to locate the first known recording. Moebeus (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

System change at songfacts.com?

Hi, I posted this on the property-talk-page but didn't get any comments (No I'm not in a hurry, but 10 days, I suppose no one is actively watching it).

I think they have changed there page naming system:
Some weeks ago a result returned something like http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=45292. But now it shows up with https://www.songfacts.com/facts/childish-gambino/this-is-america. And I can't find the id#. Is this a Problem others do have too? BTW: lookup with "...?id=45292" still seems to work~. DanSy (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@DanSy Yes. They changed from a numerical id to a text-string a few weeks back, as did Songwriters Hall Of Fame. Maybe someone could send a mail to their developers and see if we could sort it out? Moebeus (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Moebeus what do you mean with "if we could sort it out"? DanSy (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@DanSy If they're made aware that a lot of links are left broken then maybe they would be interested in helping with fixing it, e.g. setting up a relay page or maybe even updating the links themselves. It means traffic and search rankings to them so they might very well be interested in helping out. Moebeus (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Moebeus I think thats not an issue, the lookup with ID still works. The problem is to insert new ones into the items, because calls will automatically add "http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=" and I can't figure out the ID nor do I know how to fix the template. DanSy (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Cross-referencing similar / closely-related things?

The two entities yoni mudra (Q2655354) and vagina hand-sign (Q30899302) probably shouldn't be merged (they have separate articles on Italian Wikipedia for one thing, and they occur in different contexts: yoga practice vs. lesbianism / feminist spirituality), but is there any way of indicating that the two are very similar (probably physically identical in at least some cases, though done with different intentions and interpretations...)? Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I found "partially coincident with (P1382)", but I don't know if that would be the most appropriate one to use... AnonMoos (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I went with "partially coincident with", which should imply difference (not sure whether it formally does...) AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Species kept for protected areas

There had been a discussion to widen the scope of species kept (P1990) to include protected areas. Often, a protected area has a list of species which are specifically protected there, or which are the reason to establish the protected area. There is however the big difference that in the original scope of the property, only species actively kept by humans are meant, which not fits how it is done in protected areas. As there was no consensus there yet - shall I a be bold and propose a new property "species protected", or would it be better to extend the original scope? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Script request - links from labels/aliases of Q-items to lexemes

If someone is able to program it, it would be nice to have a script that converts the labels/aliases of a Q-item into links to L-items that are connected with item for this sense (P5137). So basically what it should do is to see if the text of any of the forms of the linked L-items matches 1-to-1 with any of the label/aliases of the Q-item for that language, and if it does, it should convert the text of the label/alias into a link to the L-item. Normally there should be only one exact match per label, but there is at least a known exeption: both gouenn (L30900) (noun) and gwenn (L30901) (adjective) link to white (Q23444). For cases like this it would be nice if the additional L-items are linked with superindex if possible, if not then it is ok to just link one of them for a first version.--Micru (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

merge

Hi, how can i merge Habik'a War Memorial (Q56696625) with Habik'a War Memorial (Q1703712)? Talmoryair (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Talmoryair: See Help:Merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Qualifiers representing relationships

For C major (Q55706505) (the musical chord), and similar items, would it be appropriate to use object has role (P3831) → perfect fifth (Q12372854) on the statement has part(s) (P527) → G (Q1440231), or would new items have to be created for e.g. "higher note of a perfect fifth" to represent this (or should another qualifier be used)? "Perfect fifth" would describe the relationship formed by C and G, but not G on its own. Jc86035 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Country of citizenship and Place of birth and Place of death

These fields give a warning if the birth and death dates of the person do not coincide with the creation date and dissolution date for the country. Can we please have the warning suggest the correct political entity: For Germany suggest Wiemar Republic or Nazi Germany or whatever the correct answer is, since it can be easily calculated, but no readily found in a search. RAN (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplicates?

These two look the same to me: Cloyne Round Tower (Q28196048) and Cloyne Round Tower (Q30161055). Can they be merged somehow? DeFacto (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they've been merged now, thanks to @&beer&love:. DeFacto (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You can use this special page to merge items, but it's not the only way. This page explains how to do it in more detail.--Malore (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

problem with softcover (Q990683)

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

softcover (Q990683) started as "paperback binding" (the bookbinding used by paperback books) but now it is a mix between "paperback binding" and paperback (Q193934).

I could merge it with paperback (Q193934) and create a new item about "paperback binding" or move all the statements about "paperback" in paperback (Q193934), but the problem is that:

Can I safely substitute all the instances of distribution format (P437)softcover (Q990683) with distribution format (P437)paperback (Q193934)?--Malore (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

As for ru-sitelink, paperback (Q193934) is about part of book, book cover (not about distribution method) so distribution format (P437)paperback (Q193934) looks very strange. --Infovarius (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
At least the German labels/descriptions refer to two distinct types of books/book formats/bindings. Although I would have expected de:Taschenbuch to be connected to paperback (Q193934) istead of pocket edition (Q17994250). This seems to be one of these problems where different languages/cultures have slightly different concepts that aren't necessarily 100% congruent. And then people try to add labels in other languages resulting in overlaps and mixups of concepts. Trying to fix something like this can be hard because you don't know which language/labels the users saw/used when they used these items in statements - which means you don't know for certain what exactly they were refering to. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I checked the russian wikilink and it talked about "book cover", not paperback. I fixed the mistake.
@Kam Solusar: In fact, the most correct German translation is "Taschenbuch". Thank you for pointing it out. It was my fault. I read the automatic translation of the German article and it says that the word "Paperback" is used in German with a slightly different meaning that the English one. Maybe it has the same meaning of trade paperback, but it's only a conjecture--Malore (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Goodbye

As I am leaving Wikimedia Germany I would like to say goodbye with this account. I really want to thank you all for your support and the great time and experience I had during my time working on the project. I am very thankful that I had the possibility to improve the software behind Wikidata and get in touch with the great community and all the wonderful people behind the project! I hope that I could help you with what I did and that I could help to bring the project forward.

I am very proud that I could help with improving the existing UI and showing the beauty of Wikidata with my work on query.wikidata.org. I am also very happy that I could help with making constraint violations visible on the item page, allowing to query them and creating constraint suggestions.

I hope that in the future I will still have the possibility to work with you and improve the software, but for now I would like to say thank you and goodbye.

Please disable this account. If you like to connect or stay in touch here are some possibilities:

Jonas Kress (WMDE) (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

All the best to you, Jonas. Thanks for your contributions to the project! --Micru (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Jonas, and all the best from the Wikidata team! The work you have done has helped shaping the project as it is now, and you can be sure that it will be reused and improved in the future. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I thank you as well for the great job you have done. Tschüss. Pamputt (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all the great work you've done. Hoping to see more of your work in the future. --Yair rand (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Clinical Trials

Has there been any attempt to automatically add (clinical trial (Q30612) data from ClinicalTrials.gov (Q5133746)? The required properties are descriped here by @Daniel_Mietchen: Mahdimoqri (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem in merging

I am trying to merge two items but can't do it because some property P17 is not matching. Can please someone tell me about it. Items, I am trying to merge are Q62943 and Q29950602.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@संजीव कुमार: The problem is Q29950602 points to Q62943 via it's P17 value (country). You have to remove that relation before merging. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Internal error

I got this error while previewing the creation of Talk:Q170439 with {{Item documentation}}:

[W@QEJApAME0AAD4NY6sAAACM] 2018-11-08 09:38:44: Fatal exception of type "UnexpectedValueException"

Is this a bug or a server error? Jc86035 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This was a bug in the TwoColumnConflict feature which various people have experienced on different wikis over the past hours (T205942, T208840, T209012, T209036, possibly others). It should be fixed for now (the feature was temporarily disabled). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Place of residence (P551) of accused witches

Hi, prepping place of residence data (P551) for an import of accused witches into Wikidata. We have 4 columns of information (settlement, parish, presbytery, county) and the accused witches in the Survey of Scottish witchcraft database have an entry under at least one of these with the settlement being the most specific and county the least specific. To replicate as close as possible the original database information, could we use a qualifier to specify that the place of residence we have is listed as either (1) the settlement (2) the parish, (3) the presbytery or (4) the county the accused witch stayed in? If so, which qualifier would be the best fit? If not,what would be the best way of working this? Stinglehammer (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The places of residence towards which you link should have instance of (P31) that's filled with human settlement (Q486972), parish (Q102496) or county (Q28575). When it comes to presbytery there's clergy house (Q607241) but using that means the implied claim that the person actually lived in that clergy house (Q607241) and not just that the clergy house (Q607241) was the clergy house (Q607241) for the area in which the person lived.
Do you see problems with representing your information in this way? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: FWIW, "presbytery" here is a group of parishes, not a physical building - eg Presbytery of Glasgow (Q7240820). I don't think we have a Wikidata item for the concept itself at the moment (it's not a very significant thing these days), but it would fit in the religious administrative territorial entity (Q20926517) hierarchy. I'll try and knock something together for this.
@Stinglehammer: On the original question, I'm not sure quite what you're trying to do. If you want to say "we've listed Argyll because we don't know anything more specific than Argyll", then you could use something like sourcing circumstances (P1480) to clarify that, but it's usually implicit that "this value is the most precise information available" so it's not really necessary. If you want to say "this indicates Argyll as a presbytery not Argyll as a county", then it's best to explicitly link to the presbytery not the county, creating an item for the presbytery if need be - otherwise it'll get confusing. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray, ChristianKl: Thanks both. It's actually five columns (settlement, parish, presbytery, county, burgh) - one was in another spreadsheet. The columns are not all full (some might only have the county listed) but we should have some indication of place of residence for most if not all of the 3,219 accused witches even if sometimes we have to use the county level instead of something more specific like settlement or parish. Hence, I was proposing using the most specific place of residence information as possible for P551 from the 5 columns so that we do have at least some indication of residence for each accused witch but also not losing the fact we have the information divided up in this way. Thought a qualifier stating whether the residence was listed as a settlement, parish, presbytery, county, burgh etc. might be one way of doing this. But do concede linking to correct Q number as an instance of a presbytery, parish etc. may be preferable. Concern would be understanding co-ordinate locations, boundaries etc. for creating new items for these historic locations so it may be something I have to work with National Library of Scotland on in terms of mappings these locations. Stinglehammer (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Stinglehammer: It wouldn't be necessary to have coordinates to have new items. If you can simply fill located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607) or located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) that would be enough information to allow you to add your links and if in the future another person is interested in those places they could add coordinates. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can every wikibook(regardless of language) have a wikidata item?

Can every wikibook(regardless of language) have a wikidata item or should only notable items or items which already had a wikidata item get one(or be attached to one, in case one already exists)? I've read Wikidata:Notability and it says that "An item is acceptable" if it contains at least one sitelink to a Wikibooks item, is that true? Is that enough to add a wikidata item for a wikibook? With that logic could I add a wikidata item for Aspies Book, an item for Titta på himlen and an item for Linux για αρχάριους? Dbfyinginfo (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Some fundamental questions about modeling properties for statistical data

Discussion

Dear all, before I make more requests for permissions to import more statistical data using User:WDBot, I think that there are issues about data modeling that need to be discussed. I would give you some example to make it clearer.

Nominal GDP Property: P2131:

  • The value is usually listed in US Dollar but also in the local currency.
  • Even for the same currency there are different sources with different values - for example for values in USD there are different estimates from the IMF and the World Bank for the same point in time.

There are actually two ways to model this:

  • Use separate properties for different data, that are structurally different - this means here that we would have two separate properties from GDP in USD and Local Currency. If we want two additional sources we should have different properties for each issuer.
  • Use only one property for different data.

The first option is easier to browse and is consistent to the ranking concept - the more actual value will be shown in queries. Browsing the data using the interface is also easier because the user moves in the same structure and methodology of data among one property. The second option is more pragmatic regarding the fact that we use only one property. Otherwise it makes the use of the data and the query more difficult because the user does not know which data is he seeing, especially in queries and I suppose in wikipedia. If the user queries the data on 3 dates and on each of these dates different values are the most actual - and thus preferred (USD from the World Bank, USD from IMF and EUR from Eurostat etc.) - then the user gets every time systematically different values.

I think this is some fundamental data modelling issue, where we need a good discussion and consensus before we begin to import large amount of statistical data.

In which way should we model this sort of statistical data? Maybe we could start a discussion in two directions - short term (using the actual structure of wikidata) and long term consensus (proposing some further changes probably in the modelling, use and visualization of properties). Cheers! Datawiki30 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Datawiki30: Nothing prevent you to build queries with several conditions: data about nominal GDP WITH currency in dollar WITH sourced from World bank for example. If all the required data (unit, source,...) are provided, you only need to build the corresponding data you want. But this means you have to know what ou want before writing the query. There is no modelling issue, just query definition issue. Snipre (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Snipre: Thank you for your comment. Indeed this is possible, but the query builder does not support this. Users that do not have advanced skills in SPARQL will have some difficulties to do this. What do you think the other questions:
1. Is the ranking concept applicable to properties with two or more values for the same point in time (for example nominal GDP for 2017 from IMF, World Bank, CIA Fact Book, Eurostat...)?
2. If I want to use the most actual value for the nominal GDP with reference "stated in" = "World Bank database" on the wikipedia page of the country (infobox), how do I do this?
3. When we add more data with different sources, then we have wild mixed values in the same properties on the wikidata GUI. What do you think about this usability issue? Datawiki30 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
This never really was a problem. We always went with one property for a specific use case, say "nominal GDP", which is nominal GDP (P2131) in this case. I can’t remember that we ever started to create properties such as "CIA Fact Book nominal GDP". Thus, all claims regardless of their value, source, rank, qualifiers, etc. use this single property. If you want to restrict data retrieval to a particular subset of the claims, you need to add additional criterial to the data retrieval process. Either by elaborating a more specific SPARQL query that for instance only considers one particular source, or by some kind of post-filtering (e.g. in Wikipedia: loop over all P2131 statements and ignore all which do not fulfill the desired criteria). Both approaches are not overly complicated to implement.
Ranks are more a tool to manage multiple value situations (as in this case), but due to the very limited number of ranks and the many scenarios how to use them, there is not always a clear consensus how exactly to do it, and thus the outcome might be varying for different items. I strongly recommend not to model anything crucial around the usage of ranks.
The Wikidata UI is basically a tool for editors, not really an interface to retrieve data, or to "read some data". What you see there is indeed a bit unpolished, disordered, and so on, but this does not really matter. Mind that there is no intrinsic order of statements in an item, or multiple values of a statement in an item defined in the data model. Consider that they just appear in a random order (although they technically aren’t fully randomly displayed). If you want ordered data, this is something you need to do as a data user once again, after data retrieval. You can for instance order your nominal GDP data by date, by source, by nominal GDP, alphabetically by state name, or by whatever.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Multi-valued fields are tricky to use in Wikidata. I don't think it has been done yet, but I think it could worth considering having separate properties for local currency values. The problem with many of these economics properties is that people kept creating them despite the proposer not using them and quantity datatype not being entirely functional. It could also be that some additional properties should be created and some existing ones deleted. --- Jura 17:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Datawiki30: The ranking is not an appropriate tool to distinguish between different sources. The main role of the rank is to define is the value is valid or not.
For the retrieval of WD data in WP using specific sources, the French WP developed the lua functions (see here in French). But when I looked at the corresponding English module, I don't find a similar function (see [3] here). A function getValueBySource is missing in the toolbox of the lua functions. Better ask the English community about this possibility. Snipre (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all the users for the comments. Before I make a summary I would just like to let make a test, if we can easily retrieve the proper GDP value in Wikipedia. @Snipre: At the Sandbox Q4115189 you can find examples for nominal GDP: 1) values in USD from the World Bank, 2) values in USD from the IMF and 3) Values in the local currency (here Euro) from the World Bank (@Jura1: I know that you would prefer new property for nominal GDP in local currency, but just for the case that we don't get the property support). The data are from France. I've set the preferred rank for the most actual value of each source. This should be done by a bot and should ensure, that only the actual value is retrieved in Wikpedia - automatically even when we have new data for a new point in time. In this example we (still) don't have data from the IMF for 2017. @Snipre: Can you please try to retrieve the preferred values from the each of the sources in Wikipedia separately (or can you ask someone to do this for us)?
- 2,582,501,307,216.42 United States dollar for 2017 (World Bank)
- 2,466,152,225.25 United States dollar for 2016 (IMF)
- 2,291,705,857.98 euro for 2017 (World Bank) Datawiki30 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Laboramus: operates a bot that sets preferred ranks. Maybe it can be fine tuned for this. --- Jura 12:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: Thank you for the tip. The PrerefentialBot already operates the ranks for the nominal GDP. @Laboramus: If we have different sources, the most actual values from these sources have different actual point in time values (see example above) and the most actual value of each source should be preferred, then we need a slight change in the bot script for the property nominal GDP. Right?
We are now trying to retrieve each value separately according to the different source in Wikipedia (see here). @RexxS: Thank you for the support. If you need some additional information just write us. Datawiki30 (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There are some results on display in the en-wiki thread linked above. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Using an extended function we can now retrieve the preferred values from nominal GDP (P2131) using a filter on the source "stated in" and the unity (for example USD, Euro etc.). @RexxS: Thank you for your engagement. This allows the user to retrieve each of the values separately - for example in the infobox of the country etc. Take a look here. I think this should be sufficient to retrieve the data. There are also other properties that could use this function.

  1. Any concerns about accessing the data (with different sources and units) this way in Wikipedia?
  2. The values are in trillions and this too long for the infobox. I think that we need some function to truncate the values in Wikipedia. For example using a 10⁹ power and taking the value 2,582,501,307,216.42 USD would get truncated value 2,582 billion USD. What do you think about this?
  3. Can we use a SPARQL query to replicate the table here with source World Bank in Wikipedia?

Cheers! --Datawiki30 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Datawiki30: When you indicate 2,582 billion USD, did you intend that the value displayed be rounded to an integer? If so, then I have a solution in the sandbox. See en:Module talk:WikidataIB/sandbox/testing #Scaling quantities. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Datawiki30: - that's fantastic! That looks for me very good - I have now upadted the sandbox table on wikipedia. I esitated to use the automatic scaling, because it would round trillion-values "too much". Maybe the automatic approach could be something like trying to get at least 4 digist:
  • 19,390,604,000,000 -> 19,391 (actual value for the United Stated) instead of 19
  • 3,677,439,129,776.6 -> 3,667 (actual value for Germany) instead of 4
@Jura1:, @Snipre:, @MisterSynergy: and all the other users interested in this topic: Do you think that we need some improvement of the automatic approach to get at least for example 4 digits in Wikipedia? What about the other two points mentioned above? Cheers! --Datawiki30 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Only providing a SPARQL query here: link. It lists 2017 data for nominal GDP (P2131) with a reference stated in (P248): World Bank Open Data (Q21540096) and sorts descending by GDP. Can be tweaked further if necessary, but generally it is not that complicated to collect such results sets with SPARQL. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Datawiki30:. The automatic facility now retains a minimum of 4 digits. I may need to tweak that, but try it out first. Sadly we can't run SPARQL queries in Wikipedia pages. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: - thank you for the implementation. You're faster than the light :). I think this is now perfect. @Jura1:, @Snipre:, @MisterSynergy:: After the discussion here I would like to start votings about some of the topics to try to get consensus. --Datawiki30 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting for consensus

Property with different sources for the same Topic

There is consensus, that different values from different sources on the same topic should be edited in the same property. For example if there are different estimations for the nominal GDP in US-Dollar from the World Bank and the IMF with different estimates for the same point in time, then the values should be edited in the same Property P2131. Arguments:

  • All the values with the same informative value are consistently in the same property.
  • There is a Lua function to retrieve values depending on the source in Wikipedia (for example statement with preferred rank fromthe source World Bank database).
  • SPARQL-queries can handle multiple values from different sources.

