Open main menu

User talk:ArthurPSmith

See User talk:ArthurPSmith/Archive for older discussions.

Contents

P159 and GRID importsEdit

Hi, any progress on setting P159 during your GRID imports? I think it is technically possible to extract this data from GRID items and it is a pity not to do it. I think that even simple OpenRefine reconciliation may produce data for P159 with 90% accuracy. I think is easier to fix errors (it is possible to track errors using queries to compare P625 from GRID with P625 of P159 item), than doing two separate imports. If there is a technical problem, we can simply ask community for help.--Jklamo (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jklamo: User:Pintoch has been working on this - see Wikidata talk:WikiProject Universities/External databases. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: OpenRefine reconciliation via GeoNames id works very well in my experience (without the GeoNames ids, there are quite a lot of ambiguous cases actually, even when refining by country…) I used to do these edits from this account but I realized that it was not appreciated to flood the recent changes and watchlists. So I have applied for a bot flag on User:PintochBot and will do the edits as soon as I get it. − Pintoch (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Great, nice to hear that. If there is anything I can help with, just let me know.--Jklamo (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: the import is running. Not all the locations from GRID are imported - there are still a few thousand locations that I have not reconciled to Wikidata. Unfortunately reconciliation via Geonames is spoiled by cebwiki items so I am not entirely happy with this batch, but most of the edits look good as far as I can tell. − Pintoch (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Great, already noticed! Most of the edits looks very well, I also appreciate the parent/subsidiary imports. Just one thing, for organizations (universities, ministries, etc.) P159 is more appropriate than P131.--Jklamo (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jklamo: Yes, unfortunately the types in GRID are quite uninformative so it is hard to get this right. And it is also subject to interpretation to some extent… (What about hospitals? Research labs/groups/institutes?) I just used Arthur's heuristics from Wikidata talk:WikiProject Universities/External databases but I really do not mind if someone migrates some P131 to P159 (personally I always use both in my queries because I find the distinction unreliable). − Pintoch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Any plans to run P159 import again after recent GRID import (noticed 700+ new constraint violations).--Jklamo (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jklamo: yes, I have been waiting for UK Provider Reference Number (P4971) to be created (which I have just done), so that I can import that in the same go. It should happen in the next few days. So, if I just add the headquarters location (P159) claims, a bot should migrate the coordinates in these claims, right? Is it better if I add the coordinates as qualifiers directly, or if I leave the bot add them? − Pintoch (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Yes, bot is migrating coordinates to the P159, but it is better to add the coordinates as qualifiers directly, to avoid constraint violations (and avoid spoiling property usage statistic, which are the basis for property suggesting tools like Recoin).--Jklamo (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

OlaEdit

Olá amigo estou tentando construir uma entidade chamada a Israel Lucas Góis ele é um investidor muito conhecido aqui no Brasil o grande problema é que toda vez que cria uma entidade um administrador chamado Pasleim, excluir a página acabei brigando com ele e ele está me perseguindo não deixando o efetuar nada, Você poderia por favor me ajudar a criar essa entidade GRUPO CALIMA DIESEL (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I was going to recommend you start with a ptwiki page rather than an item in wikidata, but it looks like that's been done - Q45803705. Let me know if there's still a problem here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Religions, metaclasses and instancesEdit

Hi, you recently reverted one of my edit on Taoism (Q9598) (diff: [1]), but I'm not sure to fully agree. We're trying to sort out religions within the Project Religions and the (current (weak)) consensus is to use subclass of (P279), for the reasons explained on the Ontology. Could you please read the explanations and discuss your point of view, if you feel the ontology is wrong? — nojhan () 10:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, nice! I wasn't aware of that - I've just been trying to clean up cases where we had both A P31 B and A P279 B, and trying to delete the one that seemed to be less common. But I'll fix this and look at some other cases too, I think you have the right approach there. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the kind revert! — nojhan () 09:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata External ID redirector for EU VAT numberEdit

Hi Arthur,

Is it possible to add EU VAT number (P3608) on your service?

The URL is like this: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/vatResponse.html?memberStateCode=$1&number=$2

$1 is for the country code (first two letters) and $2 is for the digits.

For example: BE0466745984 → $1: BE, $2: 0466745984 → http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/vatResponse.html?memberStateCode=BE&number=0466745984

Thank you in advance. Tubezlob (🙋) 18:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tubezlob: yes that looks doable - I'll take a look, probably next week (new year). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course, thank you! Tubezlob (🙋) 09:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tubezlob: Ok this is done, and I've updated P3608 with the new URL. You may have to edit or append "?action=purge" to pages to see the new formatter URL in action. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
OK thank you very much and happy new year! Tubezlob (🙋) 19:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Textiles and fibersEdit

I've just started trying to clean up fibers and the textiles made from them. They are very messy right now. I am using Getty AAT as a source for class hierarchy and Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles (Q28888841) as a general reference. So far I've done "wool" and its subclasses. I'd really like your opinion on classes and instances - I always struggle with when "substances" can be instances.

Many editors seem to feel that materials like named fabrics ("tartan", "naugahyde", etc.) are <instance of> textile (Q28823). Does this seem right to you, or should <instance of> textile (Q28823) be reserved for individual tapestries, fabric samples, and other unique objects?

In the same vein, I am trying to decide whether a fiber can be an <instance of>. So far I have a class hierarchy like this:

  • fiber > natural fiber > animal fiber > wool > merino (based on AAT with a few logical additions).

I also have:

  • fiber > textile fiber > wool > merino

textile fibre (Q3071311) isn't in AAT, but it's widely used in the industry and appears in many Wikipedias. My question is, does it make sense to say wool, mohair, merino, etc. are all <instances of> "textile fiber" rather than subclassses? I can make a case either way.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this! Thanks and best wishes for the new year. - PKM (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@PKM: Thanks for asking! So as a general rule, P279 (subclass) is the preferred relation between a narrower and broader term when they are both abstract concepts that refer to the same general "type" of thing. If you interpose a P31 (instance) relation in the middle of an abstract sequence of that sort, then the concepts on one side of the P31 are implicitly of a different "type" than the ones on the other side; we sometimes call the broader concepts there "metaclasses", as their instances are themselves classes. It is arguably ok to do this in many cases like this one, but one needs to pick a reasonable boundary between classes and metaclasses that all could agree on. If "fiber" (or "textile fiber") can not reasonably be thought of as a metaclass, that is its instances should be individual fibers rather than classes of fibers, then you should just use subclass across the whole range of relations here. On the other hand if it seems the concept is being used in wikidata consistently in a metaclass fashion then you could make that more explicit by relabeling "fiber" as "type of fiber" or "class of fiber" etc. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that excellent explanation. I think I am beginning to understand metaclasses now (the concept always confused me before, since it seems like most higher-order classes in Wikidata could be described as metaclasses). I'm still learning this stuff!
A couple of questions: If I decide that "textile fiber" should be a metaclass "class of fibers used in making yarn, fabric, or other textiles", can a class and its subclass both be instances of the metaclass? That is, can "wool" be <instance of> textile fiber and "merino" be both <subclass of> wool and <instance of> textile fiber, or is that bad ontology? And also, can a metaclass be a subclass of something that isn't a metaclass? - PKM (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
It does sometimes tax the brain to sort these things out clearly! In your example, yes I think that's fine for both "wool" and "merino" (subclass of wool) to be an instance of "textile fiber". In general a metaclass should be a subclass of another metaclass, although it could be a subclass of a variable-order metaclass or something more complicated as sometimes those things are needed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again! Much to ponder here. - PKM (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: after working with fibers and textiles for a few weeks, I decided to make "textile fiber" a metaclass. Thanks for your guidance. - PKM (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

ptableEdit

Hi Arthur, I plan to push some commits for ptable. Before that, I have some question. I clone the repo and try to test the tool in local. However I do not how to it because I opened index.html or nuclides.html and the page that appears contains a lot of un-interpreted code. What is the rpocedure to have a working ptable in local? Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's python - as I recall you have to run python app.py - it starts a local flask server with a particular port number you can point to and see. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pamputt: to make sure you see this! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It works! Now I just have to work  . Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I submitted a simple patch but it is not yet applied. Could you explain me what are the steps before the patch is in use? This is a really simple patch and I plan to add other feature (dislay other nuclear data in the tooltip box, (un)zoom using scroll button, ...) but I want to know all the processes before doing a big job. Pamputt (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Ricordisamoa (talkcontribslogs) could also reply to these questions. Pamputt (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pamputt: sorry I've only had a couple of days back at my office where I can work on this (due to travel and weather etc). I'll try to take a look tomorrow! I think @Ricordisamoa: has to do the actual installation and restart etc (at least I haven't done this for this app before). ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pamputt: Thank you for the patch, I have merged it and look forward to the bigger ones! (You can use Phabricator to draft proposals.) And yes, the development+deployment process should really be documented (part of phab:T99847) --Ricordisamoa 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ricordisamoa: thanks for the merge. For the coming patch, they are not yet ready. I cannot promise to push them soon because I have other stuff to do before. Anyway, I hope I will be able to push my commits before June. I will ping you at that time. Pamputt (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pamputt: Please take your time   --Ricordisamoa 10:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards and classification, what is an award ?Edit

Taking about https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5204895&oldid=prev&diff=628083726 . I try for a while to root our « class or not » principle in a well founded manner and powerful principle. This means, for example, using the type/token distinction to identify « tokens » that are classified into (first order) « classes ». Did you read the wikipedia article on it, or User:TomT0m/Classification ?. This leads to consistency with other ontologies and predictability - several people starting from the same principles are likely to reach the same conclusion without talking to each other. Also it adds consistency in the way we treat awards themselves, so it makes querying easier.

I think the tokens at sake here, are the moment where someone (or a whole group or team) is awarded. This is what we should classify, I think, in the first place - let’s call them « awardment ». That makes any award a class of awardment, as usually there is several awardments of that type. Awardments can be classified further, such as « 2018 Nobel Price », a subclass of « Nobel price », or « Peace Nobel price », also a subclass of Nobel Price. This model works as well for a price delivered once, it’s just a class of award with a single awardment.

If there is needs that are not captured by this model, we can add a classification level and add class of classes of awards, like « recurring award » - an award class which the awardees are chosen recurringly at a timely manner, for example.

I think this model has a lot of qualities. What do you think ? What’s the principle that guides you into deciding what is a class or not ?author  TomT0m / talk page 08:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