 Support-- Datawiki30 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment "edited in the same property" isn't really the way Wikidata works. What I think you mean is that if there are different estimates from different sources for a quantity, it is appropriate to add statements for each one. I doubt anyone would contest that -- it was envisaged in the design for Wikidata from the start. Jheald (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Better structure of the statements in the Wikidata UI especially for statistical properties with multiple values

There is consensus, that the random visualisation of statements for statistical properties with multiple values in the Wikidata UI is not adequate and that there is need for further development. For example (according to the implementation in https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/):

  • deprecated statementes should be vizualized separately from nomal and preferred statements
  • statements with preffered rank should be vizualized more highlighted
  • statements with point in time qualifier should be sorted on this qualifier

Arguments for this consensus:

  • statistical properties could have many statements (for example more than 50 edit for different years) with different sources. With the actual (not sorted) vizualisation it is difficult for the Wikipedia user to find and comprehend a value, that is retrieved from Wikidata.

 Support-- Datawiki30 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Support Sorted statements would be a dream come true. I consent! Moebeus (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment In my view Wikidata is not well-suited to time-series data. If one has a time-series, IMO better to upload it to Commons in the data: namespace, and link it with some appropriate property from here. Jheald (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: Thank you for your comment. What is the argument, that Wikidata is not well-suited for time-series? Performace?
Can you give me some example for your alternative? For me Commons means media files like pictures, audio and video files... Cheers! --Datawiki30 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Datawiki30: See c:Help:Tabular_Data. The Wikidata user interface doesn't scale very well with lots and lots of statements -- multiple individual atomic statements are not the best way to store tabular data such time-series with lots of data-points. Better to store it as a whole dataset. Jheald (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please bear in mind that non-current value wouldn't have deprecated rank, but normal rank. --- Jura 21:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I actually agree that deprecated statements should be much easier to identify in the Wikidata item pages. I wonder if there is an HTML class on those claims. --Izno (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is. I use .wb-deprecated { background-color: mistyrose } and .wb-preferred { background-color: lavender } in my common.css to make the different ranks easier to see. There's also a ticket at phab:T198907. - Nikki (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename official website (P856) to "homepage" or "official URL"

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

This property says to refer to the "URL of the official website of an item". To me, this is the domain name of the website.

However, this property seems to points to "official homepage" rather than "official website":

Another question is that "http://schema.org/url" and "http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#url" are listed between the equivalent properties, but they seems to be equivalent to URL (P2699) rather than official website (P856).--Malore (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind if its called official website or homepage, the meaning is the same. About your other question, http://schema.org/url is exemplified with a "home page" and vcard urls are also used for home pages. -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@JakobVoss: Currently, http://schema.org/url is stated as equivalent of official website (P856) and URL (P2699). Since they are two different properties, one of the two equivalences is wrong. Given that http://schema.org/url is described as "URL of the item", I think it's "more equivalent" to URL (P2699).
As regards the naming, I think the difference between homepage and website is as follows:

Intel (Q248));

CCTV-1 General (Q1023065) is "http://tv.cctv.com/cctv1/" (its homepage).--Malore (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Category or article?

I have a category of pictures on Commons. On Wikidata, should i link it to the category on wikipedia or to the article itself? --Guérin Nicolas (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Wishlist Survey is open until November 11th

Hello all,

Just a reminder that the Community Wishlist Survey is open until November 11th. You can add your ideas about Wikidata here. This is a great opportunity to let us know what are your ideas and priorities in term of improvement of the software. Feel free to add your input to other discussions as well.

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Dividing objects into items with example Aichach (Q55133909), Aichach station (Q57174619)

There is a train station called "Bahnhof Aichach" Aichach station (Q57174619) which all its train station related properties. In Bavaria there is a term called "Gemeindeteil" - this term stands for any named place in a municipality like towns, villages, hamlets, hermitages and sometimes castles, sanatoriums, mills, forester's houses, train stations and so on. These "Gemeindeteil" are named by the municipality and sometimes it revokes some of the names too.

Aichach (Q55133909) is a train station too per source, proved as train station (Bhf.) for example in the "Amtlichen Ortsverzeichnis von Bayern" (official gazetteer from Bavaria) 1964 page 9 [4] under the municipality "Algertshausen". From the same gazetteer, page 6* [5] I cite "Die Bahnhöfe sind mit ihren bahnamtlichen Bezeichnungen und der Höhenlage über Normalnull in den Gemeindeteilen angegeben, in denen sie liegen. In manchen Gemeinden bilden sie eigene Gemeindeteile." (The train stations are specified with their train-official name and absolute altitude in the Gemeindeteilen, in which they are. In some municipalities they form own Gemeindeteile). So the train station themself is a Gemeindeteil.

User:MB-one divides this train station in two items. His reason is, that train station and the other item subject two different concepts. Is this the idea of wikidata, to create concepts and divide one physical existant object in more items? I cant't follow this. He distributes the properties to the two items and ignores the sources. Why is inhabitants a property of his created "Gemeindeteil" but not of his train station? Like the source of 1964 shows, there live 11 inhabitants in the train station (perhaps the station master with his family and so on). Why is located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with Algertshausen municipality value only in the "Gemeindeteil", the train station is there until first of January 1974, too. Why he deletes the alias name "Bahnhof Aichach" from the "Gemeindeteil" I don't know - you can see at [6] that the "Gemeindeteil"/train station is named so at 1980.

I'm importing for a long time many information from the Bavarian official gazeteers from 1877 to 1987 and there are many such objects (train stations, castles, mills, even powerhouses, and so on). I don't think, it's a good idea to divide all of them into more items without any need.

Is it really reasonable to create concepts and then divide real objects in more items? Where are the limits? And how you can distribute the properties? Or don't do so and make large quantities of redundancy? What are the concepts of my example: one is "train station"? The other? If you think of a train station as part of a timetable, then I would say, it's another concept. But train station also have properties of a geographical object located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or coordinate location (P625). Is it then a geographical object too. But what's with the other object Aichach (Q55133909)? What is it then? Only a geographical object? What else? --Balû (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Balû: I can't comment on MB-one's edits aside from the edits to the Aichach items, but I would think in most places (particularly urban areas) it is standard for every railway station to get its own item and its own Wikipedia articles (and both Aichach and its station have English Wikipedia articles). Usually Wikidata items are only about one distinct concept; perhaps it would even be appropriate to separate the building from the station (e.g. Pennsylvania Station (Q14707174) is the demolished station building of Pennsylvania Station (Q54451)) if it is desirable to indicate that people lived in it, although I'm not sure if this would be necessary. Jc86035 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: you didn't read it correctly: both items Aichach (Q55133909), Aichach station (Q57174619) are for the railway station - the town Aichach has its own item Aichach (Q251678). I agree with you to separate even the building from the railway station. But what should be the concept behind Aichach (Q55133909)? It's the railway station Aichach station (Q57174619) but mentioned in a source in another way. --Balû (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
de:Aichach#Ortsteile seems to list Q55133909 as part of Q251678.--- Jura 03:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1:: no, it lists the chef-lieu (Q956214) Aichach (Q31872780) - it's the former town Aichach and now one of the Ortsteile of the municipality Aichach Aichach (Q251678). The older "Gemeindeteilname" (name of municipality part) "Aichach Bahnhof = Aichach (Q55133909)" was revoked at 1980 but is furtheron the railway station. But there is also the railway station Aichach station (Q57174619), which shall be another item because of concepts I can't see. --Balû (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You can read it in the "Amtlichen Ortsverzeichnissen". All railway stations are listed there, too. Namely at the town the station is located. Look at page 9. There is the the town "Aichach" and in the text stands "railway station Aichach see municipality Algertshausen". There then stands "Aichach, railway station, 11 inhabitants". It is the railway station of Aichach. --Balû (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Complicated. Sounds like @MB-one: might have missed the cebwiki bot item. Not sure if we should also have two "A. station", one for the station and another one for the locality (pre-1980). --- Jura 21:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: Aichach (Q31872780) (connected to cebwiki) seems to be different from Aichach (Q55133909) (the item in question here; which probably needs a better label). --MB-one (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: a station isn't a locality? What then? What about castles, mills, forester houses, and so on. Aren't they localities, too. And what about farms, solitudes, hamlets? All of them are sometimes in the gazeteer "Gemeindeteile". --Balû (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

How to connect occupation and employer?

Q58325707

She is a columnist for the Evening Standard. I entered both of those things, but how can I connect them? She has more than one occupation and she isn't a chef for the Evening Standard. Alexis Jazz (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought of Lee Manjai (Q21263395) item way of doing this, but this example has missing property (date for each employer), and maybe something else I missed. — regards, Revi 13:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"Employer" can be qualified with "position held", which may help. - PKM (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Instances of term

Is instance of (P31) → musical term (Q20202269) correct on items? It seems unnecessary and possibly incorrect to me, since it's usually used on items which describe concepts which aren't words (e.g. human voice (Q7390), tonality (Q192822), big band (Q207378)). Jc86035 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of these for legal concepts whose EN wiki articles start off like "xxxx is a legal term for yyyy". They should be fixed. - PKM (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Imperial State of Iran

Can someone with the proper expertise disentangle Pahlavi dynasty (Q207991)? The country and the Pahlavi dynasty should be two separate items. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Railway - platform height, floor height - people with disabilities

How to store

  • platform height of railway station
  • floor heigth of trains

? Both are important for many people with certain disabilities if they want to enter or leave a train. 95.116.22.185 14:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "store"? I've searched items with these titles but I did not find results. Esteban16 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that person means which properties to use to store that information. I don't think we have any way at the moment. Where could we find the sources of that data? The only property we have for people with disabilities is disabled accessibility (P2846).--Micru (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: I think this would need several new properties (for rolling stock, probably from the parameter list of w:en:Template:Infobox train); and might require the creation of items for individual platform edges, especially for stations where platforms have had their height changed, or where platforms serving a single train type have different heights. Jc86035 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Donating data

Before starting a process? From the National Archives of Norway (Q6516420) there is an Excel spreadsheet listing all archive actors/creators of the The National Archives of Norway With names of the dcreator, ID and URI. The list contains about 27000 actors/creators. The property Arkivportalen archive ID (P5888) already exist as an identificator. As an example the Archive of The Norwgian Garrison on Saoth Georgia has Arkivportalen archive ID (P5888) no-a1450-01000001366069 and http://live.arkivportalen.no/entity/no-a1450-01000001366069 as URI. Should this data be donated as a whole to Wikidata? Pmt (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pmt: I would add it to Mix'n'Match. That way it can easily be linked up. You can do that yourself at https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/import.php . For these kind of sets we generally don't import just everything because you'll just end up with a ton of orphaned items. Multichill (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: @Jeblad: Of course! Thank you. Seems reasonable. Pmt (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill, Pmt: I'm not sure Mix'n'Match will work in this case, as the names can diverge quite much from what you expect. It is often not the formal name of the creator, but a short description of the creator. Often the creator has a relation to the archived material, and not an equivalence. Jeblad (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge problem

I have been attempting to merge Q1196915 and Q18393795, which are clearly about the same play. No matter what I try, there is always some kind of error. The cause seems to be that Q1196915 is linked to "The Son" in the English Wikipedia, which is incorrect ("The Son" is a redirect to a disambiguation page), but I get an error when trying to remove the link. Q18393795 is linked to the correct page. How can this be resolved? Kevinsam2 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I removed the enwiki sitelink in Q1196915 first before merging. --Bluemask (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bluemask OK, thanks. Did I not have permission to do that for some reason? That's exactly what I tried to do. Kevinsam2 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Presentation of property pages

I really suggest changing the presentation of Wikidata pages to help distinguishing immediately that we are on a "Property" page (Pnnn), whose creation is restricted (and where there should be no other wiki article associated to them), and not on an entity page (Qnnn), whose creation is free (and can list wiki articles about roughly the same topic as the item described in Wikidata).

There are frequent errors where properties of properties are added/modified/deleted that should instead be done in properties of the associated item.

A "Property" page (Pnnn) should have a distinguishing background color (e.g. light blue instead of white), and its "associated Wikidata item" property should be at top of the list of properties (it should be ranked highest within the set of properties we should give to any well-defined property "Pnnn"), just below the translated labels, then followed by constraints (that should be ranked second within the set of properties we can give to a property).

Ranking properties of defined "Pnnn" properties can be based on a specific Wikidata item "Qxxx" (labelled "Wikidata property") describing how Wikidata properties can be specified (i.e. the list of properties each property must, should, or may have). "Qxxx" should have itself the "nature of item"="property" (qualified with "of"="Wikidata") where "property" is also another Wikidata item (not a property), or "Qxxx" can be a "subclass of"="property" (another Wikidata item whose "nature of item"="entity" or one of the subclasses of "entity" which is more specific)

All the other properties of properties "Pnnn" are just informative (but may be checked) to subclassifies the set of all properties (i.e. for handling metaclasses as entities, whose properties are refereing to the "Pnnn" properties that indicate which "Qnnn" item can use that property and which value we can assign to them).

Verdy p (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Verdy p: Distinguishing property pages might be easily done by adding something like this CSS to MediaWiki:Common.css, although I'm not sure whether it would help or whether there would be consensus for it. Jc86035 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
.ns-120 .mw-body {
	background-color: #e8f2ff;
}

This info should be made visible also in the search engine when it gives results we can select from, when entering new declarations, or in the interface presenting the data (notably in properties). Some icons/coloring would help also (we should be able to distinguish properties that are imperative, and must be respected, from those that are indicative. As well we should be able to distinguish constraints that are just "suggestions" (best available choices) from those that are exhaustive (allowing no exception to the constraint without a formal discussion to extend it or add new cases as it can severely break the rest of the infered semantics).

Presentation of results in Wikidata is the only thing that can help users creating new contradictions (or solving them by adding new redundancies that will be maintained separately and will later introduce contradictions/aberrations in inferences) because Wikidata is extremely permissive and in fact allows storing any declaration in the dataset, and can also itself make false inferences (too many "automatic guesses" when entering data where some entered data is automatically replaced by something else; a famous example, in the "easiest" part of Wikidata: enter a valid unique language code, press TAB to enter the name of an article on a wiki, the code is immediately replaced by another language whose name in the current user's language contains that code, so "es" may be instantly replaced by another language than Spanish; the same thing happens everywhere you enter a label name to select an entity: when there are several choices, Wikidata arbitrarily chooses the first one it finds, without asking the user, and without even informing it correctly in the choice list to allows the user to choose correctly). Verdy p (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding coordinates

Elementary question; Commons has the easy Locator-tool in the editor, or I can paste coordinates in DMS or DD format into the Location template (with a little more editing). I don't see a way to do either here, so what are the usual or best ways, and is there a page about this? Jim.henderson (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: You can use coordinate location (P625). Pasting coordinates in as they are displayed should work; the software will try to autoformat them (even "11.2222 -33.4444" will work). Jc86035 (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

First World war causes

(About this claim)

Am I the only one to think that a formulation like is weird and that would be far better ? Does anyone really understand the rationale of the first formulation ?

Imho we should focus of how to represent the fact that causes of World War I (Q310802) is a composite item, which consist of several events. The fact it’s a compound item implies that the causes are multiple on his own and make the claim more direct.

author  TomT0m / talk page 12:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

single-value constraint with title property

Hello. Some months ago I have asked "Why title (P1476) should only contain a single value?" Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/04#Title. I have removed the single-value constraint (maybe I was wrong). Today a user (@Jura1: undo that. What we should do? Have the single-value constraint or not? Xaris333 (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link to the discussion. There are 20 million uses of this property. Do we know many may have several titles?
In any case, the constraint isn't and wasn't mandatory (having several statements is a potential issue, but isn't an issue as such). --- Jura 17:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is needed for Q48928408

Some people misunderstand the definition of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). The present "protected" version of Q48928408 is swearing black is white.

The description of location (P276) stated that: "In case of an administrative entity use P131". It is clear that the Mainland Port Area is an administrative entity, and it is a common knowledge that the Mainland Port Area is located in the Hong Kong SAR. 210.3.92.210 09:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan, Jc86035: if they know how to handle this. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I think the property doesn't really work for this particular item. The port area is administratively part of Futian District but is physically located within Yau Tsim Mong District. The English description of the property refers specifically to the "territory of the following administrative entity", which would imply the value should be Yau Tsim Mong if the area is not truly an enclave in every respect (Shenzhen Bay Port (Q5972370) is in Nanshan District). Jc86035 (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
That's why I re-changed its Chinese translations as "位于行政领土实体/位於行政領土實體" as "行政领土实体/行政領土實體" (administrative territory entity) do not necessarily same as "行政区/行政區" (administrative area). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Could we not have two statements with qualifiers (e.g. applies to part (P518))? - Nikki (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a problem Wikidata isn't equipped to solve. Normally located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) works because a geographical location or a physical artefact is both located inside and administered by the same territorial administrative entity. But this breaks down when the item itself is about a enclave (Q171441) - by definition a enclave (Q171441) is "located in" and "administered by" two different entities. This isn't a translation problem, but rather that located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) can't cope with this edge case unambiguously. We can list both values (Yau Tsim Mong and Futian) and qualify each with either object has role (P3831) or nature of statement (P5102) = geographic location (Q2221906) and administrative territorial entity (Q56061); or we can avoid using located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) altogether. At any rate we need a bespoke solution for this bespoke problem. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The different ways subdivisions can be related to countries and each other is very complicated. See Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2018/10#Countries_and_their_subdivisions_and_territory, where I tried to outline some of the issues involved. Also note the existence of the properties exclave of (P500) and enclave within (P501). --Yair rand (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

According to this government notice, "《国务院关于同意广东广深港高铁西九龙站口岸对外开放的批复》（国函〔2018〕33号）明确规定，广深港高铁西九龙站内地口岸区由深圳市人民政府负责管理". That means the Mainland Port Area is managed by the government of Shenzhen City, not Futian District. It is solely managed by the city level government. It is not a part of Futian District. 210.3.92.210 03:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In this aspect, it seems that Shenzhen is more accurate than Futian. Also, I think Mainland jurisdiction is what need to be emphasized here. CommInt'l (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

[Consultation] Using Q-items for senses

To link between equivalent senses of different language lexemes we have translation (P5972). This works quite well when the number of linked senses is small, however as the number grows, it becomes harder to maintain. For an example of this you can check Lexeme:L12912#S1, where each one of the linked senses with translation (P5972) is linked to the others; if I would add a new translation I would have to update at least 20 other lexemes. To make it simpler, in this case it is possible to link from each equivalent sense to the Q-item Tuesday (Q127) using item for this sense (P5137), then it is superfluous to add translation (P5972). In this case it is very straightforward because the item already exists, however we don't have an item to represent the senses of other words like but (L1387) or important (L4147). On en-wiktionary you can see the translations of "but" and "important". If we would create items for those senses, then it would be possible to link all lexemes to them. Even if the senses could be considered clearly identifiable conceptual entities that can be described using serious and publicly available references (and as such notable), this is a novel application of the Q-items, that is why I would like to invite more colleagues to express their view on this. On the previous discussion about this topic, ArthurPSmith estimated that we would need under 100,000 new Q-items. Another possible way to estimate the number of items could be to count the transclusions of Template:trans-top, considering that we might already have items that represent the senses of the nouns.--Micru (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: To me it seems a bit of an oversight to not allow items to share glosses from a centralized item (since many words can be translated exactly), although the situation is somewhat similar for labels and descriptions. I think it would be sensible to use items to indicate translations, although perhaps it would be more suitable to use a new property to indicate items about senses, separate from the items about concepts which the senses describe. Jc86035 (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I think "sense" == "concept", no? I'm not clear on the distinction you're trying to make here anyway. Certainly the current arrangement works well for nouns (for almost all of which we already have Wikidata items representing at least some of the different concepts associated with those nouns). The problem is for verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and other parts of speech, which aren't "entities" in the usual sense, but their conceptual meanings are actions or qualities or modifiers of some sort. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Somewhere up the page, white (Q23444) is used as an example of an item linked to from both noun lexemes and adjective lexemes. I thought it would be potentially messy if multiple groups of senses would be linked to the same item. Jc86035 (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I think it's ok. Many nouns are used as adjectives with the same conceptual meaning, but of course a differing syntax and meaning within the sentence. "This white" vs "white table" seem to me little different from "This garden" vs "garden table". I think it would be fine to link both noun and adjective senses to the same Q item, I don't think that would hurt translation. But descriptive adjectives like "important", "long", "deep", etc. don't have that close relation to nouns and I think would need their own items. If we proceed with this approach... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith, Jc86035: It all depends what we want to achieve. If we want to be able to support wiktionaries in a way that when a translation is updated it shows up in all wiktionaries, then the most pragmatic approach is to follow their practices and create as many items for senses as needed.--Micru (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Not all words have senses referring to some concept. There is no concept that "but" refers to, its meaning is functional rather than conceptual. —Rua (mew) 18:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rua: The conceptual meaning of conjunctions is not something I've really thought about, but maybe one could argue for it? There aren't so many of them, anyway. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
For "and" there is logical conjunction (Q191081) I suppose. Probably we'd want to add a conceptual form that wasn't purely focused on logic though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rua: Even if the meaning of a lexeme is functional, it still has meaning which perhaps some day we will be able to capture with statements. On a more practical level, it reduces complexity to link all translations to a central Q-item instead of linking them between them.--Micru (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, "but" has the same literal meaning as "and", with the additional connotation that the fact that both conjoined statements are true might go counter to expectations (or other similar connotations of contrast). - Jmabel (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry so much about conjunctions and more functional lexical categories. The real question is whether verb, adjective and adverb senses should be added as Q Items to the Main namespace of Wikidata, since these categories undoubtedly contain conceptual entities, each with many synonyms and translations. Once we have decided on that, perhaps there could then be more discussion about taking it further with more lexical categories. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Another point to consider: many languages have things like frequentatives, passives and other verb-to-verb derivations that don't change the overall conceptual meaning of the verb, but add a semantic nuance or change how the verb behaves grammatically. For nouns, languages might have diminutives or augmentatives. Handling such variations will need some thought: do we consider them all to have the same sense item, or different ones? The former would allow terms to be more easily found, since finding the basic meaning is enough, but would make translations less specific because potentially many verbs in such a set could translate a single English (or other language) verb. The latter would be more specific, but then you end up with a lot more sense items, which are harder to search through. —Rua (mew) 18:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rua: The wiktionaries have faced that problem long ago, and they have found consensus around translation lists that we can import. There is no need to overthink this, we'll do our best in our capacity, and we can discuss individual cases. For now I think it is just enough to follow the steps of what others have done in the past, and create the senses where there is a consensus. For the rest there is no need to create items, the senses in the lexemes might be enough for those.--Micru (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of dates in Q1165538 leading to persons still alive getting P570 by Reinheitsgebot invoked by Mix'n'match

For a number of items related to still living people, Reinheitsgebot has added a date of death (P570). It seems various dates in the source Nationalencyklopedin (Q1165538) have been incorrectly used as date of death (P570). I have undone these 19 edits.

Is there anything else that needs to be done in order to prevent these faulty Mix'n'match statements/changes to be reinserted? --Larske (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Larske: Best is probably to notify @Magnus Manske: about the parsing issue with this code mentioning examples like this one, so that he can fix it. I'm not very familiar with entries for that encyclopedia and swedish language, but it may be worth swapping the logic to give precedence to dates actually labelled as birth/death rather than unspecified date ranges that may be anything else than life span.--Nono314 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #338

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Displaying Senses before Forms (phab:T208592)
    • Making quality constraints play nicer with the Query Service
    • Putting in the ground work to have quality checks run in jobs
    • Enabling arbritrary access on oldwikisource
    • Allowing configuration of the licence in .ttl output
    • Configuration of more string limits, such as URL and mono / multilingual texts
    • Moving wdqs frontend to a blubber deployment (phab:T192006)
    • Asserting a users name so they can't edit when accidently logged out (phab:T124451)
    • Showcase a termbox placeholder in the mobile frontend of m.wikidata.org (phab:T206200)

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.

Differentiate between primary sources and other sources in references

Is there a way to point out that a particular reference is the primary source of a statement (e.g. "https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2014/09/30/announcing-windows-10/" is the primary source for Windows 10 (Q18168774)inception (P571)1 October 2014)?. Maybe something like a "reference type" property is sufficient, maybe it's better something more integrated in the Wikibase software like ranks or badges.--Malore (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Malore: There is type of reference (P3865).--Micru (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata:Property proposal/reference has role could also be relevant. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, they are both interesting.--Malore (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the wording of this discussion is very confusing. When discussing references, "primary" is most often used in contrast with "secondary". A primary source is a source written by someone or some organization directly involved in the subject matter, or written close to the time of an event. "Secondary" is a source written by someone who was not directly involved in an event, not the proposer of some idea, etc., and who consulted a number of sources to come up with a description of the matter. The Windows 10 example would be a primary source because it was written by Microsoft.
But this discussion is about identifying the reference that actually contains or directly supports the statement. We should find some other word than "primary" to describe this source.
Perhaps a better example would be geographic coordinates where the reference gives the coordinates in a system not supported by Wikipedia. So the containing reference would be the one that contains the coordinates, and an explanatory reference could be a website that can convert from the coodinate system in the containing reference to Wikidata's coordinate reference system. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: No, maybe I didn't explain it right but I was referring to "primary" sources as opposed to "secondary".--Malore (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I don' understand what you mean by primary and secondary. I understand what w:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources means by those terms, but I don't understand your meaning. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Malore:, what Jc3s5h wrote above is certainly the normal distinction of a primary and secondary source in English. (Wikipedia and other encyclopedias would be tertiary, because they are, at least in principle, drawn from a survey of secondary sources. If you mean something else, what exactly do you mean? - Jmabel (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h, Jmabel: I mean exactly what Jc3s5h means for primary, secondary and tertiary sources: in particular, what I mean by primary source is "the original source, the source the information comes from" and what I mean by other sources is secondary and terziary sources--Malore (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In that case, I don't think we should seek to designate the source the information comes from. Secondary sources are normally considered the best sources to use in English Wikipedia, and I think the same should normally apply to Wikidata. I think the circumstances where it would be better to use a primary source over a secondary source would be too complex to convey with any of the usual Wikidata properties, qualifiers, etc. The only place I can imagine where you could explain such a situation would be the item's talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Principal" source might be a useful phrase in English to indicate the key source supporting a particular fact. A principal source might be a primary source, secondary source, or tertiary source. Which of the latter groups a source belongs to can often be inferred from what it is -- for example if the cited source is a general history, that's likely to be a secondary source; if it's a letter or a personal memoir, that's quite likely to be a primary source. So in many cases the instance of (P31) statement on the item for the source, or a genre (P136) statement if available, should give quite a strong clue. Jheald (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think Wikidata should contain as many sources as possible (primary, secondary and tertiary). IMO, pointing out which are the primary sources is useful if someone is looking for the original source of the information.--Malore (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the word "primary" as used in this discussion and w:Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is that it does not correlate well with being the original source of the information. A source could have been written close to an event, and perhaps involved, but not viewed as the definitive source on the matter. For example, a newspaper published on or just after the day of a death might quote a police chief, who stated the death occurred on a certain date. But the definitive source for a date of a death in a modern first-world country would be the birth certificate. If it's available to the public, later authors of secondary sources would probably examine the death certificate to say when the death occurred. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: A primary source doesn't have to be reliable or official. Often, secondary and tertiary sources are more reliable than primary ones. As regards your examples, the death certificate is both a primary source and an official source, while the newspaper article quoting the police chief is a secondary source. The unedited video interview of the police officer would be a primary source, but not an official one. Your example made me think it would be good if we'll identify also "official sources" of statements (e.g. the death certificate in the case of the date of a person death).
@Jheald: It's not automatic that a personal memoir is a primary source and a general history is a secondary source.
A personal memoir is a primary source only where it talks about the personal experience of the author, but it may report also other information about events that he didn't experienced. Likewise, a general history can be a primary source of the author opinion or the book itself.
Regarding the "key source supporting a particular fact" there is already statement supported by (P3680).--Malore (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that a newspaper article written within a few days of an event can ever be a secondary source for the event; it is too close in time to be a secondary source, even if the reporter did not witness the event. It's certainly true that primary sources are not always reliable or official, but ones that are not reliable have no place in Wikidata. Primary sources that are unofficial but reliable could be cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The idea that secondary sources are superior to primary sources is a concept peculiar to Wikipedia. Other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, and Wikispecies place emphasis upon primary sources. We want the first place a quote was published, or original text demonstrating the definition of a word, or the first publication of a text. On Wikispecies, the primary literature, where a new scientific name or new combination was first published, and the supporting scientific for the name, is desirable over a secondary source interpreting or reviewing previous studies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As regards the newspaper article, even an edited video of an event is considered a secondary source because it somehow modifies a primary source (the video of the event).--Malore (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Amanda Vickery: different versions?

When I look at the data item Amanda Vickery (Q4739786) for w:Amanda Vickery on an iPad and on a laptop I see two different occupations in the statements. On the iPad it shows up as Sociologist, but on the laptop it is historian.

I have been known to miss the obvious, so I hope I am not wasting anybody’s time.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone changed the label for "historian" to "Sociologist". The edit was undone, but pages are cached for a while, so edits to linked entities don't always show up immediately. - Nikki (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew speaker needed

New and absent User:Brandy256 added an interwiki link for https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/פייראנג'לו_גרניאני to Pierangelo Metrangolo (Q20684796). However the Wikipedia article is about someone who lived 1930-2011; the Wikidata item is about different person born in 1972. I've removed the link, but a new Wikidata item is needed, and I can't read the Wikipedia article or some of its sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Link it to Pierangelo Garegnani (Q1746797) -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web

Please help translate to your language

Example of improvements

Hello,

In a few weeks the Readers web team will be changing how some templates look on the mobile web site. We will make these templates more noticeable when viewing the article. We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct.

What kind of templates? Specifically templates that notify readers and contributors about issues with the content of an article – the text and information in the article. Examples like Template:Unreferenced or Template:More citations needed. Right now these notifications are hidden behind a link under the title of an article. We will format templates like these (mostly those that use Template:Ambox or message box templates in general) to show a short summary under the page title. You can tap on the "Learn more" link to get more information.

For template editors we have some recommendations on how to make templates that are mobile-friendly and also further documentation on our work so far.

If you have questions about formatting templates for mobile, please leave a note on the project talk page or file a task in Phabricator and we will help you.

Thank you!

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Mix-n-Match failures

I'm not sure what's causing this particular failure, but twice now (1 & 2) a Swedish translation of Euripides' play Orestes has been added to Orestes (Q663886).

All translations of works must have their own separate data items, like this: Orestes (Q58487976). They are never placed on the data item for the work as a whole. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It's very frustrating when bots are used to make edits like these, and the bot user says there was no way to know that it was wrong. This kind of edit is never right, so it should be possible in many ways to identify the edit as wrong and not make that edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Shareen Blair Brysac

This person is showing (in Google) as born in 1900. She has just e-mailed in OTRS Ticket:2018111310011801 to say she is still alive, and not born in 1900! - see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7489571&diff=789236222&oldid=735004332. I didn't want to edit it out, in case the bot puts it back in. I cannot see a birth date on the internet, and she has not said, so I'm guessing from her profile, it's around 1950, not the 1900 shown in http://snaccooperative.org/ark:/99166/w6p98t8p. Could someone please fix the data?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronhjones (talk • contribs).

@Josve05a: Why did you remove the statement instead of marking it as deprecated? The reference given does appear to claim that the date of birth is 1900. - Nikki (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure...must have completely slipped my mind. believe I though the source was about another person entirely. Feel free to revert me. (t) Josve05a (c) 11:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I added her correct birth date from the BGMI as 15 January 1939. Cheers. --RAN (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Quantity with range

Currently there are several approaches to enter these:

  • Add quantity as 1 +/- 0.5 (property with quantity datatype, the precision isn't necessarily meant for this).
  • Use two quantity datatype properties: e.g. quantity max = 1.5, quantity min = 0.5 (simple to enter, but could get messy if there are several values, especially if a maximum is associated with a minimum)
  • Use some random property and added to qualifier: one for the maximum, one for the minimum. I think we only have this with item datatype, but I guess it could be with any datatype.

The last approach seems the cleanest. The reference can be attached to the entire statement. I wonder if we should have a datatype that caters directly to this approach. Contrary to all other datatype, it needn't have a main value. --- Jura 05:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In Aachen (Q1017) I used the another approach for elevation above sea level (P2044) by putting two statements using the qualifier applies to part (P518) to indicate whether the statement is maximum or minimum value. This allows to give additional qualifiers for each value, in this case the coordinates where that value applies. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we merge Q7216841 and Q30747696 on Russian Wiktionary

I don't know where differences between two links of ruwiktionary, but both are having same translation in Bosnian, Danish, Finnish, Hebrew, Croatian, Hungarian, Japanese, Korean, Georgian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian Nynorsk, Romania, Simple English, Serbian, Swedish, Ukrainian, and Urdu. How are same in these 18 languages not able to change the different from (P1889)? --36.102.227.22 22:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think two items at Russian Wiktionary are the same, then you need to have that discussion at Russian Wiktionary. Wikidata does not control what is separate or merged at the other Wikis. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This pair of "duplications" were reported to WD:IC, and I'm still waiting explanations from @Infovarius:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I was downgrade to said to be the same as (P460) but recently undid by @Infovarius:, still I'm waiting for response from him. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: These categories are different. Категория:Части речи contains words about part of speech (Q82042) (like "noun", "werkword" or "междометие") while Категория:Слова по частям речи distributes all words of all languages to one of category per part of speech (Q82042) - so it contains categories like "Category:Nouns", "Category:Verbs" and so on. --Infovarius (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The use of "Structural reasons"

I am raising the concern of adding persons for structural reasons and may not be deleted as an item linked as the spouse of a notable person, with references, and mentioned in multiple Wikipedia article. I am afraid that this will lead to the start of adding childrens and fathers/mothers as well. Is there any opinion about this?
As an example I do have abt. 800 notable persons from the Norwegian wikipedia with references to cencuses. And in these cencuses I can also find the spouses, children and parents of the notable person. I do not find those spouses, children or parents notable. I have made a suggestion for deletion on Alexander Borodin (Q164004) wife Ekaterina Protopopova (Q57975541). Please have a look at that proposal also. Pmt (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Items are allowed to be just containers for labels. It's information on the notable person, the subjects of the individual items don't need to be notable in their own right. (I think we should rename Wikidata:Notability to something like "Inclusion criteria", really.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: By this you mean that I can create items for a notable persons children, parents and spouses? Pmt (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pmt: You can create items for almost any dead person if you provide scholarly sources as References These are missing for Alexander Borodin (Q164004) at the moment! -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@JakobVoss: and @Yair rand: I am still a bit confused and would like to have some further advises. As a scolary source I have the Norwegian 1801 census. And if I then can create an item for an person with described by source (P1343) in 1801 census of Norway (Q11969384). Example Joachim Nicolay Krey (Q58333479) (not completed, but have all references). I am focusing on persons but what about say, individual ships, found in different (Norwegian) Archives or in Lloyds register? And again sorry for insisting but I find it usefull to have this discussed before doing wrong Things. Pmt (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Generally yes. If you however want to enter all people in the whole Norwegian 1801 census you should first create a bot approval request. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKL: Are you kidding? We all are described by some census, so you are to allow adding all humans? --Infovarius (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Part of the way Wikidata is designed that if the information about the spouse is worth recording, then that's ground for the person being notable under our rules. This way the data structure is much easier to work with for people who work automatically with it. This way querying for the name of the wife of a given person works the same in every case. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Military rank

In Stan Lee (Q181900) his military rank (P410) is given as playwright (Q214917) which reflects the (marvelous) fact that he was a playwright for the United States Army during WWII. However, this was not his rank, it was his military occupational specialty, with many examples such as Gunnery officer (Q55613109) or drill instructor (Q5307556). This is my long-winded way of saying Wikidata needs a military occupational specialty Property (or Item). Anybody more experienced than me know the best way to go about creating and populating this property/item? Abductive (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe use an Employer statement with employer US Army and position held playwright? Or the same on a military branch (P241) statement. Ghouston (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
playwright (Q214917) isn't a valid position (Q4164871), either. Well, I did what I could and it's more plausible than a rank. Ghouston (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"Field of work" as a qualifier? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Q58689252

Please delete Q58689252, it was just used to spam Wikidata and redirect the url for Google Knowledge Graph. --RAN (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ymblanter. Mahir256 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing statements with the keyboard works better now

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T154869
Resolved

For over a year now, editing statements with the keyboard has been partially broken: when you tried to add or remove qualifiers or references by tabbing to the corresponding link and pressing Enter, the whole statement would be saved, making it impossible to create a statement with qualifiers and/or references in a single edit without using the mouse. This bug has finally been fixed: you can hopefully edit more efficiently now :) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:T154869.webm is a screencast demonstrating the bug and how it’s now fixed, in case you want to see it in action. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. This should make editing much more efficient. Well done. --Yair rand (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you! This makes a real difference, my mouse will be happy Moebeus (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment for requesting a bot for creating an item for all archive-actors from the norwegian national archives

I want to have a bot creating items for the archive creators listed from the Norwegian national Archives. The creators will have the Arkivportalen agent ID (P5887). The creators are persons and govermental istitutions. There will be about 27.000 creators.May I have the community opinion this matter before requesting a bot?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|?]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs).