An "award" or "prize" to me is inherently a recurring thing that can be given to multiple people either simultaneously or over time. There are a very small number like Orteig Prize (Q1930819) that are one-time only, but I don't think that negates the general rule here. The receipt of a particular award by a particular person at a particular point in time is an event - I don't know if there's an English word for it; let's call it "awardment" as you suggest. So such an event would be an instance of "awardment". The actual award or prize that is given is (generally) a recurring thing, and is a member of the class of "awards" just as the awardee is the member of the class of humans. It may be a member of a subclass of "awards" also. The Nobel prizes are given in different categories, so Nobel prize as a whole is a class of awards, but the individual categories (Nobel prize in medicine, for instance) is an *instance* of Nobel prize (which subclass award). These distinctions seem pretty clear to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: «  is a member of the class of "awards" just as the awardee is the member of the class of humans. It may be a member of a subclass of "awards" also » This seems to indicate a problem in how you see thing. It’s not possible in general to be both a subclass and an instance of the same class.
« The actual award or prize that is given is (generally) a recurring thing » You have a thing that is given several times ? that would mean the last to get it transfer it to the new one … This means imho that each award is unique. What is recurring is the awardment, as an event who can recur …
Other problem : what would be a superclass of « award » in your model ? Is this an event, as the awardment, the trophy or the money that is given in awardment, an organisation as the Nobel committee ? If it’s an event, then it is easy to assimilate award and awardment, and the reason that there is no word for awardemnt in english is that … there is : it’s award https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/award
In my model, there is no exception at all to the rule, it has none of the problem I exposed above. It’s clear and systematic, and do not need parasit concept. It’s also consistent with common definition in english. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m: What exactly is your model? P31 is never used at all for awards? You misinterpret what I said above when you claim I was saying an award is "both a subclass and an instance of the same class", that's not what I was saying at all. A specific award is a member (P31) of the class "award", or possibly a member (P31) of a subclass (like "Nobel Prize"). Note that medals such as "Purple Heart" are (in wikidata now) considered an instance of "medal" which is a subclass of "award". This makes perfect sense to me. An award is like a work, it has (generally) many manifestations in the form of individual objects obtained by individual people at particular points in time. We document these individual "awardments" with award received (P166), there's no need generally to recognize them with their own wikidata items. As to superclass, probably artificial entity (Q16686448) would be better than object (Q488383), but both are rather generic/abstract anyway. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(I was writing a lenghty answer but I’ll leave it for later, a remark first) The enwiki says : « An award is something given to a person, a group of people, like a sports team, or an organization in recognition of their excellence in a certain field. ». I think our model should not invent its own definition and follow the basic definitions. It follows from that definition that the « Peace Nobel price 2017 » is an instance of « award » : the « Peace Nobel price 2017 » is something that is given to a person, a group of people, like a sports team, or an organization in recognition of their excellence in a certain field. Any example of Nobel prize, like « Peace Nobel price 2017 », is also an award on that definition. It follows that « Nobel prize » is a subclass of « award ». It’s as simple as this. The same for « medals ». Medals are just specific kind of awards, so
< medal > subclass of (P279)   < award >
. That’s it. It’s hard to be less precise and conceptually economic and consistent with external definitions, we should not invent our own square wheel when it’s not needed. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I'm inventing my own definition here, it's common sense and to my mind fully agrees with what you quote from enwiki. However, you seem to be making a distinction between "Nobel Peace Prize 2017" (which would be P31 "award" in your model?) and "Nobel Peace Prize" (which would be "P279" "award" in your model?). Do you think we should have a wikidata item for "Nobel Peace Prize 2017" (and every other year)? I don't think that's tenable - especially when you look at other cases like medals (for which a given medal may have hundreds of thousands of "awardment" events). The important thing here, just as with works, is to describe the (yes, abstract) award with its criteria, its selection committee, the monetary or concrete object associated with the award, the frequency of recurrence, etc. Every "award" has such well-defined attributes which make it distinct from every other "award", and that's why it's an instance (P31) of "award", in my view (which I think is just expressing common sense on this). This is the same approach we take with books, music, and other created entities. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This would be entailing we have to sacrifice some kind of rigor to represent stuffs correctly. I don’t think so. We don’t need to sacrifice rigor to implement something easy to use. We just have to make a distinction between awards type (I think I created something like a « recurring award type » item for « Nobel price » and all the alike to be an instance of, so a metaclass modelling approach) and award token, and allow « award recieved » to have as domain either an instance of « recurring award type » or an instance of « award ». Actually the « recurring » pattern is much more than just award, (I did play with this in the past, see WikiProject Recurring events. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect. Nobel Peace Prize 2017 is not an award. This is obvious from its potential associated statements like announcement date, presentations date, location of presentation and the like. In the same way taking it from a point of view of rigor, a member of parliament is a position but a MB for the Xth session is not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OpenRefine problemEdit

Hi, I've been having a go with OpenRefine (Windows, v. 2.8 trunk) for some of the terms in the Getty AAT thesaurus (AAT ID (P1014)).

I'm finding that occasionally when I try to reconcile a column, I get a "Working..." pop-up that never goes away.

Looking at the service log screen, it seems that it's sending a "guess cells type" request for the first 10 cells, and https://tools.wmflabs.org/openrefine-wikidata/api is sending back a "Forbidden 403" error.

(Ironically, I don't even want a cell type -- the items I'm looking for are actually classes, so mostly shouldn't be instance of (P31) anything.)

At the same time, it seems to handle other columns from the same project without any trouble. But sometimes there's a column it just doesn't seem to like, nor even facets from it.

Is this something you've ever encountered; any idea what might be causing it; or any idea of a fix? Jheald (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: @Pintoch: is the real expert on it - however I have seen problems similar to what you describe; it may be a memory issue? Also note that the project is under active development; there might have been a change in the version you are using that broke something, so you could try updating to the latest git version or going back a few days to a more stable version. The version I've mostly been using recently (which seems to work fine) is dated February 9th, if that helps. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I was just using the official release 2.8 from 19 November. Is there much new, fixed, or otherwise worth having more recently ?
I'd be surprised if it were a memory issue -- the request seems quite small, and it's the wmflabs service that seems to be rejecting it, rather than OpenRefine itself failing. Plus it's this initial query that's falling over, not a later stage. My assumption was that there might be a value in one of the fields that was breaking it. But I haven't yet found a way to work round it. Jheald (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: sorry, yes I am aware of this bug: it is tracked here: https://github.com/wetneb/openrefine-wikidata/issues/19. If you can find any reliable way to reproduce it I would be very interested. I will try to find the time to improve these error messages to make this debugging easier. − Pintoch (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: Most strange. It seems in this case it was specifically a cell containing the string "vector graphics" in the first 10 that caused this. When I blank that single cell, the reconciliation works. When I type back in the string "vector graphics", it fails. Jheald (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Adding "vector graphics" at the top of a column in a different project also made its reconciliation fail, so this may be something that is reproducible. Jheald (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, a project that only has one cell, which contains the text "vector graphics", will trigger the problem. But "tor" or "tor gra" don't, so I'll be fascinated to know what it is about this string that causes it to be rejected. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Jheald: - looks like the problem is because vector graphics (Q170130) is P31 "unknown value". ??? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed! I just fixed that. https://tools.wmflabs.org/openrefine-wikidata/en/api?query=vector%20graphics works fine now. Thank you so much to both of you for your help! − Pintoch (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Aicte Institute IDEdit

Thankyou for supporting. What next level. What all process/time goes on before creating the Property. Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jinoytommanjaly: properties cannot be approved before 1 week after initially proposed. For ID properties like yours, just one or two supporting comments is generally sufficient, so I expect it will move ahead in the next day or two. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

OpenRefine feedbackEdit

Hi!

I have polished up the wikidata extension for OpenRefine that I had asked you to test a while ago - it should compile fine (and hopefully even work) this time. If you have some time to check it out, I would really like to know what you think. The discussion is happening here: https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/pull/1530.

All the best − Pintoch (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply edit summaryEdit

Sorry, the edit summary on edit 653212109 on WD:Property proposal/hearing date was supposed to say "reply: yes you're right". The apostrophe is so dangerously close to the enter key... esbranson (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

edition number (P393) in referencesEdit

Hey Arthur, I see that your bot added almost 30k edition number (P393) reference claims to GRID ID (P2427) claims in 2016/2017 (query), but this property is no longer supposed to be used in references. It probably never was, but meanwhile the constraint property constraint (P2302): used for values only constraint (Q21528958) explicitly states that. The values of those reference claims are apparently dates in format YYYY-MM-DD. What does this mean? Would it be possible to keep the value, but move the reference property from edition number (P393) to publication date (P577) or retrieved (P813)? —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: GRID identifies the version of the database by the release date, in that format. See their download page. However, I've been using a new format for these citations recently, with "stated in" pointing to the specific version; I guess it would be fine for a bot to fix up the old ones but I'm not sure the best way to do this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the new format seems suitable. Since the situation with the violations is rather simple, I suggest to move the old references to the new model as well. It is more a matter of time than of complexity, due to the large amount of affected items with the same problem. One would just have to loop over all affected references and replace the edition number (P393) claim with a stated in (P248) claim. Do you have such code, or could develop it? —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI: I’m now about to do this so that all references follow the new style (stated in: specific GRID edition item). New items for missing releases were already created, and very soon I’ll have the repair bot code as well. Cheers, MisterSynergy (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks, I've been worrying about when I would get a chance to get on this, so I appreciate you fixing it. Go ahead! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Code is ready, but there are questions in relation to this sample edit:
  • There are at least occasionally references to several GRID releases. Should we keep all of them?
  • There are sometimes plain links to GRID releases with reference URL (P854). Should we keep them as well if there is another reference to another GRID release in the same statement?
Both phenomena can be observed in the sample edit. I’d just do it as you prefer. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: The reference URL (P854) entry there was added by me via quickstatements, that was all I knew how to do at the time. The other two were bot actions. I don't think we have edition items for those early GRID releases; it's ok with me to just leave them as a reference URL link. Alternatively it would also be ok with me to just keep the most recent "stated in" reference and remove earlier links to GRID altogether. I don't think it hurts to keep all of them as it is slightly more informative about when the organization was present in the database, but if you think it's better to just have a single reference I have no strong feelings on this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I’m now just doing the replacement of references containing edition number (P393), no removals. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This has just finished. I also fixed the bare URL references mentioned earlier to the new “stated in: specific GRID release” format. Still no removals, so some GRID IDs now have references to different GRID releases. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living PeopleEdit

You are receiving this message because you commented at the above RFC. There are additional proposals that have been made there that you are welcome to comment on. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible WikiProject for year discussionEdit

I have inquired at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Calendar Dates#Expand to cover year items? to see if that project would like to be a more enduring place to discuss and document the year-related discussions currently going on at Wikidata:Project chat. Since you have participated, I wanted to invite you to the discussion. Perhaps we shouldn't advertise the WikiProject in Project chat until a consensus emerges about whether the WikiProject wants to take on years or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Municipality vs administrative territorial entityEdit

Thanks for pointing this out to me [2]. I was trying to fix the constraint error in London Borough of Newham (Q208139) local dialing code (P473) "020" and similar constraint errors in other boroughs in the UK. Where should I make the change? Deryck Chan (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: sounds like the property constraint on local dialing code (P473) should be changed to allow any "administrative territorial entity", not just a municipality. Assuming a borough of London cannot be classed as a municipality? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally undoing your editEdit

Hi Hi. Sorry for accidentally undoing your edit on Lexeme:L298, I was actually intending on undoing edits on linked Items and Properties. Adam Shorland (WMDE) (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Shorland (WMDE): Thanks for fixing it. I notice you also reverted several property statements that linked to lexemes (these were generally the property examples which is important for people to know how the property is intended to be used). I understand there are database issues or something along those lines requiring these to be gone for the moment, will you be able to restore those when it's ok to have them again? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
We will re asses the situation today and see if we can re add the statements to Properties. As for on Items, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195615 will be the ticket to follow. Adam Shorland (WMDE) (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Due to a US holiday today (Monday) this will be pushed back to Tuesday. Adam Shorland (WMDE) (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Eurovision Song ContestEdit