(the above was written by Pmt (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) )

Yes much the the same, but have done further reading and checking on the sources and are therefor asking once again. Pmt (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
See Topic:Uokgrg225uvr49eu. Multichill (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

creating item record from WorldCat/OCLC record

Is there currently a way to create an entry for a book by ingesting bibliographic data from WorldCat? Rather than entering several data fields manually, it would be nice to be able to enter an ISBN and to semi-automatically ingest the relevant fields. Is there a way to do that? - Kenirwin (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've asked about this as well for the importing of Wikisource editions. The answer I've gotten is "no", nothing like that exists and it's not a priority. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kenirwin, EncycloPetey: This sounds like something Magnus Manske's Wikidata:SourceMD tool should handle. Also sounds directly related to Wikicite which has a conference coming up shortly. @Magnus Manske: any thoughts on this? I'm assuming there's not a license issue preventing this - if that's a problem it might explain why it hasn't been done... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a huge hurdle in deciding whether or not a WorldCat item is tied to an existing Wikidata item. A WorldCat item is usually an edition, not a work, and editions and works have separate data items. And each edition or translation should have a separate data item from other editions or translations. Magnus Manske has told me he doesn't have the AI ability to make those decision, and experience from Mix-n-Match shows that the average Wikidata editor can't make that determination correctly either.
We have the further complication that many Wikipedians have added ISBNs to articles about works, which has muddled the data here. An ISBN is always associated with a specific edition, but a Wikipedia article is usually about a literary work, and not just the specific edition. So we already have incorrectly matched data that was imported from the Wikipedias, and that has yet to be cleaned up.
And even once an edition's data item has been created, it then has to be matched to the data item for the "work", which also may or may not exist on Wikidata. If it exists, the two data items need reciprocal links to each other correctly added. And here we run into the problem again of making a correct pairing. But if the parent work has no data item, then that data item must be created and populated with the correct data from somewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being naive here, but SourceMD right now has a button that says "Create books from ISBN" with a parenthetical "one ISBN per row; can be 'ISBN|Title' if known, otherwise auto-lookup". Have you tried that? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
That tool merely adds the request to a batch to be dealt with later. If you're trying to create an item now to be edited with information now, then it's no good. It also doesn't address any of the problems I pointed out above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, well it seems you could adapt it pretty easily to create one item immediately if that's what you need. The source code is available, toolforge is free,... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
But you first have to determine whether an data item already exists; whether a new item is needed; what item it might need to be paired with; and whether that data item exists. However, if you're just interested in throwing unsorted data at the wall, then go for it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that as far as I am aware, WorldCat is not CC0, and the website asserts copyright, so it's very questionable whether we can create items based on it. We can probably use the website to find identifiers for existing items, but I think we probably should not create new items from it directly.
Note also that OCLC has started to mint identifiers for works, which can (often) be found in the linked-data section of the WorldCat page for a particular edition. The property OCLC work ID (P5331) is available to record these identifiers on the corresponding work items. Jheald (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
It might also be worth keeping in mind that the Worldcat database is mostly filled with garbage. There's a lot of it, and you can tell that it was useful once somewhere, but the indiscriminate lump of chewed and broken remnants is interesting only for scrap collectors, and proper hazmat protocol needs to be followed to safely deal with the toxic mess. Under no circumstances should it be snarfed in wholesale! Given a qualified operator (like Petey), a tool to interactively import select bits of a Worldcat record for a single work (at most) at the time is a good idea. There are probably also other things it could be profitably used for, and it's even possible there are subsets of the database that hold actually usable data, but as a general rule of thumb, all uses of Worldcat data require a qualified operator in the loop. (which, incidentally, is why it's a good aim to replace it entirely: Wikidata could potentially do this right which would create tremendous value for all relevant parties). --Xover (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

P460 Said to be the same as

Property:P460 is "said to be the same as" wouldn't it be less confusing if the primary wording was "similar to". I took a quick look at a tranche of 50 and in almost every case I would say that the concept is similar to the other concept. Currently it reads: "said to be the same as" "this item is said to be the same as that item, but the statement is disputed" which reads to me as "disputed synonym". Look at 50 yourself and see if "similar to" best describes the relationship between the two. --RAN (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Similar to" won't always work. This property is also used in cases where the two items are not similar at all, yet are confused with each other because of labelling. There are also situations where the two items are sometimes considered the same as each other, but sometimes not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The case, you described is, what different from (P1889) was created for. said to be the same as (P460) should not be used for this. --MB-one (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
A good example is . In some senses they are the same stock character, but the latter is specific to Romanian culture. - Jmabel (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@MB-one: That's part of the reason "similar to" would be a poor label. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles not linked to WD

This might be a stupid question but I've recently stumbled on a few English Wikipedia articles not linked to (their existing) WD items. Is there a known common cause for this apart from vandalism? (It didn't look like vandalism.) Do not all Wikipedia-articles by default have a WD-item? If this is a common thing I need to start looking for "orphaned" Wikipedia articles before creating new WD-items which sounds like a bit of a hassle. I'd be grateful for any input on how to handle this. Moebeus (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moebeus: Have fun. (Note that this only lists pages in the article namespace for each wiki, that there is a two-week delay from the page's creation for it to show up in these lists, and that this does not list pages on wikis apart from Wikipedia, Commons, Wikispecies, advisorywiki, donatewiki, and qualitywiki.) Mahir256 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thank you for that! Am I to to understand from this that new (or any) Wikipedia-articles are not linked to WD by default? Moebeus (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Moebeus: Yes, this is correct. Mahir256 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Ah, I did not know that, that explains some things. Thank you for the swift replies!👍 (Asked and answered, this can be archived but I don't know how to include the template for that). Moebeus (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mahir256 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of redirects

Note that I closed an old RFC, Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata. The close is lengthy and is posted there, I am not going to repeat it. In short, there is consensus that redirects should be allowed, but we are not yet close to actually starting adding them, and other discussions should happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As I understand, there is need for further discussion to have an actual improvement at some time. Ideally we involve @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) & team from the beginning this time, in order not to discuss a proposal that lacks consideration of several important aspects of the problem (i.e. unlike the RfC itself). Any idea where we should start a discussion? —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I would think we need to identify crucial issues for discussion here (possibly even in this thread) and then see may be some of them are obviousl and for others we might need another RfC (which I hope will not stay open for another two years).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If we look at the past RfC on a more abstract level (i.e. without considering any specific solution such as “give us redirects”), I think we can conclude that the community requests a more sophisticated sitelink management to improve interwikilinking. The current situation is a consequence of a conflict of goals: Wikidata as a knowledge base vs. Wikidata as a sitelink hub for Wikimedia projects, with the latter goal being somewhat constrained by the former goal. In most situations this works out, but sometimes not and this needs to be improved (Bonnie and Clyde problem). The original proposal of the RfC is pretty dangerous for the knowledge base goal, which is why substantial opposition was raised as well, but I think we have already seen several good ideas in the proposal. What does Lydia think meanwhile? —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
She posted an extensive comment on that RfC, and i would be surprised if she thinks differently. In any case, to implement the RfC we ultimately need to change the interface, which she must directly approve.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey :) Yeah it still represents my thinking pretty well I'd say. And I still believe we should explore the option of generating some of the sitelinks from statements further. Don't get me wrong. I understand the current situation sucks for some cases. I am just not convinced that the other option sucks any less. So we need to get creative somehow. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks for finally closing this! Here are my responses to your queries regarding further issues, I wonder if perhaps we need another RFC to settle these though? Anyway - (1) "only those redirects which help to solve existing problems are welcome" - I think this is simply a matter for the notability policy. A redirect item should only be created if it describes a concept or entity that is clearly distinct from the item the redirect points to, and otherwise notable. In particular, redirects that are simply alternate names or aliases of the primary entity should never have their own items (instead they could be added as alternate labels on the item). (2) "constraint violations are not created" I don't think we are at all talking about automatic creation of redirect items; only editors should be creating redirect items, and they should satisfy constraints just as they do now. In particular when a page is moved on a client wiki, that should NOT automatically create a redirect item. (3) "must be clearly visible and discriminated" - sure we should discuss how to do this, but I agree it's useful. User interface design can be proposed and hashed out as part of implementation, I don't think it needs to be specified in detail up front. (4) "other items" - well, we already had a very long discussion about it, do you really think there's more that could be an issue? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
My experience shows that if smth is not on the policy there will always be users pushing it through. If the policy does not say that redirect can not be added en masse and does not specify when the can be added next week there is a user adding thousands per day and claiming it is allowed per policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree we should have a policy - do you think we would need a whole section on redirects in Wikidata:Notability, or something else? I was thinking just a sentence or two there would be sufficient. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not particularly mind, as soon as it is clear enough. But I am not really an interested party. I merely summarized what I read on the RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oddly, editors at Wikipedia aren't actually interested in implementing already existing solutions to the problem. Sometimes, it seems they just come to Wikidata as they haven't bothered solving the problem at Wikipedia. --- Jura 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Some editors at Wikidata are unable to accept that there are those of us who are interested in both projects. Quite often we find that bashing editors who are active on Wikipedia is considered acceptable here. It should never be. Sitelinks on Wikidata are designed for use on Wikipedia projects and when you are told that artificial restrictions on Wikidata – such as the inability to programmatically read a sitelink to en:Archeologist from archaeologist (Q3621491) – are causing unnecessary problems, you ought to be taking those issues seriously, not blaming other projects for deficiencies here. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand your inability to link archeologist to w:archeology programmatically. Where do you want to do it and what approaches have you tried? --- Jura 20:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Jura are you being deliberately obtuse? The problem is linking from all the other wikipedias to an enwiki page; there is nothing enwiki can do to allow that, and so for all those languages that have a page for archaeologist (Q3621491), it looks like there is nothing relevant in enwiki. Creating a redirect link is what solves the problem. What else do YOU propose to do such a thing? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Can you provide a sample use case and explain how you attempted to solve it? --- Jura 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: It seems to me he just did. He's suggesting that archaeologist (Q3621491) ought to be able to sitelink en:Archeologist, even though the latter is a redirect. - Jmabel (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    I've manually added the sitelink by temporarily blanking the page. Jc86035 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: I don't see how this would be a usecase of enwiki one tries to solve, but maybe it's just theoretical one. --- Jura 04:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't want to ventriloquize User:ArthurPSmith, so he should probably step back in here, but from what he wrote, he seems to be saying that it is an existing case, and proposing this as the solution. How is that "theoretical"? - Jmabel (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks Jmabel. I think Jura was asking for in what way implementing a redirect link would actually help an enwiki user in a case such as this one. To me the important use case here is for users of other language wikis, if somebody who speaks both languages happens to go to the archaeologist (Q3621491) page in that language, the interlanguage links do not indicate there is an English-language article that is closely related. Allowing a redirect link in Wikidata would enable that interlanguage link to appear, and so the bilingual user could easily look at both and perhaps understand better the topic than from just looking at one language page. However, the interlanguage link to those other languages does NOT appear on the enwiki page right now, and it would presumably require some development work to allow that in one form or another. It would be nice to do that in the long run, but this first step does at least fulfill a real purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: I think it would still be good to see an actual usecase for enwiki. Some like "I'm an English Wikipedia user and I have built an infobox for biographical articles about archeologists and want the word "archeologist" in the infobox to link to "archeology" (if there is no article for archeologist)". --- Jura 16:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: I'm an English Wikipedian (as well as being active on other Wikimedia projects) and I have built an internationalised module used on 50+ wikis that contains functions to read Wikidata into infobox fields. If I want to use it to create a Wikidata-aware infobox for en:Howard Carter, I want each of his occupations to link to the relevant English article. On Wikidata he has three occupations: anthropologist (Q4773904), archaeologist (Q3621491), egyptologist (Q1350189). The first one has a sitelink to the English article en:Anthropologist and the other two need to have sitelinks to the English redirects en:Archaeologist and en:Egyptologist. Now multiply that by hundreds of occupations and by dozens of other properties (such as educated at (P69)) that may point to Wikidata entities that correspond to redirects; and then multiply that by the number of wikis that use the module or some similar module. I hope you're not going to suggest that I blank the redirects, then create the sitelink, then put the redirect back for thousands of items on Wikidata. Why not simply allow egyptologist (Q1350189) to link to en:Egyptologist? There's a user case – and it's not the first time I've expounded it here – now it's time for you to do some work as well and explain why forbidding those sitelinks makes any sense to folks re-using Wikidata in the other projects. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! Implementing that decision will enable enwiki to remove lots of existing errors, and should enable Wikipedias to use Wikidata in places where they currently avoid using Wikidata because of the errors caused by the lack of redirects. There is a one-to-one correspondence here. For the field: archaeology (Q23498) = en:Archaeology. For the profession: archaeologist (Q3621491) = en:Archaeologist. The problem has been that Wikidata did not permit the second link to be recorded because en:Archaeologist is a redirect. (enwiki has no article on the profession; it's covered in the article on the field.) In many cases, such as infobox templates, enwiki editors have coded workarounds which link to the enwiki page whose title matches the Wikidata label in English, and hope that that page is an article on a relevant topic. This works in the case of archaeology. However, it regularly causes problems elsewhere in enwiki. The title may match an article on a different topic with a similar name (en:Michael Jackson when the link intended en:Michael Jackson (writer)) or a disambiguation page (a list of en:John Smiths). It will be wonderful to be able to start recording accurate links instead of guessing and hoping. Certes (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I reread Lydia post and want to say that it confuses the interests of data consumers. Say a data consumer or example wants to host data about mental illnesses and identifies those internally with IDC codes. We have Wikipedia pages that discuss multiple IDC codes and saying that it's bad for the data consumer to be linked to the page that discusses the illness that corresponds to the IDC code, because that page also discusses other IDC codes misidentifies the interests of that data consumer.
For all data consumers who want to be able to link to information if information is available in Wikidata, linking to redirects is good. It's only bad if a data consumer doesn't want the link if they don't like that other subjects get discussed as well at the linked page.
@MisterSynergy: suggestion that the RfC is a result of conflicting goals between Wikidata as a knowledge base vs. Wikidata as a sitelink hub is misleading. As the other of the RfC I think it's useful for both the knowledge base because it allows better discription of entities that don't have their own Wikipedia page but that are described in a paragraph on a page, the otherwise couldn't be linked. The conflict is more between inclusionism and exclusionism.
As far as the points by ArthurPSmith go:
(1) I agree that it makes sense to change the notability policy in a way to explicitely say that redirect don't produce notability via #1 of the notability policy. Given that this is clarification of existing policy I don't see a need for an RfC to do that.
(2) Redirect creation should be done with attention to detail and as such I support to limit it to human editors and forbid bots from doing so. I don't think that anybody specifically argued for the ability of bots to create redirects and as a result I don't think we need to start an RfC for that.
As far as redirect creation through moving, it's already the status quo that moving creates redirect links today. There are good arguments that we might want to handle that differently, but I they are a separate issue from this RfC.
(3) Having a user interface where the redirect is highlited is a good idea. I also think that the details shouldn't be decided via a discussion but should be hashed out by a WikimediaDE UI person. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ymblanter: I very much welcome your close, and your decision which seems to me to make a lot of sense. However, the following line is not correct: Given that we currently have no mechanism of redirect addition (except for twice moving articles on the projects, which is a clear disruption and I am sure will be perceived as such on the projects).
All that is required to sitelink to a redirect is to temporarily comment out the #REDIRECT on the wikipedia page, then create the sitelink, then restore the #REDIRECT. I don't think any wikipedias would see this as disruption; I doubt that many would even notice.
Alternatively, when a redirect page does not yet exist, it is easy to create it with some holding text, sitelink it, then finally add the #REDIRECT that turns it into a fully functioning redirect.
It would be nice to have a better interface for doing this; but the lack of such an interface is not a blocker, neither for humans nor for bots.
Given the community decision, two further priorities stand out (at least IMO): Firstly, to distinguish sitelinks connecting to redirects that are good targets for sitelinks (ie en:archaeologist -> en:archaeology) from sitelinks connecting to bad targets for sitelinks (eg most redirects caused by page moves). On en-wiki and many others, "good" redirects for sitelinks can/should be marked after sitelinking by Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item (Q16956589). This template should be spread to more wikipedias; existing uses should be reviewed and confirmed; and sitelinks to redirects that don't have the template should be investigated. These are all things the community/communities can do.
The second thing is to mark on Wikidata and in the sidebar of Wikipedia articles when a sitelink goes to a redirect. This is something we need the developers to do; but now the community has decided that sitelinks to redirects can be okay, and we are going to start creating them for certain types of cases more systematically, the developers should understand that the community now want such redirect badges as a priority. However this is a desideratum not a requirement; there is IMO no need for the community to hold off and wait for this before creating redirects, now that the RFC has been closed and the community has actualised its decision. Jheald (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
#2 now suggested at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Wikidata/Indicate when Wikidata sitelink is to a redirect Jheald (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, technically there are also other means to insert redirects, but I am sure none of them would be really accepted on the projects. A user mass-moving pages twice solely to create Wikidata redirects, or a user mass-removing and readding redirects solely to add them to Wikidata items, on English Wikipedia will likely be first dragged to ANI and warned, and eventually blocked.--Ymblanter (talk)
Sorry @Ymblanter:, but I simply don't think that's true. As noted above, enwiki even has a template, en:Template:Wikidata redirect, to mark redirects created to accommodate incoming wikidata sitelinks. It currently has 25,000 uses. A user running a mass scheme of removing #REDIRECT lines, adding a Wikidata sitelink, then restoring the #REDIRECT line, each done in perhaps less than a minute, wouldn't be warned, blocked, or dragged to ANI. They would simply be seen as going through the hoops that need to be gone through to do something useful.
As for mass-moving pages twice, why would anyone do that, when they could simply edit the page? Jheald (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, we obviously have different perception and different experience concerning the relation of the English Wikipedia and Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If one was adding wikidata-based content to an actual reading page then that might ruffle some feathers.
But adding a sitelink to a redirecting page that no-one on en-wiki is going to see anyway? No, unlikely that anyone would even notice; still less likely that they would care. Jheald (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I added a section to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Notability with a suggestion of how to change the text of the notability policy. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for finally starting to fix this long-standing problem. Regarding the user interface to add redirects, some years back I proposed a trivial to implement change by adding a "target is redirect" checkbox to the dialogue ([7]) in order to temporarily stop the code from following the redirect to the target article and instead take the redirect itself as the target. Having to tag the box ensures that links to redirects are not created by accident. There could also be a link next to the checkbox pointing to the relevant policy explaining which types of redirects are fine to link to and which types should be avoided.
Other possible UI improvements could be sorted out and added independently later on (this could range from simple things like indicating redirects in italics in the iwl sidebar to complex multi-dimensional cross-WP navigation aids based on Wikidata relations also allowing reverse lookup).
In the old discussion the proposal was dismissed by Lydia stating that "Redirects are used to mix concepts. This is something that we really must avoid in Wikidata". I see it the other way around: Most redirects (rather than mere piped links) indicate and manifest relations of some kind between concepts and thereby help to keep them separate. Providing an easy to use interface to link to them will help users to fix the many inconsistencies in the current Wikidata database, which only exist because what should have been the linked to could not be linked to (without tricks). This will increase the usability of Wikipedia internationally and improve the quality of the Wikidate database at the same time.
--(Matthiaspaul) 178.10.50.191 19:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Family / Ancestor Data

I want to create a family history database for my own Family/Ancestors and also for others. I believe that i can get access to a data source which can have this information available which is not digitized yet. Please suggest if this will be good project or not, what kind of technical challenges can come up eg. Sharing some one's personal information can be objectionable but i think this will help people connect to their families in their family tree and after a few decades and centuries this data will be very valuable.