It isn't a script, but manual edit. Sorry --ValterVB (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P5094Edit

Hi Arthur. Is there a tweak that could be made to the formatting regex of HPIP ID (P5094) so that two-digit numbers aren't flagged, please? I suspect that the unique value constraint isn't 100% applicable here, but we can see how that goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mike Peel: I tweaked so this should be ok now - is there a possibility of 1-digit or 5-digit numbers though? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It looks like 1-digit IDs exist, see commons:Category:Oceana Building (Beira). I don't think the list is long enough to have 5-digit IDs though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, I just generalized it to any valid positive integer; I don't think it's terribly useful to have overly strict constraints like that, in general. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
        • That should work. Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounding like TobiasEdit

Hi. I'm not amused by what you said about me in project chat. I don't know what is the exact user name or IP adresses of this particular blocked user that you are referring to. I don't know what similar subject this user edited/discussed in a similar manner that I did, or whatever makes you think I'm this user. I also don't feel like I have to prove that I'm not a camel. I believe the norm is to provide the behavioral evidence at appropriate venue (instead of discrediting me at some generic topic), should you carry on insisting this. 90.191.81.65 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(A) I don't see that I "discredited" you in any way, and (B) the reason for my saying you "sounded like Tobias" was because you are using editing via an IP address rather than an account, and yet making assertions that sound like you should be an authority on wikidata. I'm sorry, without an account and a history, you simply cannot argue from "authority" here. You may have a good argument, and I think I pointed out to Chris there what the issue was, but you can't force your opinion on others. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Télescope géantEdit

Hi,

You reverted a modification on Wikidata. My point is that "Extrêmement grand télescope" is as good French as "Telescope extremely large" is good English. Besides, the French equivalent is "Télescope géant" (literally "giant telescope"), as is used by the ESO (http://www.eso.org/public/france/teles-instr/elt/?lang) and the French article.

However, I acknowledge that for some reason (unknown to me), wikidata seemed unable to match "Télescope géant" to its article.

Therefore, I invite you to help me correcting this problem. Otherwise I'll just revert your revert. Padex (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Padex: I left your label change alone, that was fine. What I reverted was your change to a statement - instance of (P31) which previously pointed to a separate item extremely large telescope (Q2665569). That item is a generic "extremely large" category, as opposed to the specific telescope with that name. It sounds like the French label on extremely large telescope (Q2665569) should be fixed - please go ahead and fix it! But note that is an abstract item, not specifically about the ELT. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hope I did it right this time. To answer your worries : yes, "télescope géant" seems to be the generic equivalent of "extremely large telescope" (not specifically the ELT). For instance the ESO does not translate ELT as a name. Padex (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that looks right, thanks for improving Wikidata! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

peninsula of locationEdit

Hi ArthurPSmith. I created Wikidata:Property proposal/peninsula of location similar to Property:P5130 (island of location). Can you support it? 91.227.222.7 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

rollbackEdit

Would you like to request the rollback flag at WD:RFOR to help with those undoings? Mahir256 (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: I was actually doing that just now! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


New propertiesEdit

Hello. Would you initiate one or a few new properties for me? Wikidata:Property proposal/Institut culturel de Bretagne ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Interbibly ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Le Monde ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Tebeosfera ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/CSDE Lynching Database ID are all ready to be created and I'm ready to add statements if you agree to just create them. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: Ok, I added the ones that hadn't already been done. They still need some work - constraints etc. for example. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. If you have time for Wikidata:Property proposal/Tebeosfera character ID, which is the companion to Tebeosfera ID (P5562)Thierry Caro (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm coming back to you because I have something like 12 property proposals that have been ready for a day or two: Wikidata:Property proposal/Aosdána ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/CMI ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/CNT ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Comédie-Française ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Evene ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/FFF author ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/FFF character ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/GLAMOS ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Marvel character ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/National Cartoonists Society ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/PRELIB ID. Would you min initiating one or two? Thierry Caro (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And I'll now take Wikidata:Property proposal/ANZL ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/CNL ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/LARB ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/New Zealand Book Council ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/PRELIB ID or Wikidata:Property proposal/RSL ID if you have time for some of them. That would be awesome. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! They are now already used on the French Wikipedia. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Cool, glad to help! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I may again need your help for Wikidata:Property proposal/Exoplanet Data Explorer ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/NASA Exoplanet Archive ID, with Wikidata:Property proposal/National Humanities Medal ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/Expedia hotel ID also waiting. Thierry Caro (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And I'll add Wikidata:Property proposal/France Musique ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/Académie française ID to the list! I guess it is both a good thing and a bad thing that we are reaching an all-time high in terms of properties waiting to be created. Thierry Caro (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

ready properties in Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_scienceEdit

Could you please create the properties that are ready in Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science? It would be a great help for me if the OpenMath ID would be ready soon. Thank you.--Physikerwelt (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look I hope later today - if somebody else doesn't get to it first! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Your lexemesEdit

Out of curiosity: do You follow 3-letters list of words for Scrabble? :) KaMan (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No - actually my sources was the UNIX system file /usr/share/dict/words, but cut down to words that I actually had ever seen used in English. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are publishedEdit

19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Links, blueEdit

Would it work on "Yahoo! Japan Talent Database ID" id's ? dead links.

50.254.21.213 00:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The formatter URL has been removed for that property; I assume it could be updated to an archive.org url but was not for some reason, this should be discussed on the property talk page. Nothing I can do to help there. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

that is what i tried to ask the other guy,what is a formatter url and how did they do that ? 50.254.21.213 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You said

I updated the IMDB redirection to send 'ch' id's to archive.org, it seems to work (I tried the Harry Potter example linked above). 50.254.21.213 16:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, 404
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-externalid-url/?p=345&url_prefix=https://www.imdb.com/&id=ch0000574

50.254.21.213 15:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ready propertyEdit

Hi there!

After a week of discussion without any opposition, could you please create this property?

Regards,

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Statistics/AutoGeneratedEdit

Can You help me? I added fifth table to this page but for unknown reason it is not updated by bot. I have no idea why. Query works fine at query.wikidata.org. KaMan (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@KaMan: Hmm, maybe there's a limit to how many tables it can do in one page? I created Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Statistics/Test and that one works?? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how you got the others to work, but I thought one could only use one per page. If you want several, you need to transclude them. --- Jura 15:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It would be fine with me if somebody moved them all to subpages and did it via transclusion... Yes, I vaguely recall I ran into a limit of 1 per page previously, not sure why this worked. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe it works once if one adds each additional one at the top of the page. --- Jura 16:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @KaMan, Jura1: Ok I switched them to transclusions, and now the list of usage example counts is in there too! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

url encoding for & and = in formatter URL for P6059Edit

Hi,

We have some trouble in the new Biographie vosgienne ID (P6059) in the url.

The regex is [1-9]\d*&id_bio=[1-9]\d* and the value is for exemple 4317&id_bio=3394 . But the final url is https://www.ecrivosges.com/vosgiens/bio.php?id=4317%26id_bio%3D3394&biochrono=Biographie when it should be https://www.ecrivosges.com/vosgiens/bio.php?id=4317&id_bio=3394&biochrono=Biographie .

Is there a way to not url encode the value?

eru [Talk] [french wiki] 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eru: Ok, I've fixed it using the external ID redirector. You'll need to reload with URL suffix "?action=purge" on any items using this property to fix the URL's. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you! — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 13:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

humorous senseEdit

Hi! Is there established term in English dictionaries to mean something like "humorous sense"? I tried to add English label and aliases to humorous sense (Q58233068) but I feel like they are wrong. Or could it be just "jokingly"? KaMan (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the label is ok at least for now. "jokingly" might work too. I'm not aware of a standard term for this in English, and I just checked English wiktionary and couldn't find any cases where something like that was used. Humor covers a lot of territory - satire, puns, metaphor, etc. so I'm not sure if it's really a good way to characterize a lexeme sense, but maybe if I saw a good example... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It is very popular signature in Polish dictionaries. It's also used in Polish wiktionary (see linking). I used it in park sztywnych (L35366) which seriously means "cemetery", "graveyard" but jokingly means "park of rigids". KaMan (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange numbers in English sensesEdit

Hi! Have you noticed that numbers in this page from time to time decreasing instead of increasing? Are you removing some senses? Look into this table: https://ibb.co/mn2oLV I've marked in red when number of senses strangely decreased. I don't have much experience with query service and perhaps it is normal but also I wonder if it is something to worry about and should be directed to dev team. KaMan (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Not me! It looks like it went down by over 100 at one point recently, that's very strange. I have occasionally deleted a sense from one lexeme where they were added incorrectly (for example to a verb when they should have been added to the noun homograph), but generally that just means removing from one place and adding to another, and normally I would just create a new sense on the initial one that was wrong, so that should NOT cause a total count decrease. Yes I think maybe there's something of concern there. Not sure how to track it down further... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I remeber that you are doing less edits during weekends. So is it possible that you added 100 senses in last 24 hours (Saturday)? I don't think so. I observe recent changes in lexemes namespace and I noticed there was not so much movement in English lexemes from other users. I do not notice such unstability of counts in other automatic queries, only in English senses. KaMan (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Again from 2761 to 2697. I reported it here. KaMan (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Author disambiguator tool and WSesEdit

Hi. <thoughts value="20c">Whilst I am unaware of the designed scope of the tool toollabs:author-disambiguator/ if it is going to act as a true disambiguation search tool, I would think that any person who has an author page at one of the Wikisources should be considered as worthy of being a hit on the tool's search results. Numerous of those people writing at WSes will not be traditional "authors" though will be writers in the sense of explorers, military officers, politicians, scientists, journalists, etc.</thoughts> Also, without exactly knowing the scope of your tool, I would like to flag a page like s:Littell's Living Age/Volume 135 as an example of a ToC for a journal, of which there are a large range of other samples that may be of interest, number of these will have red links, and many will have solutions for red links as we have done a lot of work in identifying these writers over time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@billinghurst: Scope is currently only to cover authors of articles in scholarly journals (which have Wikidata items). However, I'd certainly be interested in expanding that to cover books and other sources. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Author disambiguatorEdit

Author disambiguator is the best thing since sliced bread. Thanks soooo much for this tool. - PKM (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Great tool. Interestingly, @Alexmar983: asked me for something like it just the other day.
    BTW, if one types a full name (first middle last name), fuzzy search seems to find people without the middle name, but not those where the middle name is limited to its initial. Maybe these should also be found when starting from first+last name.
    Maybe the tool could also check if VIAF is present (and suggested its addition). If you just check for a single one, that might be the most useful one. There are obviously a few other (non-library ones) likely the be found on such author items (notably Scopus, Researchgate, even Linkedout).--- Jura 05:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I follow the needs of the users in real time, so I am often looking for what is under development, I am not surprised ;) Thanks for pinging me--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The "fuzzy search" logic definitely needs a bit of work. I'm currently trying to improve the clustering, which doesn't really do what you would expect. Definitely good suggestions on looking at other author ID's besides ORCID! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed, but I wasn't sure what to suggest. In one case, a possibility to sort by journal would have been handy. For another, "check all" was sufficient. --- Jura 08:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@PKM, Jura1, Alexmar983: I thought you might want to know - the service has been considerably updated in a number of different ways: (1) Author name searching is I think much better (though it is now case-sensitive as it is using SPARQL literals), (2) Article clustering should be much more sensible, (3) I added a VIAF search/input form. (4) I've limited the number of articles shown to prevent some out-of-memory and related problems, though there are still some issues with that needing further improvement. And there have been a number of other updates and fixes, so it should be even easier to use... ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you ArthurPSmith.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for the update. - PKM (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