Such data can be very useful in carrying out any type of research in future. Please suggest.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalbirmaan (talk • contribs) at 2018-11-09 05:41 (UTC).

  • Are you saying you want to do this within Wikidata (I'd oppose that) or just in general (lots of such things already exist, such as at ancestry.com). - Jmabel (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dalbirmaan: Wikidata items have to be based on public sources. In this case this might mean publishing the data source that isn't yet digitalized. I'm not sure whether or not WikiSource is open to publishing the kind of document you want to publish but otherwise you would need to find another space online to publish it.
After that step is done, I think it's great to add the data to Wikidata. Having sourced data on Wikidata that's not available elsewhere is great. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @AnonMoos: Reinventing the wheel isn't required to add genealogy to Wikidata and there's already some of it inside Wikidata. There are even two tools to display genealogical trees that already exists. We also have Wikidata:WikiProject_Genealogy. The ability to link people to other items like employers is valuable to capture information that won't be displayed in traditional genealogical websites. Apart from that none of the popular genealogical websites has a free license. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Capturing documented genealogical relationships between notable individuals already present in Wikidata is something very different from encouraging large numbers of ordinary people to load in their personal family trees. The latter would raise a number of issues that Wikidata is probably not really ready to deal with at the rate and volume that they would occur -- incompatible data about an individual, divergent family relationships found in different sources, etc. etc. The Mormon church devotes significant manpower to cleaning up and maintaining in useful form the various kinds of information that it imports into its genealogical databases -- I don't think that Wikidata can rival this for something which is somewhat of a side issue with respect to its major purposes... Wikidata AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There's synergy between Wikidata doing multiple different things. If we for example have Indians who share their sourced Indian family trees they have a stake into also keeping the relevant locations well described and translating the labels of various professions into multiple Indian languages. The existence of the unfortunately unfree WikiTree project suggests that it's not necessary to have professional stuff the way that the Mormon church has for this. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi Christian and AnonMoos. Thanks for your inputs and suggestions. I agree with you that it is bit different from what we generally do on Wiki Data but then this is also a data, right ? A valuable data which can connect lot of people and lot of dots. Lots of lost families who can meet their relatives. In today's world where relations are almost lost, roots are forgotten and people are moving from one geography to other , one country to other , marrying in different faiths and giving birth to entire new generation. They have the right to know about their roots. I believe this will be a great help to humanity.

As far as database is concerned, i plan to develop this from a semi-authentic source of Data in India. In India we have a informal system since ages to record the family history on death of some one. There are specialised groups in the society who maintain these records generation after generation. They are my source of data as i am not sure of any source of information available from Govnment records but i will definitely explore that but i am sure that not much is available there for various reasons.

Please suggest. -- 11:24, 17 November 2018 Dalbirmaan

Dalbirmaan -- I really don't think you fully understand some of the issues that could be involved. Some on-line genealogy sites allow everyone to upload their own personal GEDCOM file (or equivalent), with no attempt to impose any consistency between the different genealogies. But the Wikidata model doesn't really allow that, and so would require imposing some form of consistency between the different genealogy versions that different people import. This is time-consuming work, and it requires significant specialized expertise to do it well. I doubt whether the current Wikipedia volunteer force is overall either qualified or willing to take on such an additional heavy burden of time and resources... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that's interested data that would be valuable to have but at the same time I think that scans of the source data should go along with it to allow people to better understand the sourcing.
To me the it seems the kind of data would likely fall under "They are official documents of the body producing them, or They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events." and thus be within what WikiSource includes. What do you think about uploading scans of the source data to Wikisource and then creating the corresponding Wikidata items? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

gutenberg books not all linked

Through a number of manual searches, I've discovered a number of books that don't include links to their Project Gutenberg editions. (Some of the original Project Gutenberg books are not linked -- it's not just new ones.) Is anyone working on importing these? I noticed in adding a few by hand that there's suppose to be one per entry; should some of these have their own edition entry made? I notice there are actually quite a few that violate this that don't seem to be in the list of violations (or the list of exceptions). Even if I did have the motivation to work on an importer, there's a lot of issues I don't currently know how to resolve... --Ssd (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Most (all?) of the Gutenberg editions are editions, and do need a separate data item created for them. They should never be added to the item about a literary work, but should be treated as editions. This is the subject of the thread "Mix-n-Match failures" further up this talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Presumably, if the Gutenberg file is a transcription of "XYZ Work 4th edition", it is appropriate to add this to an item we have for "XYZ work 4th edition" ? Or are you saying we should create a new item, "XYZ Work 4th edition - Gutenberg electronic version" ? Jheald (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes and no. Sometimes the Gutenberg edition is a faithful electronic edition, so it can be on the same data item as that edition. Other times the edition has been so altered that it constitutes a separate edition in its own right and should really be a separate data item. For example, I have seen cases where the Gutenberg editors took a UK edition and converted all the spellings to US standard. Practically speaking, it should be reasonable to place a Gutenberg link onto the data item for the same edition unless further investigation shows deviation from the purported edition. However, a Gutenberg edition should never be added to the data item for the work in general, only to data items for editions of that work, or as their own data items. Also note that an edition number, such as "4th edition" is frequently insufficient to identify the edition. Much better are the date, location, and publisher, but even then there can be more than one edition with the same values. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope you aren't just blindly reverting my edits, but actually correcting them. Could you please put one of them back -- as an example of how you think it should be done... ---Ssd (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Your faith in Gutenberg is stronger than mine. I've written them off entirely because every time I've had cause to look at one it has either not specified from whence it was sourced, or it has been obviously modified in ways that are significant and at least partly subjective. I must be clear that I've not done any structured analysis of Gutenberg, so my impression of them will be coloured by my areas of interest, but there my impression is pretty unambiguous. Are you certain it's safe to treat Gutenberg etexts as versions of an existing edition by default? Absent your clearly better founded opinion above, I would have argued that they should be treated as separate editions by default, and only when warranted be equated with an existing edition. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: I'd be more likely to treat them as such when the ID number is high. The lower ID numbers are earlier works done by Gutenberg, and are far more likely to deviate from the source text. Their more recent works more often follow a source text, and can even preserve the title page of the original, making it possible to unambiguously assign it to a specific source. But temper my comments with the fact that I've almost exclusively looked at their editions of English-language works, and so cannot comment on the practices used in transcribing other languages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe I have an unbiased (read: ignorant) view of Project Gutenberg books. Most of their books include a publication date...which is when they release the book. So in hindsight, I think they admit up front that they are making their own edition of the book. I can see it being fair to treat them as such. I'm just asking for guidance on how to do this correctly to get all of them linked to something appropriate in wikidata. If they are a scan of an existing edition (do they do that?) rather than a transcription, I can see adding them directly to an existing entry. Otherwise...idunno, you tell me; make a new edition and link it to an edition? Link it to the original literature? Both? What statements should be duplicated from the parent entity? Should any other information be added? (At least images maybe? A lot of entries already have that.) My feeling is that Gutenberg is disorganized enough that it would be a good idea to clean and restructure the data and add it to wikidata rather than trying to import it directly. --Ssd (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ssd: The Red Badge of Courage (Q55816148) is an example of a data item for a Gutenberg edition. This was an edition with multiple editorial changes, so I treated it as a separate edition. Everything except the Dutch description (added by a bot) should be helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

--Ssd (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC) one more:

--Ssd (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some description or explanation? Also, I don't understand your question about images. To add an image, you'd first have to upload the image to Commons, add all the data about the image to Commons, and then link the image from the data item. And that's a lot of work for a single image added to an edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Description of what? I thought the queries were self explanitory. Ya, I know adding images would be a lot of work. I'm wondering (hoping) how many of them are already there. Anyway, I just listed images as an example datatype that should be included in a gutenberg edition item. In case you're wondering, a lot of this work I already do for a personal project, and I started using wikidata to ease that work, but the reverse can happen too (i.e., pre-existing work added to wikidata). --Ssd (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: "lot of work" --> translation: "someone needs to write a bot". But first, hammer out some rules for it to operate on. That was my original question here more or less. --Ssd (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
No, the queries are not self-explanatory. They need context to show what you are attempting to do.
I would be very surprised if the images from Gutenberg editions were already present on Commons.
A bot wouldn't be able to do the task of loading Gutenberg editions unless you pre-loaded a batch with the data item identifiers for the author and work, which would mean manually hunting them down to put them into the batch to be processed, and that could be just as time-consuming as doing the work manually. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Context for the queries: this thread, your example of an ideal entry. They are pre-existing data, some match your ideal, some don't. Take them for what they are -- windows into data. As for the bot, I agree with you mostly. I imagine it as multi-stage...first stage would be to get the gutenberg catalog, write a UI to match title and author entities from it and try to identify what is already in wikidata. I've already got some of that. Second stage would be to generate a list of easy/obvious stuff to add and cross link, and probably proofread it before importing. Next stage would be to write a bot to (slowly?) grab gutenbooks, disassemble them, offer potential images to a heuristic for grading and probable manual selection. Each of these steps could be combined human review and heuristics, which would get better slowly. --Ssd (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Anything special need done?

I am not a novice editor, I am not looking for a "how to". But I have never edited this situation, so I am wondering where I begin for this situation.

Books in Review - W. J. (Duke) Madenfort, “Aesthetic Education: An Education for the Immediacy of Sensuous Experience,”Art Education (Q58497098)

I am knowledgeable about the author, not so much about the paper. Do I create a new item for the author and then populate it? Or do I populate this item? Or, since this is a temporary item (according to the editing history), is there something else that needs done entirely? 2601:983:8100:CE48:ED22:488C:3B45:EE1A

  • Which author do you have in mind? In any case, there should be items about them. It would be good to have one about the work as well. --- Jura 08:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I have data to fill in for Dr. Madenfort. But I have never worked on this type of situation. I didn't want to simply create an item without checking. Nor do I know if I am to link to the posted item since it is "temporary". Also, I was a little confused - his name is in the title, but it looks like Wikidata has someone else credited as the author?
He also has a brother, James, that wrote some stuff (https://www.worldcat.org/identities/np-madenfort,%20james%20lee/), but I don't have as much data on him, nor is he mentioned on Wikidata. 2601:983:8100:CE48:ED22:488C:3B45:EE1A
According to the DOI link, Mrs. Beverly Jeanne Davis is the author and Dr. Madenfort would be the main subject (P921) of that article. I did not find an item about Dr. Madenfort, so you may create one by looking at another item with a similar profile, say, Robert Lincoln Kelly (Q55720793) for example. - LaddΩ chat ;) 13:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
So, I create his item. I link the two as main subject (P921). And then the rest is as I normally would edit.
If he is not the author of this work, it makes me wonder where his work is. The way I am reading the DOI, in 1975 Davis reviewed his 1972 paper. But that is the title of his paper. Certainly she would use a different title for her review? 2601:983:8100:CE48:ED22:488C:3B45:EE1A
I slightly adjusted the title of the article authored by Mrs. Beverly Jeanne Davis, Wikidata item Q58497098, prefixing it with the section title of the publication, "Books in Review", to clarify its otherwise obscure title. The subject of that review is indeed the article published by Dr. Madenfort, found at [8], but for which the is no Wikidata item. I suggest to first create the Wikidata item for the latter article (refer to it as the main subject (P921) of the existing one) and then to link to (another new item for) Dr. Madenfort as its author (P50). -- LaddΩ chat ;) 22:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Changing the item title makes it all seem a little more clear to me. 2601:983:8100:CE48:95E5:D73C:67BD:CD61 11:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Add data relating to the GDPR about companies

The General Data Protection Regulation obliges companies to provide some information publicly, such as a privacy policy and a contact person. Different organisations have started mapping out this data, but there is little joint work organising this data into a coherent whole, or even initial organisational effort into making sure this gets mapped the right way. My organisation, PersonalData.IO, would like to work on this. What is the best way to get started on this effort? This is the core of the data that would need to be mapped: organisation name, organisation id elsewhere (Open Corporates), organisation website, organisation privacy policy, contact information. An example data source would be here.

Accessory questions: the UK Information Commissioner's Office has a register of fee payers, or in fact it had one publicly downloadable, now only searchable. Assuming it is under the [9], is this something Wikidata would want? Pdehaye (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The Open Government Licence is not directly compatible with CC0. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! This link says "The other Wikimedia hosted projects including Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikiquote may also find new material they can incorporate into their projects". Shouldn't it be changed then? Pdehaye (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
If that is the case then yes it sounds like that page should be updated ·addshore· talk to me! 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of Wikidata in that quote. Wikidata is licensed with a more permissive license then Wikipedia and as such not everything that can be used in Wikipedia can also be used in Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It says "The other Wikimedia hosted projects including...", and there was also the prior quote "It is considered a free content licence and compatible with the requirements of all Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons". This is a clear contradiction to what you were claiming. I dug a bit deeper, and indeed you seem to be correct. I made some changes over there, please do have a look. Pdehaye (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone able to return to the core of the question? Thanks! Pdehaye (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pdehaye: For the import itself I would be happy to help. I think it should be doable with OpenRefine. How do you want to structure the information in Wikidata? Most of these companies and services should have items already I expect - how would you link the policy information to them? Maybe that is a matter to discuss at WikiProject Companies for instance? − Pintoch (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Thanks for the response. Posting there to scope things a bit better, will get back to you when I move forward. Pdehaye (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Really basic question about search

If an item is titled "Little, Brown and Company", will a search for "Little, Brown & Co." match, or should all the possible variants be aliases? - PKM (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I think at least ".. & Co" should be an alias. --- Jura 08:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It will match if the individual words of the title are found somewhere among the label and aliases (not necessarily all in the same label). So there's no need to include all possible variants as aliases, but all variants of the words in the title should appear at least once in the label or aliases. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

IIIF and additions of manducus.net (and other external-service-sourced) links to IIIF manifests

For those into IIIF. Since the creation and enthusiastic response re: the IIIF manifest URL (P6108) property, Jason.nlw and Multichill have batch added links to many IIIF manifests hosted by cultural institution. Recently, Manducus (I'm convinced in good faith) has also started adding links to IIIF manifests generated via his own (non-profit) manducus.net service. But I think this is not an optimal thing to do and I think we should only link to institutions' original own manifests. Some arguments I'd see:

  • any external service like manducus.net should be opt-in, not opt-out (see my comment on Manducus' talk page)
  • the manducus.net links are self-referential (i.e. referencing to the Wikidata item itself)

I'd appreciate other opinions and viewpoints here - and perhaps it's a good idea to extend the documentation of the property to clarify the outcome of this discussion? Thanks all! 👍 Spinster 💬 08:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago I noticed that Wikimedia Commons does not have a IIIF interface. In order to be able to use digital images from Commons in IIIF contexts, I copied images marked with CC0 or PD to manducus.net and made them available as IIIF resources. The query has always been done via Wikidata. Now that the new IIIF property became available, I thought it would be useful if I imported these links into Wikidata. Since this is obviously not desired, I started the complete deletion of the links now. --Manducus (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well then probably we need a IIIF viewer on Commons for works without a manifest. Jane023 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. Commons would need to implement the IIIF Presentation API and the IIIF Image API (https://iiif.io/technical-details/), it does not necessarily need to have a IIIF viewer. --Manducus (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. OK self-referencing definitely not, but yes I think one manifest per item is enough. The associated Wikipedia page for International Image Interoperability Framework (Q22682088) says there are multiple viewers, but presumably these can only use one set of IIIF data. Jane023 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, if the holding institution provides IIIF services, these manifests should definitely be preferred. (Btw. There is a variety of viewers and at least one of them can show multiple manifests simultaneously: http://projectmirador.org/ – but that is not the point here at all I think). --Manducus (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
So IIIF manifest URL (P6108) is basically just an external link (in some weird format) so we should probably treat it the same as other external links. If that website would show a nice representation of every Wikidata item, would we add a link on every Wikidata to this site? Probably not.
So now we have our instance of Mirador at https://tools.wmflabs.org/mirador/ (example) and also universalviewer at https://tools.wmflabs.org/universalviewer/ (example). Turns out we have a service to make manifests from Wikidata items at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-image-positions/ , for example https://tools.wmflabs.org/wd-image-positions/iiif/Q254923/P18/manifest.json and of course you can feed that again to Mirador or Universalviewer). Multichill (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Where are the Dutch people?

According to WDQS, there are only 92 living people in Wikidata that are known to be Dutch citizens [10]. In comparison, we have more than 23K living Belgians, and we get similar figures elsewhere [11]. Is there a systematic data modelling error or are we really so short of Dutch people? (disclaimer: I may miss replies posted here -- I mainly wanted to bring this to the attention of the community.) --Markus Krötzsch (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

31k Dutch people are here. Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999) is used instead of Netherlands (Q55) as value for country of citizenship (P27). For details, see sitelinks of Dutch nationality law (Q1813244). —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, so my second query, which returns all wiki-people of all EU countries, is not correct (it is one of the example queries of WDQS). The query should probalby select countries by EU membership rather than by territorial containment, although I don't quite understand why it works for UK and other countries with non-European territories. Maybe the easiest is to select countries whose capital is in Europe. --Markus Krötzsch (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A query is only as good as the database it is searching. And a database is only as good as the people inputting the data to be queried. There are probably plenty more Dutch/Holland/Netherlands people listed, but editors neglected to add the citizenship line. Lazypub (talk)

Watchlist UI squalor

Who do I need to talk to around here to suggest that the six buttons occupying four rows of the watchlist - "Edit your list of watched pages", "Mark all changes as seen", "Saved filters", "Active filters", "Live Updates" and (for me) "250 changes, 30 days" - and the white space below these, might be somewhat rationalised so that the list of watched pages might start somewhere north of the bottom half of the page.

On the same theme, why do we _have_ to see the three bullet-pointed lists at the top of the page?

Why, in short, is the watchlist page design so irredeemably hideous? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The right people to contact about the buttons would be the developers, but they don't seem to pay much attention to that page. You might want to turn off the new version of the watchlist page in the preferences (Preferences -> Watchlist -> "Hide the improved version of the Watchlist"). If you want to hide the lists at the top, you could add .mw-special-Watchlist .mw-specialpage-summary { display: none } to your common.css. - Nikki (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: if you designed the new watchlist and someone approached you with the exact wording you just used, what would your response be? Multichill (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I'd be interested to know why someone thought it "irredeemably hideous"; although in more detail, I'd read/listen the first & second paragraphs, and grok why someone found it hideous. Make no bones about it; it is the worst bit of UI I can think of; in part becase I see it so often; in part because it's objectively terrible. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the three lists at the top are community-controlled, over at {{Watchlist summary}} (included via MediaWiki:watchlist-summary). —Galaktos (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Need bot for change item

I need a bot for change “Codruta” to “Codruța” in Q41792221. Thanks! --151.49.72.109 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Need bot for change item

I need a bot for change “Codruta” to “Codruța” in Q41792221. Thanks! --151.49.72.109 01:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Using specific editor instead of full and plain wikitext editor to edit items

We have all types of wikitext editors, especially the 2010 and 2017 wikitext editors, but they are restricted to only discussions. Somehow, the specific type of editor is used to edit items in Wikidata? Why that editor instead of plain (i.e. full) wikitext editors? --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: Wikidata items contain *structured* data; the UI facilitates data entry for that purpose. Wikitext editors are fine for unstructured text, but that's not what we're dealing with in wikidata items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Is software (Q7397) a subclass of written work (Q47461344)?