FYIEdit

IndiaEdit

Could you please look into India (L40021)? It's in English but I think users somehow misunderstood purposes of the lexeme structure. Sense has pronuncations, translations are written as representations of forms, etc. KaMan (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like some people got carried away there. I added the standard form and moved the pronunciations there. Not sure what you mean about translations - there aren't any listed right now? Or you mean the sense glosses? I think that's ok. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean in form L40021-F1 there are four representations with language "en" (India's), "te" (భారత దేశం యొక్క), "ml" (ഇന്ത്യയുടെ), "bn" (ভারতের). To me they look more like translations but they can be transcriptions as well, I do not know. KaMan (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing RFCEdit

Hi Arthur, since you were not involved in the discussion and hoping that you don't have further remarks, could you please close this RFC? The consensus seems to be there, so once it is closed I can add the information to Wikidata:Property creators (or you can do it yourself if you wish so).--Micru (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Micru:   Done - however in addition to edits to Wikidata:Property creators it wasn't clear to me what the plan was for Proposal 3, hopefully you can sort out what needs to happen there? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the closing and for the really nice summary. I will look into it asap.--Micru (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Lemma in EnglishEdit

Should (L40585) be uppercased in first letter or is it just duplication of lemma (L14835)? KaMan (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an anonymous user was experimenting. I merged them. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Mongols and comEdit

invalid ID (L41371) and invalid ID (L41449) - looking at lexical category I'm not sure if this lexemes should be deleted or corrected. It's English so I will leave it up to You. KaMan (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've requested their deletion. I wonder if we should have a special Lexeme deletion requests page? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I request deletion of about one "lexeme" per day (today two) and they are usually deleted very fast. I think separate page could be problematic for administrators (yet another page to observe) so I would stay with current global page. KaMan (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Which Federica Fabbri?Edit

Hi Arthur, i think it is the same person but I do not have the full certainty, so you can delete if you think it appropriate. Thanks for the tip, Alessandra Boccone (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Colors as subclass of entity?Edit

Back in May 2018, you changed the subclass of various colors from "color" to "entity" (e.g. in this edit). This seems wrong to me, but I thought I'd ask you about it before reverting. Can you explain further? JesseW (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@JesseW: "red" is a color. "color" is not a color. Their ontological status is quite different, so "subclass" makes no sense; the relation "instance of" (P31) was there all along and is correct. dark red (Q5223370) subclass of (P279) red (Q3142) is fine - the more narrowly defined color is subsumed within the broader one. There's no such parent relation available for the primary colors. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! I'll copy this on to some of the relevant talk pages, so other people wondering about it can find it more easily. JesseW (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
...This seems wrong. All dark reds are reds, all reds are colors, all colors being X would correctly imply that all reds are X. That seems to match the subclass of (P279) relation? It might be that color (Q1075) is associated to a particular sense of "color" which doesn't match this use, but another item with the same label might? I'm not quite sure how best to handle this.
In any case, setting "red" to be a direct subclass of "entity" is certainly not the best answer. --Yair rand (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: No - "the rose is red" is a very different statement from "the rose is color". ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
That would be the case for any adjective. That sentence uses the adjective sense (the rose isn't actually noun-sense red), which is presumably not the topic of the item. To the best of my knowledge, there are no items with an adjective sense as the topic. I don't even know how that would be possible to work for pretty much anything. --Yair rand (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I suppose that's a fair point. Nevertheless, when you say "dark reds are reds" and "all reds are colors", the "are" in those two sentences has different meanings - in Wikidata terms the first is P279, the second is P31. If there was some item that could be considered a superclass of "red" in the same sense as the "dark red : red" relationship, it would need to be something like "red in a broader sense" - "red plus infrared" perhaps, or "red and purple". "Color" doesn't make sense to me at all in that role. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I've been thinking it about it some more - I think the main issue is that with the color hierarchy we are using P279 (subclass) as a proxy for a more specific property like "within the color space of". So in reality I think NONE of the colors should be considered classes at all (what are their instances anyway?) - rather they should be treated just as we do with locations - as a possibly overlapping hierarchy of entities with their own parent/child relation. And all instances of "color". What do you think of this approach - i.e. should we propose a new property for this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Devyn GrilloEdit

invalid ID (L42364) - Is this some kind of proper name in English or candidate for deletion? KaMan (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion - seems to be the users' own name. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
What about invalid ID (L42322) (look at lexical category) KaMan (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a word - thanks! How are you noticing these? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Every new day I read all new lexemes since last day. It's not that much. KaMan (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Another Englih word (L42840) KaMan (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@KaMan: Merged! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New parameter proposal to property P5892Edit

Hello, @ArthurPSmith:, I hope you are well! Can I ask for your guidance in where is the best place to propose an alteration on the property UOL Eleições ID (P5892)? I'm finally creating the items of politicians, so the items of the elections can be created and this identifier can be used. To do that, I think an update at the property is needed (I explain here why). To who or where do I have to submmit this request? Thank you in advance, Ederporto (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I commented on the property talk page - maybe next Tuesday (Feb 19) will work to make the change? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