MichaelSchoenitzer
dachary
Metamorforme42
Ash Crow
OdileB
John Samuel
Jasc PL
Daniel Mietchen
Iwan.Aucamp
SM5POR
Moritz Schubotz

Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/Software

Can software (Q7397) be considered as a written work (Q47461344)?--Malore (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Malore: My 2 cents, as I am not aware of the data modelling of software I need your input: can instances of software follow the classification given in Wikidata:WikiProject Books ? If both data models can match then we can consider a common approach. If not we need to distinguish softwares from books to avoid problem when running queries on written work (Q47461344). Snipre (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you reduce the software to its source code maybe this is the case. So the question is analog to « is a theatrical play a written work ». The script of the play is a written work, the play itself is something else I think. Note also that there is also graphical programming languages, such as Scratch (Q275131)  View with Reasonator View with SQID. I think it’s not really an appropriate relationship in the general case. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hard question. I'd say strictly speaking yes. But we might want to set the other values to high-rank, so that we don't ruin all peoples queries since this is a very far stretch of definitions. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@MichaelSchoenitzer: I would ask in which strict sense you use the word « software » because in the case of software (Q7397) the english description is « non-tangible executable component of a computer » which is not obviously a match for the « written work » definition. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m: software (Q7397) is described in english as "any creative work expressed in writing". Software has the same level of creativity as lots of things we obviously consider written works. Writing is described as "system of visual symbols recorded on paper or another medium", software normally is written in a programming language (then it's obvious a subclass of software (Q7397) ) but even if not, it consists of symbols (bits/bytes) written on a medium (harddrive, etc.) -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@MichaelSchoenitzer: Sorry but you may want to correct your statement as « software (Q7397) is described in english as "any creative work expressed in writing". » is not correct, you probably meant « written work ». You also might want to answer my comment above : it seem that what clearly fits as a written work is [[d:Special:EntityPage/CODE SOURCE (SOURCE CODE)COLLECTION D'INSTRUCTIONS INFORMATIQUES D'UN PROGRAMME|CODE SOURCE (SOURCE CODE)COLLECTION D'INSTRUCTIONS INFORMATIQUES D'UN PROGRAMME]]. Compiled code, for example, does not really fits into the definition of « visual symbol » because, even if it can be visualized, it’s not really meant usually to be visualized, it’s meant to be executed, and it’s usually automatically computed from the source code. Yet it’s a form of a software. And the level of creativity seems irrelevant to determine if it’s written work or not :) Anyway, written work (Q47461344) should be better referenced so that we can identify at least one external definition to this concept.
then it's obvious a subclass of software (Q7397) I think it’s more complicated than that. That clearly depends of the definition of « software » you use, because there is some definitions, see for example https://www.dictionary.com/browse/software , in which « the software » is not « a computer program », but the whole set of intangible things used together with a machine like a computer, for example a video is software by that definition. Clearly, if « software » is the intangible part of a computer, by the definition used then any program that is installed on a computer is a part of the software of this computer, but it’s not « the sofware of the computer » which is the whole.
So we might think through if the real item we want is not « computer program » or the « source code » one … author  TomT0m / talk page 17:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Item = Wikipedia article?

Hello! I was just wondering if an item on Wikidata always means an article on Wikipedia (exiting article or an article to be created). Thanks!--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reem Al-Kashif: That depends on the policies on the individual Wikipedia project. Each version has different notability guidelines for example that will determine if a particular subject or topic can have an article created about it. So no, Item != Wikipedia article :) ·addshore· talk to me! 13:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Addshore:. So, every Wikipedia article should eventually find its way to be on Wikidata, but not every item on Wikidata can have a Wikipedia article.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A Wikidata item does not guarantee a Wikipedia article. I just saw this example on the "deletion" page, so I hope it helps - a director works on a film. The film is not notable, therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. But on the director's article, you can write free-form to include the film title. Yet, on Wikidata, you do not have the luxury of free-form writing. In order for the film to be included on his Wikidata item, the film must also have a Wikidata item. So, you can create the film's item and link it to the director. Lazypub (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Very nice example! Thank you very much :)
But that assumes it meets the notability for WD. It is possible that it doesn't. Lazypub (talk)
It being the film or the director? ;) ·addshore· talk to me! 08:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, both would need to meet notability. But in the example I gave, we presume the director already passed notability because he has an article on WP and an item on WD. Lazypub (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the same as

When we have two people of the same name that get confused we have "different from", do we have something where we suspect two people are the same but there is not enough information at the time to be absolutely certain? --RAN (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Authored sites shouldn't be dealing with 'not enough information' data. You either know it to be true, or you don't add it. Lazypub (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): - said to be the same as (P460) can be useful for this circumstance (it's somewhere between "exact match" and "different from"). @Lazypub: - this isn't always possible, unfortunately, as sources themselves may explicitly be unclear on identity - this is particularly an issue with older data. See eg/ Ralph Rokeby (Q53492592), which is based on an authoritative source here. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #339

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • A new tool to display Wikimedia Commons categories (and Wikipedia/Wikidata tags) with coordinates on the OSM map
    • The Association of Research Libraries published the draft of a Wikidata Task Force White Paper on how libraries and Wikidata/ Wikibase can join forces around linked open data for both library discovery systems and Wikipedia, and advancing a diversity and inclusion agenda in the cultures of both libraries and Wikimedia. The draft is open for public comment until 30 November.
  • Development
    • Fixed a bug that was saving the statement too early when trying to add a qualifier with the keyboard (phab:T154869)
    • Made changes to disallow edits (until the user reloads) if they accidentally get logged out. (phab:T124451)
    • Turn the new change tag back on wikidatawiki (phab:T208846)
    • Better linting against things that don't work in IE11
    • Fixed the wdqs-frontend docker image (phab:T208681, phab:T209206)
    • Fixed html elements in the table result of wdqs (phab:T207257, thanks to user:Frog23)
    • Getting ontology changes deployed to wikiba.se
    • Using maplink or mapframe to view coords on wikidata (phab:T184933)
    • Consistent capitalization of Lexeme/Form/Sense/Item/Property in UI messages
    • Make Lexemes appear in global usage of Commons files (phab:T204066)
    • Work on a new interface for the termbox on mobile (phab:T207150)

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.


Preparing a data import for companies from the first half of the 20th century

After checking for existing items with Mix-n-match, I'm preparing a data import of companies from 20th Century Press Archives (Q36948990). It would be great if you could have a look at the results of the input script, which is creating input for QuickStatements. Example items are Ruberoidwerke (Q58712849) or Banque d'Anvers (Q58718259). A few questions on which feedback would be particularly welcome:

  • In the archive, there is only on name for the company, normally the official name, derived from German, French, English or whereever the company stems from. Currently, I insert that (same) name as German and English label. I wonder if I should do so for more languages in latin script. Does that make sense, even when parts of the company name could be and perhaps commonly are translated in other languages?
  • Currently, I uniformly insert a German and English description ("Unternehmen"/"business"), which might be quite helpful in some cases (particularly if a company is named after the founder), but on the other hand may prevent the later automated insertion of some more precise description. Thoughts?
  • I generate a quite excessive reference for all statements (besides the PM20 folder ID (P4293), where it would be circular). Too much?

Cheers, Jneubert (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies
@Jura1: Your example nails the point - "Bank van Antwerpen" probably is the official name in nl, "Banque d'Anvers" would be plainly wrong in that case. So this is about trade-offs - adding a label which is generated wrong in some cases, or better no label for now?
The business sector is known (controlled vocabulary), but still has to be mapped to WD items.
For now, about 20, which I plan to use in a demo in a Wikidata workshop at SWIB. Potentially thousands - more info about the dataset here. The big bottleneck is checking against existing companies, which is much harder than with persons.
-- Jneubert (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
It would be good to have a statement like "official name" on the items (at least "native label" or "name" if you aren't sure which it is). I think checking against existing items might be hard, but it's less a nuisance of you create duplicates than with people, at least, if the new items you create are much more comprehensive than the existing ones. For businesses it's frequently somewhat vague what the item actually refers to. --- Jura 08:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jura1: official name (P1448) should work - normally the name of the folder was taken from documents of the company itself or from business press, at some point in time (so may still not cover exactly all content). It includes the legal form, which is helpful too. Because we have companies from all over the world and I cannot determine the language of the name, I'll use "und" as language tag. Jneubert (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For now I will refrain from automatically adding labels in other languages, because this may be problematic in some cases (particularly for companies which got German names during the Nazi occupation, which for sure should not be used as nl or pl labels). Jneubert (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Since the whole effort will result in larger batches and is not yet covered by permissions for JneubertAutomated, I have added an according bot request. Jneubert (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

« action stations » and the like

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

I stumbled upon an item that has almost no statement : Action Stations (Q2375295). A minimum would have been to find a superclass for this kind of state, I did not find any convincing item to serve as a superclass, or to capture the idea of something being in a certain state, as a result of having a certain objective or a certain state of the mind.

I’m thinking to create a class for the generic definition of the « state » term (état) in french : https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A9tat « 

Disposition dans laquelle se trouve une personne, une chose, une affaire.

or « disposition in which is found someone, something, a business », a disposition being « the way in which a system or an object configure itself to attain a certain objective ».

This may or may not a superclass for other kind of items labelled « state », for example a physical state, which is a way to formalize/model the configuration of a system according to the theories of physics that allows to know how the system will evolve in the future (an explosive physical state may evolve in an explosion, this can be thought as in « he has a disposition to explode »). author  TomT0m / talk page 15:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There would be a property for that class, something like « combat state » « allows to perform/may evolve in : fight ». Any thoughts, ideas ? author  TomT0m / talk page 15:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What about condition (Q813912) as superclass? Or maybe a new subclass of that specifically for state of a group or organization? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Interesting, but it seems a subclass of an item I ruled out, and the equivalent class seem to be http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/Status.rdf (quote of the target page : « Status Designation of the validity or position of something, e.g., whether something is incorrect or available. 2016-04-21 (New) ». It does not seem to be a fit for something « incorrect » at least, as a ship is either ready for fight or not, it’s never « correct or incorrect » for example … It seems by translating the dewiki connected article it’s not a fit at all as examples seems to be « condition for something to be true » in logic, as in « necessary and sufficient condition » in maths and conditional probabilities … does not seem related at all to physical condition or state. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well maybe there was a bad merge there somewhere - or we do need a separate item - but for example, homelessness (Q131327) (and a number of similar "states") are described as instances of condition (Q813912), so at least within Wikidata the meaning of that concept is broader than some of the sitelinks would suggest. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC) -@TomT0m:
@Romaine: who inserted the statement in 2018 for more information on this.
Note that it’s also used as « instance of », so it seem to be used as a metaclass, as there is many instances of the homeless state. and that I was looking of a superclass for things such as « combat state or station » subclass of « state ». @ArthurPSmith: author  TomT0m / talk page 09:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is how I modeled … an early car model that was produced only one year in history

This is what I managed to do with current property that I found, but it seem a little clumsy https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7230268&oldid=794750933 … The question is, is this correct and is there other ways to do this ? author  TomT0m / talk page 19:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is also discontinued date (P2669). Ghouston (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Which would be much better. - Jmabel (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Ghouston: This does not seem to be for the end of production for goods but for the end of commercialization for software ? It seem something different as something may still be selled long after its production stopped or am I wrong ? author  TomT0m / talk page 09:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It applies to any commercial product according to Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/47#P2669. It's the date that the product ceases to be commercially available. Ghouston (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Property sorting

How MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties works? Is it possible to add new section for chemistry (or for chemical substance (Q79529), whatever)? Right now everything is mixed in 'Science' section and the sort order seems quite random with many properties missing and it would be easier to establish more useful order for more specific concept rather than for the whole 'science' (whatever it means on this page). Wostr (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That page defines the global sorting on all items, it is not possible to have domain-specific orders. The headings in the list don't have any function. If you have specific suggestions on changing the sorting, you can post them on the talk page. --Pasleim (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Pasleim. I'll post on the relevant talk page when I have a clarified proposal. Wostr (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women 2018

Hi there,
I was surprised to see that there are no single items for each BBC 100 Women edition, which exists since 2013. Would it make sense to create items for each edition and "tag" the biographical items via either described by source (P1343), award received (P166) or significant event (P793)? What do you think? --Jcornelius (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why? You can already separate out the awardees by year easily enough, see en:User:Mike Peel/100 Women. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
But that was my basically my question (and your answer): You have already used BBC 100 Women (Q16153104) for award received (P166). Thanks --Jcornelius (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If the question was about how to specify the specific year the award was received, I believe the property is point in time (P585). Circeus (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

value requires statement constraint with subclass of type

I noticed that the property family name (P734) has a value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864), such that the value must be an instance of family name (Q101352), however, there are items, such as Q9631579, where the value of this property is instead a subclass of this, e.g. Chinese family name (Q1093580) and this seems to violate the constraint and cause an error, when I don't think it should. Is there some solution to this? Danielt998 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn external identifier

What is the best way to keep reference to removed external identifiers? For other statement like e.g. population, we set the latest data with preferred rank and only use the deprecated rank to mark wrong data. But how is it done for external identifiers? For example, Lucherberger See (Q17280826) is a former protected area and had a Common Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762) - thanks to the fact that all previous version of that database is still downloadable can find the old value and when it was removed. But should the rank then move to deprecated, as reason for deprecated rank (P2241) -> withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) suggests? Or overridden with a <novalue> in preferred rank? A similar problem with the same database - Totes Moor (Q28846190) has inherited the ID of Wunstorfer Moor (Q2595100), how to best mark this? (Note the CDDA website isn't yet updated to the November 2018 database) And a different problem - for Larmecke westlich Bremscheid (Q33133697) the database has an ID, but since the 2017 version that ID lists the data from Volkenborn (Q31770095). The identifier isn't really withdrawn, the database is buggy. But how to mark that to avoid confusion? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are reference urls not allowed for inception?

For all you know I could be making it up. Why is there an exclamation mark when I enter a reference url for the inception date? Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You’ve added it as a qualifier, not as a reference [12]. Pretty common mistake ;-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Thanks! I also see a bot already fixed it. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Same brand used by different entities; brand hierarchies

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

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

If the same brand (Q431289) is used by different entities (over time, or even at the same time), should we create items for each user or just keep one item? An example: Mercedes-Benz (Q36008) has historical been used by Daimler-Benz AG (Q541477) and is currently used by different division (Q334453) of Mercedes-Benz Group (Q27530). Thus we have the specific items list of Mercedes-Benz vehicles (Q1921162), Mercedes-Benz Vans (Q55383469), Mercedes-Benz buses (Q1427345) and list of Mercedes-Benz trucks (Q24928813). It even gets more complicated, where the same brand is used by different independent legal entities (e.g. Renault Trucks (Q840045) and Renault S.A. (Q6686)).

Maybe this is very automotive specific, but nevertheless we should agree on a unified approach.

--MB-one (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless there was some significant change in the brand with the ownership change, I would say it should be a single item. We can attach date ranges to relationships to indicate such changes. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I support the arguments of ArthurPSmith. Cheers! --Datawiki30 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We have similar situations with imprints that are owned by different publishers and fashion brands that are owned by different corporations over time. I generally use "owned by" or "parent organization" with start and end times for these items. - PKM (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes the same brand ("name") is used by several business for different or the same products or services. In these cases, there should be several items. --- Jura 08:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep in one item and use qualifiers (note that owner of brand may be different from the user). But definitely split "Company-Brand" items.--Jklamo (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd split by default, e.g. Volvo and Volvo. --- Jura 14:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps they could be split but each linked via P31 -> "Mercedes-Benz brand", or something like that? (Unsure.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

List of all mix'n'match catalogs

Is there a list of all of the mix'n'match catalogs? Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Trivialist: Your browser will probably slow down. Mahir256 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I'll be careful when I open it. :) Thanks! Trivialist (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, you were not kidding. Trivialist (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikidata recycle redirected items?

I refer to Q24213300. User 202.40.137.199's action on 11 June 2016‎ makes me wonder if recycling or reusing is appropriate.--Roy17 (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's highly inappropiate but also quite untracable. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"quite untracable"? I don't follow. "if recycling or reusing is appropriate", reusing or recycling items is a very bad thing to do. ·addshore· talk to me! 14:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think Sjoerd means that recycling items is not wanted, and that it's also hard to track and find which items may have been recycled. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It should be possible to come up with a list with possible items looking at items that were redirects at one point in history but are no longer. Could be useful! ·addshore· talk to me! 16:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I wondered about this - but wouldn't 99% of it be merges that were undone later on? I suppose you could look for redirects which have completely different labels now to the pre-redirect versions, or something. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut for "as of" now?

When I add official website (P856) for a researcher, I also want to add a qualifier point in time (P585) with the current date. Is there a shortcut for this? If not, could it be added - for example as a simple dot "."? Jneubert (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For retrieved (P813) you can activate the gadget "currentDate" which fills in automatically the date of today. Maybe it can be extended to also work for point in time (P585) --Pasleim (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Thanks! Your remark made me think: retrieved (P813) is currently used 3243 times, while point in time (P585) only 36 times with official website (P856). I'm not sure that reflects the actual meaning, but anyway there seems to be a usage pattern. Jneubert (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

New occupation "costume maker"

Teolemon
Netoholic
econterms
Jneubert
Moebeus
Albertvillanovadelmoral
salgo60
Epìdosis

Notified participants of WikiProject Occupations and professions

I am considering making a separate item for the occupation "costume maker" (AKA costumer, costumier) as distinct from "costume designer". I've added several authors recently who cut and construct costumes, sometimes to other people's designs. Is this too fine a distinction? - PKM (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean tailor (Q242468)? --ValterVB (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It would be a subclass of that, I think. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Some costume makers are not truly tailors, but I think <subclass of> tailor is sufficiently granular for our purposes (and the high-end professionals certainly have tailoring skills). - PKM (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Stage production of

For published editions or translations of a play (Q25379), we use edition or translation of (P629), but I can find no property for specific stage productions of a play: "stage production of / production of." --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Not sure if it covers your needs but I recently stumbled on this one: revival or touring version of (P5328) Moebeus (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work for productions of operas or Greek tragedies, particularly when they've been translated from the original language. I'm surprised to see La traviata listed as an example, since the opera would not have been "revived" in 2017 (it has been popular for a long time), but perhaps La scala toured that production. I need something for productions performed at a single location and that aren't "revivals". --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought @Beat Estermann: was working on individual stage productions (such as Q47433059); perhaps he might have some ideas. Mahir256 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: It's some of the items added by User:Beat Estermann that led me to look for a suitable property. Some of their added items use based on (P144) and some do not. But based on (P144) isn't suitable for a production of a play. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like a property "production of" to use in conjunction with costume designers and costume makers for specific individual runs of plays (an example is the "original practice" production of Twelfth Night on Broadway). - PKM (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

question about mix'n'match

@Magnus Manske: Why Mix'n'match doesn't allow to edit catalogs (or at least view the catalog scraper) after they are created, neither by the creator?

It follows from the above that:

  • Magnus Manske must find wrong scrapers because the catalog scraper can't be viewed;
  • Magnus Manske must fix wrong scrapers;
  • if an authority control property about a catalog is added to Wikidata after the catalog creation Magnus Manske must link it to the catalog.

Over a month ago, I contacted him because of an error of a catalog pointing to the wrong url but I didn't receive any response. IMO it's too much work for one person. Malore (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Malore: This is why he's working on a clone that uses Wikibase as a backend instead of the opaque one to which only he has access (more on that here). Mahir256 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, will this new version support matching to lexemes and senses, too?--Malore (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Some people can edit catalogs on top of Magnus. I am one of them. These people can change pretty much everything but the URLs. That's because a single catalog may actually use multiple URL structures, even though this seems rare or maybe not used at all. Thierry Caro (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Many surname items had been un merged because of failure to communicate

More here: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Many surname items had been un merged because of failure to communicate. --Ilyaroz (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey vote

The Community Wishlist Survey. Please help translate to your language.

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. The communities have now posted a long list of technical proposals. You can vote on the proposals from now until 30 November. You can read more on the wishlist survey page.

/User:Johan (WMF)

18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Only one Wikidata-related proposal could end in the top 10: Automatically add inverse properties but only if you support it! — Ayack (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
But that's not a good proposal - I've added some notes on why at the bottom. Much better would be for everybody to support m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Wikidata/Partial and multi-item protection for Wikidata items, that would be a huge help in counter-vandalism here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Automatically adding inverse statements is tempting but it comes with many pitfalls. For a current example, see this discussion on P1830. --Pasleim (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How to easily detect error in labels?

Hi,

Right now I'm correcting errors in labels with the Query Service (with regex on French labels, for instance "Etats-Unis" instead of "États-Unis", "chapelle situé" instead of "chapelle située" or just labels ending with a point). This tool is not well adapted to query all labels in Wikidata, I have to add filters to avoid the tool to timeout (only things located in a certain country for instance), and still it can be quite slow.

Is there an other way (more efficient) to spot these errors?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean errors or spelling you prefer? --- Jura 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Look at my 3 examples, this is clearly errors that I correct (and no matter what tool I use). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
WQS is not optimized to query labels. As alternative you could use quarry. This is an example with all French labels ending with a dot. --Pasleim (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

What's occurring with WDQS?

There's an odd WDQS pattern going on at the moment ... ~6.8M new triples added in the last 4 hours; previous 16 hours saw 3.1M - a more normal slope - so 9x rate. Concomitant increase in replag. Nothing special showing on edit stats; another day of ~700k edits. What's occurring? Grafana tweet --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Turns out to be our #WikiCite friends, out on a spree - https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Citationgraph_bot&offset=20181130001050&target=Citationgraph+bot
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Showing all reference

Hello. Is there a reason why I see the references of some statements analytically? Not for all statements of an item. Xaris333 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you are more specific about your issue. What do you observe on what items? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

For example, Latsia (Q2430447). population (P1082) for 1992, the reference is showing to me expanded. For 1960 I can only see "1 reference" and if I click on it I will se the expanded reference. Xaris333 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References are displayed unfolded when there is a constraint violation within the reference. This does not happen when the reference is okay (i.e. does not contain a constraint violation). —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That make sense. So, I will always see unfolded references because of that Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/11#single-value constraint with title property (many of the items I am contributing have that constraint violation). That make my work here more difficult... Xaris333 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

St. Margaret's Chapel, Edinburgh

Hi, there seems to be something wrong with the coordinates of St Margaret's (Q2061784) (St. Margaret's Chapel, Edinburgh). Anyway, they cause problems in the corresponding category at Commons. Hopefully someone knows how to fix this! — bertux 16:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There were two sets of coordinates. I replaced both of them with the coordinates for the marker in Google maps. See if this works better now. - PKM (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It's fine now. Thanks! — bertux 21:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey

The Community Wishlist Survey is already set to have zero Wikidata-related proposals in the top 10 (i.e. no evaluation by Community Tech), for the fourth year in a row, even though Wikidata clearly has more than enough active editors to get a proposal into the top 10.

Given that this is the case, would it be appropriate to set up a local process to identify one or two proposals that would be appropriate for Community Tech to pursue? Determining a proposal by consensus seems to have worked exceedingly well for the English Wikipedia's New Page Review project; the NPR proposal has already attained 88 support votes, in no small part due to it being advertised in the NPR newsletter. (There are 650 NPR members; Wikidata has about 1800 editors who make more than 100 edits per month.) Jc86035 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know why they bother advertising these surveys. No proposal from Wikidata, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, or anything that isn't Wikipedia or Commons is going to get the slightest bit of attention. The one time I tried putting in some information, I found that the proposal went through several rounds of editing, by which time the proposal had vanished into the aether. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't all WMF development ultimately here for the community and the users of the websites?
If it's a good idea with a substantive impact, I think eventually it will get implemented. As Wikidata is still being fully developed, it enjoys quite a lot of development directly from a dedicated team. --- Jura 14:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Realistically, WMF development is for the WMF. There is some effort (even if it doesn't add up to much) toward getting feedback from the community, which likely ought to be encouraged since it's better than nothing; but the WMF has its own WMF-centric notions of what it ought to be doing. It's not malicious on anyone's part —at least, I don't think so, and certainly hope not— but WMF corporate culture has evolved a labyrinth of mutually supporting beliefs and practices to prevent disruption of the Foundation mindset. The system filters out proposals that are wanted by the community and would further the community's intent, if they don't happen to match the WMF's intent. The best bet for getting ideas through is to make them appealing to Wikipedia (and not obviously contrary to the direction the WMF wants Wikipedia to go). --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the proposal on inverse properties did seem likely to get into the top 10, although the massive warning sign added by ArthurPSmith seems to have deterred a few people (the proposal is now #13). I think it would have been fine to let Community Tech decide how to fix the problem if it got into the top 10 rather than to oppose the proposal on purely procedural grounds, given that there is seemingly a lot of support for fixing the issue in some way (and the Phabricator ticket linked in the discussion section would probably have been fine). Jc86035 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Querying Wikidata compared with DBpedia

Hello! I'm just wondering if we query Wikidata and limit the query to items that have articles on, for example, the English Wikipedia, wouldn't that be similar to querying an updated DBpedia data dump? I am asking this based on my understanding of how both work.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reem Al-Kashif: There is definitely some overlap, but they are curated very differently. Dbpedia as I understand it pulls data from wikipedia infoboxes (and other templates like categories?). Wikidata pulls data from many different sources, and also has thousands of editors making direct edits. Some wikidata information comes via bots that pull data from infoboxes, but definitely a different subset from what dbpedia tackles. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: thank you for your reply. That's exactly what I know about DBpedia and Wikidata as well. That's why I was thinking if a query is set to yield results for items that are already linked to Wikipedia articles it would be similar to running the same query on DBpedia. Not like 100% the same, but very close. It would even be better because the Wikidata query would be looking into the current articles rather than old data dumps like DBpedia. I also understand that DBpedia draws from Wikidata as well. This kinda of makes me feel like both are starting to seep into each other. It is something to think of :)--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Reem Al-Kashif:, DBpedia is also extracting and mapping Wikidata. There will be a new service in January/February, which combines Wikidata and infoboxes from all 120 language versions in one database. The individual parts can still be downloaded and are updated on a monthly basis. Documentation is created here: http://dev.dbpedia.org but it will still take a month or two until this is stable SebastianHellmann (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Reem Al-Kashif: Wikidata Query service also offers distributed queries, making it possible to query Wikidata and DBpedia at the same time. From the Wikidata Query Examples page: https://query.wikidata.org/#PREFIX%20vrank%3A%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Fvoc%2Fvrank%23%3E%0A%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Funi%20%3FuniLabel%20%3Fpr%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Funi%20wdt%3AP31%2Fwdt%3AP279%2a%20wd%3AQ3918.%0A%20%20SERVICE%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fsparql%3E%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%3Funi%20vrank%3AhasRank%2Fvrank%3ArankValue%20%3Fpr%0A%20%20%7D%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%0A%20%20%7D%0A%7D%20ORDER%20BY%20DESC%28%3Fpr%29%20LIMIT%2050 @SebastianHellmann: Interesting to hear as well that there will be more integration from the DBpedia side towards Wikidata! --Frimelle (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reem Al-Kashif:, @Frimelle:, @ArthurPSmith: We just submitted a proposal here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/DBpedia/GlobalFactSyncRE Feedback welcome, endorsements as well.

"prevents"?

Anti-halation backing (Q4774373) is used to prevent halation (Q1823441). I've used has use (P366) for that, but it's pretty much the opposite of what would make sense. Is there anything more appropriate? Something similar to medical condition treated (P2175), maybe? There are other examples that could use something like this, such as anti-corrosion treatment (Q13405532) prevents rust (Q184197), oral hygiene (Q13445028) prevents dental plaque (Q143504), condom (Q14076) prevents sexually transmitted infection (Q12198) and human pregnancy (Q11995). Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There already is may prevent disease (P4954), but that seems to be for diseases only … --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to broaden the property. Do you have a suggestion of how the description should read? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe something like "condition or event which may be prevented by the subject"? However, If we're going to use it for things that have been developed/constructed with the particular intention of preventing something, the "may" sounds a bit like an unintended side-effect (which may or may not make sense in the medical realm). Maybe go for "is supposed to" instead: a levee (Q105190) is supposed to prevent flood (Q8068). A goalkeeper (Q172964) is supposed to prevent goal (Q18530). pasteurization (Q58148) is supposed to prevent food spoilage (Q5465528). --El Grafo (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The propsoal was accepted without anybody being able to tell me what "may prevent" was supposed to I think there's sentiment that certain moleculs prevent certain illnesses whether or not someone intends them to do so. The property isn't used much but removing some of the existing meaning is normally nothing we do with properties. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
So better create a new property "is supposed to prevent" then? Sorry, I'm new to this … --El Grafo (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

derivative work (P4969) on Softwareitems

Simon Villeneuve just added huge amount of usages of derivative work (P4969) like this to software-items. They sometimes are the opposite of fork, sometimes as opposite of dependency, sometimes others. I think this batch should be reverted, since it's the wrong property and in many cases we don't want these connections at all. (We don't was to say X is a dependency of Y but say that Y depends on X). -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also be cautious about adding these reverse relations, mostly for logistical reasons (there are loads of web services based on a given web framework and we don't want to list them all on the item for the web framework) − Pintoch (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Others contributors have started a similar discussion on my user talk page.
First of all, I'll expose to you what I have done. After, I'll expose what problems I think we have.
I used this SPARQL query to connect many properties linked by inverse property (P1696) : 
SELECT DISTINCT ?PROPERTY ?item WHERE
{
  ?item wdt:PROPERTY ?PROPERTY
  MINUS {?PROPERTY wdt:INVERSEPROPERTY ?INVERSEPROPERTY}
}
Try it!

For now, I have linked items listed by that query for the properties father (P22), mother (P25), spouse (P26), capital (P36), child (P40), owned by (P127), based on (P144), doctoral advisor (P184), doctoral student (P185), unmarried partner (P451), student (P802), student of (P1066), capital of (P1376), owner of (P1830), sibling (P3373) and derivative work (P4969) (maybe I forget something).
I think that there is 2 kinds of problems here :
1- There's a lot of misused properties and my editions put them in light. I see and correct a lot of them, but I miss many too. When someone point me that kind of problem, I clean the related items (some from me and many from others by the same way) and ad some constraints on some properties to avoid them in the future. I think that this respect the wiki way, but I'm open to reconsider this if you think it is not.
2- Some properties like P1830 and P4969 can become heavy for some elements. For example, this show that a dozen of items can have more than 1,000 entries for P1830. I wasn't sure that this was ok, but when in the past I have discussed about the question of a maximum number of statements for a property/element, a more experienced contributor told me that this is not an issue. I have kept this in mind when I have begun the import and I still believe that the number of statements must not be an issue. Some people (here and on my talk page) think the opposite. If the community think that we must limit the number of statements of these properties, it must be precised on them (or they must be suppressed), but for now, they are symetrics to P127 and to P144.
In any way, I'll wait and see the result of the discussion here before restart to import items in these 2 properties . --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw a few incorrect additions of derivative work (P4969) to chemistry-related items and my first thought was to write on your talk page, but I saw that it was added with inferred from (P3452), so I just deleted the wrong statements from both items in each pair. However, it would be good to exclude additions that are violating constraints (or prepare a list of such additions), because every statement I deleted after your addition in chemistry-related items had some issue with the constraints, so maybe incorrect additions could have been prevented that way. Wostr (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Here's a query who can help to find these constraints violators, but it time out, even if you slice by part the "MINUS" part : 
SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {?item wdt:P4969 ?derivative MINUS {{?derivative wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q386724 .} UNION {?derivative wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q4886 .} UNION {?derivative wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q43099500 .}} SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . } }
Try it!
--Simon Villeneuve (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Help needed on issues about Brazilian administrative territorial entity items

There is definitly something wrong about some administrative territorial entity items. However, I know far too little about Brazil to fix that. The following entities have first been merged, later been repopulated due to merge conflicts caused by other Wikimedia projects and recently been labeld/commented with "DELETE" and "use Q123...456". The question is, if these items should be instance of Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) or are different from the item they have been merged earlier. Affected items:

--jmkeil (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For such things in Sinophone areas I generally just (on svwiki) redirect to the right title, and so can be simply merged. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
But since it will never be corrected in Brazil I again propose to temporary remove Phase I support on cebwiki and svwiki, this should be a good sanction to both wikis, as they're populating junk "datas" here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't looked at all of them, but the municipalities for the first three all appear to contain multiple settlements, so I don't think the main settlements can be considered duplicates of the municipalities. - Nikki (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nikki: Do you have any sources to help you to claim that they're existing? If not, then these articles should be deleted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The main settlements in the municipalities clearly exist, they're on every map I've looked at. It would be unusual to have a municipality without a corresponding settlement in it. The question here is whether there is a reason to keep them separate (e.g. the presence of other settlements in the same municipality) or whether we can (eventually) merge the settlement with its municipality. Either way, the items should not be deleted. - Nikki (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. I am confused here. Are these items supposed to be the actual Brazilian city --Teodoro Sampaio (Q1760393) gives me an identifier associated to a city-- or a settlement (district? neighborhood?) in a Brazilian city --which I believe is what Nikki is claiming? I am happy to provide specific assistance, as I am Brazilian. --Joalpe (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Jmkeil, Liuxinyu970226, Nikki, Joalpe:, allow me to address this problem since I've been strangling myself with it for quite some time now.
It occurred at a time in ceb and sv wikis the creation of articles by bots on municipalities and cities in Brazil. I do not know what territorial organization is outside Brazil, but here, in theory, the "city" is within the "municipality", it is the "seat" of the municipality. In practice (and on ptwiki), there is no distinction between one and the other and all articles use references about the municipality, since this is the smallest official administrative unit in the country.
Now, although I strongly question the need for separation, the validity seems to me unquestionable, the article in ceb and sv wikis about the city and the municipality are distinct by definition, so the items of both are valid on Wikidata.
The problem resulting from this rests on the fact that at the time of the creation of these articles, there was no curation whatsoever over which article linked to what, resulting in aberrations such:
Guaratinga (Q22042268) about the city of Guaratinga
Guaratinga (Q22063084) on the municipality of Guaratinga
Neither of them calling the correct item Guaratinga (Q1798829). So, for me Guaratinga (Q22042268) it's ok to exist, but Guaratinga (Q22063084) it is a duplicate of Guaratinga (Q1798829) and should be deleted, following the proper way.
My approach in relation to this was to guarantee the consistency of the items on the Brazilian municipalities, using as a control the presence already consolidated in ptwiki, and abandon completely the others, since ceb and sv wikis are made deaf and do not seem interested in performing a curation of these items. This consistency that I sought to ensure, on account of these aspects, does not at any time take into account the interwikis for ceb and sv wikis. Ederporto (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jmkeil, Joalpe, Ederporto: I've tried to nominate cebwiki articles for speedy deletion, but here is what I've got from cebwiki locally: ceb:Hisgot sa Gumagamit:Liuxinyu970226#Brazilian towns. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
When I say "settlement", I mean an area which has a cluster of people living there. I'm avoiding the word "city" because that could mean the settlement or the municipality (city status is typically given to municipalities). When you find duplicate items for the municipalities, you can merge them (see Help:Merge). - Nikki (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ederporto: As far as I can tell the distinction on ceb for lungsodand munisipyo is unclear, at least for Guaratinga. Check w:ceb:Guaratinga (lungsod) and w:ceb:Guaratinga (munisipyo). Both entries provide an altitude, a number of inhabitants, temperatures, and so on. According to our standards in Brazil, the only acceptable entry would be the one on munisipyo [13], which is basically what we have from the government. There is absolutely no reference of a second Guaratinga on the Brazilian Census that would have had a population of 9,519 in 2012. The only option --which does not appear on the Wikidata items and on the article on ceb-- is that lungsod would be a subdivision of a munisipyo, which is not the way it looks right now. Having said this: the ceb community is apparently inputing wrong data on Brazil on Wikipedia in massive scale (they have created thousands of entries on unclear lungsods), which are now being fed to Wikidata. I am not a member of the ceb community, so it might be useful for someone to alert them there; as to what we are concerned with, all entries on lungsod, as far as I could tell, should be deleted on Wikidata. These lungsods simply do not exist in Brazil, and all these items fail to pass our notability criteria, particularly 2 and 3, as respectively they cannot "be described using serious and publicly available references" and there is no "structural need" for them. How should we go about it? --Joalpe (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The altitude and temperatures should be the same because they are both in the same geographical area (the "munisipyo" includes the "lungsod"). The "munisipyo" pages are about the official administrative divisions with defined borders (e.g. this relation in OSM), the "lungsod" pages are about the clusters of houses where people live (e.g. this node in OSM). Most of the time, Wikipedias cover both the "munisipyo" and the "lungsod" in the same article, because it's a subtle distinction that isn't very important for a Wikipedia article. It's not wrong to describe them separately though. For the Guaratinga "munisipyo", as well as the Guaratinga "lungsod", OSM lists 9 other places within the border of the "munisipyo", e.g. Pinheiro and Buranhém. Most of them list Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Q268072) as a source. I don't speak Portuguese well enough to find the original dataset, but perhaps someone who does can find it and work out whether there are IDs we could add. - Nikki (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
(Note that the Cebuano Wikipedia articles come from GeoNames, not OSM. I'm linking to OSM here because it has no connection to GeoNames or Wikipedia and would not knowingly import locations from either of them.) - Nikki (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
As Joalpe said, there are many other items which are located in the administrative area of a municipality. This is a query to get them: https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fmunicipality%20%3FmunicipalityLabel%20%3Flocation%20%3FlocationLabel%20%3Fwiki%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Fmunicipality%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ3184121%20.%0A%20%20%3Flocation%20wdt%3AP131%20%3Fmunicipality%20%3B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ3257686%20%3B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%5Eschema%3Aabout%20%3Fwiki%20.%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%7D . Most of them have the same label as the belonging municipality and most of them have only a sv and ceb wiki link.--jmkeil (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Time precision better than one day?

I just set up exit day (Q59189602) for Brexit and tried to indicate that it "means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m." UK time but did not see a way to increase the precision beyond a day. Any suggestions? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There's currently no way to add a higher precision. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen, ChristianKl: For the moment, you can add higher precision but only with some external tools, not with the interface. For instance, +2019-03-29T11:00:00Z/13 with QuickStatements. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON, ChristianKl: I tried QuickStatements, but while it works fine for precision 11, it does not trigger an edit when the precision is set to 12 or 13 in an otherwise identical command. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: ooups, my bad, I thought I've seen it done with QuickStatements V2 and it's written in the documentation Help:QuickStatements, but indeed there is a tooltip saying « Out of range, must be no higher than 11 ». @Maxlath: could wikidata-cli deal with precision higher than 11? Otherwise, the last resort is to directly use Wikidata API… Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON:It could, but unfortunately, the Wikidata API seems to reject precisions higher than 11: Malformed input: +1802-02-04T11:00:00Z -- Maxlath (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl, Maxlath, VIGNERON, Daniel Mietchen: Please vote for change at Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019. Snipre (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the place to start is the data models. The most abstract one is mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel; this is too abstract to code with. The two practical data models, depending are mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel/JSON and mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/Indexing/RDF Dump Format. These twoJSON practical data models forbids precision better than day, and also forbids setting the time zone to other than Universal Time. Experience suggests both bot writers and human editors will not deal successfully with time zones. In addition, most dates in Wikidata are false if the data models are to be believed. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: that strange the 3 links you gave does mention the ISO 8601 (which allows precision to the second, in UTC), same for many page like Special:ListDatatypes, so why is it forbid? Anyway and anyhow, at least the documentation should be fixed. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel and Special:ListDatatypes are both summaries and neither is suitable to write code to, and are dangerous to use if interpreting anything but the most commonplace dates.
The JSON data model states the format resembles ISO 8601, but the details of the data model contradict ISO 8601 in many respects. The JSON data model also states "Hour, minute, and second are currently unused and should always be 00."
The RDF data model mentions "ISO" but never mentions 8601. The system that creates this format attempts to convert to XSD 1.1 standard which is based on, but not identical to, ISO 8601. But the data model acknowledges this is not always possible and outputs a string as represented in the database when conversion is not possible. The RDF data model does not elaborate on allowed values for timePrecision or timeTimezone. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Search

Advanced Search will become a default feature on your wiki on November 28. This new interface allows you to perform specialized searches on the search page, even if you don’t know any search syntax. Advanced Search originates from the German Community’s Technical Wishes project. It's already a default feature on German, Arabic, Farsi and Hungarian Wikipedia. Besides, more than 40.000 users across all wikis have tested the beta version. Feedback is welcome on the central feedback page.

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johanna Strodt (WMDE):Are you aware where you posted this message? WikiData uses a quite different search interface as other Wiki's. What changes do you think this will create in Wikidata? JS  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianKl (talk • contribs) at 13:24, 26 November 2018‎ (UTC).
@ChristianKl: Are you aware that Advanced Search has been available as a beta feature on Wikidata for over half a year (announcement)? If you want to know what it does, you can just try it out :) but in short, just because Wikidata has entity namespaces doesn’t mean an advanced search interface isn’t useful for the non-entity namespaces (to search talk pages, project pages, help pages, etc.) —Galaktos (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Health Metrics Kit consultation

This message is also available in other languages.

The Community Health Metrics Kit is a new project to measure more aspects of our communities. If you are interested in metrics, statistics, and measurement of editing and contributing, please join us on Meta to discuss how and what the new project should measure! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Importing ISO standards and materials metadata

Hi,

I'm wondering how to ease the creation of items like ISO Standards and metadata.

Since all the metadata is available on https://www.iso.org it seems to be possible to automaticly import it.

Same for materials as most manufacturers have online datasheets.

I'm not a dev and the only programming I made so far on Wikidata was to create a modified version of a LUA module.

I could contribute to creation of such scripts but I need a template, something I can get inspiration from and modify to adapt to other sites.

Is there already something like this currently ?

Regards

--Thibdx (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

W:

Hi. Don't you sometimes have the feeling that Wikimedia templates and categories shouldn't belong to the Q: prefix area and should have their own W: one instead? When you've been raised into not confusing namespaces on Wikpedia, the difference between these templates or categories and traditional items may sometimes seem greater than the one between items and lexemes. And yet, the latter have their own L: prefix. To be honest, I don't like it either that Wikimedia-related stuff is so much mixed among other statements in the layout of item pages. category for alumni of educational institution (P3876) and the likes should be sent down the page in a new section after identifiers and closer to interwikis. Thierry Caro (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Amen! I could not agree more. Moebeus (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 Support — Ayack (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 Support Moving Wikimedia templates, categories and other Wikimedia-related stuff out of the main namespace is simply pretty good idea.--Jklamo (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Adding another namespace is pretty nontrivial - it would have the important effect that you couldn't use existing properties like P31 and P279 to interlink items in the new namespace (that's why subproperty of (P1647) is its own property rather than using P279). Are the properties that have these template and category items as values distinctive enough that they would never be used for regular items? If so then maybe it's a reasonable thing to do. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 with ArthurPSmith, it took most of the Wikidata development team and several years to create the L: namespace. Creating a new namespace is probably not the more efficient solution to this problem. For the categories, a long times ago I suggested somewhere to tweak a little bit the rule "one item, one sitelink" for "one item, one sitelink per namespace". With this new rule France (Q142) and Category:France (Q8249) could be merged. It wouldn't solve everything but it could maybe ease a little bit how we deal with categories, especially for Commons and the Category/Gallery problem. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): what do you think? is it something worth looking more into it? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
It could certainly be done but as you and others have said it'll take some work and time. I would expect it to be less of a nightmare than the Lexeme namespace. But yeah I'm not sure if the issue is severe enough and the proposed solution really solving it to say let's spend our resources on this and not on something else you want. Ahhhh so many things we need to and can do ;-) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I'm not sure what "problem" this would solve. It wouldn't solve the problem of some Wikipedias, especially de:WP where there is permanent category duplication for the same topic: one with a technical name, and one with a German language name. e.g. w:de:Kategorie:Hülsenfrüchtler & w:de:Kategorie:Fabaceae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Making a change of namespace would be a complicated endevour. It means that properties linking to the Q-namespace won't be able to link into the new namespace anymore. I would like to see an analysis that this works for the existing data that we have. If it happens it should be via an RfC. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #340

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Fix an error when entering an incomplete filename (phab:T199420)
    • Fix the unreadable references for unpriviledged users (phab:T186006)
    • Create new page properties for number of Forms and Senses of a Lexeme (phab:T199611)
    • Adapt the API to efficiently format large numbers of entity IDs (phab:T207484)
    • Switch "save" to "publish" in the Lexeme interface (phab:T203354)
    • Fix a bug showing outdated link formats in the history of Lexemes (phab:T208423)
    • Add Special:MergeLexemes to Special:SpecialPages (phab:T204397)
    • Add Wikipedia link in the other projects sidebar of Wikisource (phab:T180303, thanks to Tpt)
    • Work on displaying the language of the gloss with the language name, both in reading and editing mode (phab:T203457, phab:T209931)
    • More work on improving the interface of the termbox on mobile

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.


List of allowed properties for specific item type (Q1172284, Dataset)?

Hello,

I want to describe a few research datasets. The type I found for that is Q1172284. Is it possible to get a list of properties that are allowed for items of this type? Preferably, the list would include the english-language label of each property.

Thanks, Egbert Gramsbergen  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egbert g (talk • contribs) at 18:38, 26 November 2018‎ (UTC).

Here is an approach, using only templates and modules of Wikidata : the following result is obtained, not by querying constraint, but by checking the values of properties for this type (P1963) View with SQID for superclasses (including itself) of data set (Q1172284) (using the path subclass of*/property for this type according to Module:PropertyPath :

There is suprising results so this might indicate some suprising stuffs in the class tree …

author  TomT0m / talk page 20:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

en-gb labels on items for scientific articles

What would be the benefit of adding such labels? I noticed @Sic19: adds them to some of the millions of items we have. I assume they are always identical to "en". --- Jura 10:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

color Vs colour ? ;-) Moebeus (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The articles seem to have labels that are identical to the article titles. It is customary to give a title with the original spelling, even when the place where the article is mentioned uses a different variety of English than the publication where the article appeared, so no, color vs colour would not justify adding an en-gb label. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A voting system on top of Wikidata

Wikipedia's (and therefore Wikidata's) reliability has often be questioned (source: Wikipedia itself). This is a natural consequence of two facts: that 1/ it focuses on verifiability, not truth and 2/ anyone can collaborate on it.

What about voting mechanism on top of Wikidata, to show the general consensus or disagreements about "truthfulness" of Wikidata's entries?

Let's take an example on how this would work:

  • Treaty of Paris, Q217450, it has a `point in time`.
  • Someone adds 1 or multiple references (e.g. this Britannica online article[2]) on this statement.
  • Other people can +1/-1 (or do more fine-tuned voting) on the fact that this source reliably verifies the statement.

--amaurymartiny (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

MusicBrainz has a 7 day wait/vote period before for some edits to go live. I would support that before your idea. Because edits that don't go live immediately, tend to be less vandalish. You are suggesting the equivalent of a thumbs up/down button. And it still wouldn't solve the problem of validity, it would just be moving the question of validity to a different step in the process. There are sites out there of anti-wikipedia groups. They often organize their vandalism. They will just as easily ban together for voting. First the information is questioned, but then adding a vote to it means we have to question who is voting or what they are voting for. Are they voting because the information is correct, or correct as to the style guide regardless of factuality. Are they voting against information they dislike in an attempt to suppress it. In theory, we could get enough people to vote that Hillary Clinton won the election, but it still wouldn't be true.
  • Please note: some of the groups I mentioned are good intentioned. They are not all out to vandalize. They just want it to be reliable and think that if they vandalize Wikipedia often enough that eventually it will force the foundation to tighten its grip, thus making the information more reliable. Lazypub (talk)
Why do you chose a so unreliable system ? Truth is not the result of a vote. WD is base don a better system: references. So add references and let people select data according to the number of references or use their own selected references to retrieve data. Snipre (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
WD Is based on an excellent system, references, as you said. Truth is not the result of a vote, but consensus is. Maybe "voting" is not the best word, but I am thinking of some reputation system, like on Quora, StackExchange or Reddit. As an end-user, looking at some Wikidate entries with statements that have been backed up by multiple users, just makes WD feel more reliable. Ideally, some experts/influencers could be, upon proof, bumped up with a high initial reputation score, e.g. "Louis XIV born on 14 May 1643 (backed up by Sorbonne University, and 1014 other people)", cf Quora. Also, +1/-1 might not be enough, we could decompose a vote into precision/accuracy/objectivity of a statement. About vandalism: yes, voting is also exposed to vandalism; weighted votes might partly solve the problem. amaurymartiny (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if a weighted system is even "within the spirit" of wiki. Lazypub (talk)
True, not 100% convinced myself. Showing reputable backers first, like Quora, might be wise. Circling back to your 1st message, when you say "moving the question of validity to a different step": I only half-agree with you. "Statement1 is verified by Source1" is weaker than "Statement1 is verified by Source1, and moreover, 100 users verified this reference." Again, vandalism is possible, but maybe it should be fought differently? amaurymartiny (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
When someone says voting, I am assuming there is both the positive and the negative vote. So, it becomes "Statement1 is verified by Source1 and is verified by 100 users but questioned by 100 users". Which just makes me question who are the people that voted against it. Much like shopping on Amazon, I don't read the positive comments simply because they are just verifying what the advertising says (in this case, data). I read the negative comments to find out what is wrong with the product. As wiki editors, we don't read a perfect article and then change it. We read an article with poor information and then improve it. If a statement is correct, there is nothing to do. We only need to speak up when something is wrong. Lazypub (talk)
I agree with you. A reputation system could then serve as moderation by users (like StackOverflow). If "Statement1 is verified by Source1, questioned by 100 users", then the wiki editors will know faster to go to that statement. However, there are cases where upvotes/downvotes are useful together, e.g. the birth date of Charlemagne. The history research community might vote up/down on the 2nd or 6th April 742, depending on each researcher's study. Another example: China (Q148) today is a socialist state as per WD, without any source. This statement might get 80% ups and 20% downs. amaurymartiny (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amaurymartiny: "Truth is not the result of a vote, but consensus is" WRONG: there was a consensus that Earth was flat in the middle age and this was wrong. Wikidata is not Wikipedia, statements can be contradictory, this is not the job of WD to decide by vote or by consensus, what is correct. We just have to provide enough information about the sources to allow people to retrieve data according to their criteria. Snipre (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe we agree on the same thing. In the middle ages, consensus was that Earth was flat. Today, consensus is that Earth is round. I'm not saying WD should reflect the truth (that's impossible), I'm saying WD should reflect current consensus. Showing "Statement1 is verified by Source1" is good, but it's one person who put a reference on a statement. Showing "Statement1 is verified by Source1, backed up by 40320 people, questioned by 124" says that one person put up the source, but many other people also re-verified that Statement1 is correct -in their opinion- and the source correctly references the statement. I believe adding voting only strengthens the reference system. amaurymartiny (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sports education / Physical education in Ireland / Canada

Anyone from Ireland / Irish Wikipedia / Canada / WikiProject Sports able to help?

There's an unusual category structure on yue.wp which separates "physical education" as a subcategory of "sports", creating this category which is currently linked to nothing. If there's an equivalent category on any other Wikimedia site, it'll be very helpful to find and merge the items. Deryck Chan (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Geographic coordinates in interface

Suddenly, in the normal Wikidata web interface, I get a crappy embedded "Wikimedia map" instead of the link to the page with all the further links. The coordinates below that map are just plain text, without link. I don't want that, how can I reverse this? (Actually, I would prefer a link just to openstreetmap.org with the coordinates, so if someone know how to do _that_, I'd appreciate telling me.) --Anvilaquarius (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
This will be rolled back in a few minutes. Due do a mistake on our side, it's been turned on without proper announcement and caused some issues that we will fix.
I apologize for this inconvenience. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
O. K., no problem. It _is_ nice to have that little map, but please additionally to the links. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with adding information for Fakhuir Berwari (Q59274559)

Hi all

I'm putting together an item for Fakhuir Berwari (Q59274559), https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/kurdish/en/article/2018/05/03/man-who-disarmed-thousands-bombs-his-bare-hands

There's a few things I don't know how to model:

  • He lost his right leg in an explosion
  • He's Kurdish
  • He was in the Peshmerga
  • He survived 7 explosions
  • Hogir Hirori (a film maker) made a film about him called The Deminer

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings:. Being Kurdish can mean several things, I think? We have properties for ethnic group (P172), place of birth (P19), residence (P551), and native language (P103). Regarding Peshmerga membership, we have military branch (P241). The film would have an item of its own, pointing to the filmmaker using one of the appropriate movie properties and pointing to the subject using main subject (P921). I'm unsure of how to handle the other parts. --Yair rand (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Difficulty merging

I noticed that Unterschlagung (Q16854601) is a duplicate of embezzlement (Q157833) and all its entries (apart from the German one) are wrong, they are just "disambiguation site" in various languages. I tried to merge Q16854601 into Q157833, but that caused all of the wrong entries to appear in Q157833. I undid that erroneous merge and moved the sitelinks manually. How do I correctly delete all the data in Q16854601 and make it redirect to Q157833 without overwriting anything in Q157833? Thanks in advance. --EduardoW (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO they shouldn't be merged. de:Unterschlagung is a disambiguation page, not an article about the concept, so it doesn't belong on embezzlement (Q157833). --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I would argue against this for the following reasons: 1) The German translation (both on embezzlement (Q157833) and in general) is precisely "Unterschlagung", 2) (in my opinion) the disambiguation page on de:Unterschlagung is misplaced - the article de:Unterschlagung_(Deutschland) (which right now covers the legal status in Germany) should be put in its stead and cover the other cases, and 3) the English article en:Embezzlement also mostly covers the legal status in the US and mentions England and Wales as a sidenote.
The German article uses the "Begriffsklärung" template and is thus clearly a "disambiguation site". To the extend that you consider dewiki to do something wrong here that's a dewiki issue instead of a Wikidata issue. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Item deletion request

I request for deletion of item Q59288504, which I have wrongly created. --2001:B07:6442:8903:1999:2D19:FE4F:1AB7 17:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Award Received: what qualifier to use for Citation?

Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) JakobVoss (talk) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Nikola Tulechki (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) Tris T7 TT me Wolfgang Fahl (talk) Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 99of9 hfordsa Mathieu Kappler Zblace (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Lectrician1 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Events

Daniel Mietchen
Ainali
DarTar
PKM
Marchitelli
Lawsonstu
Nasir Khan Saikat
HLHJ
Pintoch
Sic19
Jsamwrites
Ptolusque
Netha
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Megs
D.C.flyer
Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Mazuritz (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Wallacegromit1 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Matlin (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So9q (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Vis M (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Zblace (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
spida-tarbell (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Maxime
Metacladistics (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Open Access

DarTar (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Maxlath (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Jumtist (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC) JakobVoss (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) PKM (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Epìdosis 11:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Tris T7 TT me Kpjas (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Wikipedia Sources

What qualifier to use for award received (P166) to express the award citation, eg "for his fundamental chemical and biological research on pheromones and their practical use in insect control"?

This query lists all String and Monoligual text props: 

select ?x ?xLabel ?xDescription ?kind {
  values ?kind {wikibase:String wikibase:Monolingualtext}
  ?x wikibase:propertyType ?kind.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} order by ?xLabel
Try it!

I went through the list and picked a few possible candidates, listed in decreasing preference:

None is perfect, but for the time being we'll use object named as (P1932).

I'm surprised there's no generic "comment" property. I think whoever deprecated comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) and "replaced" it with syntax clarification (P2916) was thinking too narrowly.

Or do we need a new property?

--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Q1206012

German Reich (Q1206012) uses three conflicting dates for the end: 1943 and 1945 and 1949 and the English Wikipedia says to use 1918 in which the German Empire becomes the Weimar Republic ... anyone in Germany want to correct it? RAN (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): you seems to confusing different levels, the German Empire and the Weimar Republic are the Reich, see Q1206012#P527. So 1918 is clearly wrong for end of the Reich. For 1943, 1945 or 1949, it's a it complicated and it depends how one see things. The Deutsches Reich ended in 1943, the Großdeutsches Reich / Third Reich ended in 1945 but was occupied until 1949 (and not formally replaced until then). I think 1945 is probably the best date, but it leaves a gap before the creation of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia article suggests that the German Supreme court ruled that it didn't end in 1945 and as such 1949 seems to be the best date for me. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Alias on 2nd item

How do I...

Someone has a wikidata page under one name. They have an alias listed. They were part of an item using the alias name. They are listed on the second item (has part) under their wikidata title.

Can I change/add the data to say they performed (has part) under the alias name? I thought it was 'stated as', but it gave me an error.

as example - John Jones, also known as Tom Smith, played in the band Not-The-Beatles under the name Tom Smith. The Not-The-Beatles item has him listed as John Jones. How do I note that he was known as Tom Smith while in the band? Lazypub (talk)

@Lazypub: Add a qualifier, using object named as (P1932). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
i did that. It says - "allowed qualifiers constraint. stated as is not a valid qualifier for has part – the only valid qualifiers are:"Lazypub (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I changed it to Named As P1810. That seemed to work. Lazypub (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2018/11&oldid=1102553340"