P6516 and externalid resolverEdit

Hi, It seems that P6516 formatter URL needs your externalid resolver, as seen at Diaspidiotus juglansregiae (Q10470807). I tried several things at Aonidiella citrina (Q10414113) as well. Can you adjust the resolver and the formatter URL to make it function? Thanks in advance. Lymantria (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lymantria: For URL-encoding issues it doesn't actually need any special coding, you can just drop it in. I edited the formatter URL on P6516 to use it, and it seems to work (see the two examples with spaces). You can either stick with the '%20' or use ' ' as the separator here, it seems to work either way. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. That's weird, I am shown a 404 error all the time. The '%20' is translated apparently into '%2520' by the software, and the scalenet-website doesn't accept the ' ' seperator either when I try it. Neither in firefox, nor in chrome. Lymantria (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That must be a caching problem. Thanks again. Lymantria (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, you have to edit the identifier for it to be recalculated I think. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It works fine. Thanks much. Lymantria (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

subclass of (P279)Edit

Hi Arthur,

Thank you for pointing this out. At first, I had a single one item with two values for ISBN-13 (P212) , but I got a warning. I do not remember what it was saying but I thought it was a way to bypass the problem… Thank you. Genium (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure to support a hoax?Edit

splitting up external ID based on regexEdit

There is no split of

  1. GND ID into
    1. with "-"
    2. without "-"
  2. VIAF ID into
    1. [1-9]\d(\d{0,7}})
    2. [1-9]\d(\d{17,20})

etc. Why then would one split out BBLD IDs that match /[0-9]{16}/? 78.55.46.198 23:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It was requested, no serious objections. I'm sure there's a history I'm unaware of but I don't see how it's relevant. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
And no serious support. And no seriuos evidence for existence. It was created as part of a campaign by Jura1 and MisterSynergy, look at https://bbld.de/info/id - there are different sources for creating a BBLD ID, but the notion that some belong to "former scheme" and others to "new scheme" is not supported at all. Is Wikidata going to create a new property for each BBLD ID creation mechanism? Or even better, a pair for each mechanism to have former IDs and new IDs (how long is an ID new?).... wait, maybe three, to have former-current-new separated into different properties? Could all that violate en:WP:OR? 78.54.5.147 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is SourceMD really working?Edit

I am not sure if it was on and then off. Using SourceMD last night, I loaded a list of DOIs and the items are fine (correction... I actually loaded these items a couple weeks ago). I tried loading a few individual DOIs today and SourceMD says the batches were successful, though I cannot find the items (or the DOI). Strange. As example, Batch 6878. Trilotat (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be listing anything on that batch, not sure what that means? I haven't tried it myself, it just looked like the change Magnus made would definitely fix the problem we were running into. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Christian hymns / canticlesEdit

Hi there! Re: your revert: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q856713&oldid=prev&diff=920031489 I'm in the middle of trying to clean up the cluster of hymns, psalms, canticles, national anthems etc. and it will be a little messy for awhile while I move things around, I hope you can bear with me. It's a proper mess at the moment, thoroughly mixed together as the Scandinavian word "salme" is extensively used both for Christian songs and Christian poems, and not just for psalms, (and never for sports!) while the Spanish/Portuguese name most of their local, national and sports-anthem "himno/hino" gettings them mixed in with the religious. The Germans have a whole bunch of strict, narrow definitions of course, and the English borrow freely from all the above. So there you have it, hope it doesn't disturb things too much, it shouldn't take too long to fix. Moebeus (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok - I just noticed your post on Project Chat about it. I ran into it because you'd created a subclass loop which is a no-no and gets caught in one of our Listeria reports... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WikidataCon submission on Author Disambiguator?Edit

Hi Arthur, are you planning on (i) attending and (ii) such a submission? I will likely not be able to attend in person, but would be interested in helping with something on the topic, especially the part of integration with Scholia or Listeria to round up curation workflows. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: Yes, I submitted a proposal already for a 25-minute presentation - your input on it would be great, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good — count me in when preparation time comes. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Query service lagEdit

Could you refrain from editing large items for a while? We're experiencing some lag on the query service atm... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Due to the "stop batch" feature not working, I've blocked your account for the query service to recover. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Sjoerddebruin: - sorry I was traveling. Hmm, I've been working on large items for the last several days, I didn't realize it could contribute to wdqs lag. Is there some background info on why this happens/how to avoid? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what caused todays issues, still investigating. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, thanks for the Grafana pointer, I'm going to run a small collection of updates now and see how it affects things. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, it does look like a couple of the wdqs servers gain a few minutes lag when I start one of those jobs, and it goes away when I stop it. I'm not sure the pattern's entirely consistent though. I've just restarted the one that was stopped earlier today, which is longer than the others I had prepared; hopefully just running that one will not cause too severe a problem. I'll check in again later today. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: is there a phab task or other activity I could look at on this? I had 3 batch jobs updating large items running most of last night, and Grafana indicated there was no problem until about 11:00 GMT this morning (jobs had been running since about 01:00 GMT); I checked around 13:30 GMT and noticed the lags were still high on two of the servers, so I stopped the batch jobs. One of the servers seems to have recovered although not immediately, but the other (wdqs1005) still has over a 40 minute lag several hours later. So there's definitely something else going on that's making these lags so bad. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't have a task for the current issues yet but I do see a pattern between edits done to large items and the query service lag. The volume of your edits in the last 6 hours was 3.2 GB, which all needs to be processed (the query service currently reloads whole items on updates, work is needed on that). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I can confirm that the problem seems to come from batch edits to large items - stopping Daniel Mietchen's jobs impacting large items had a pretty clear effect two days ago. According to Wikiscan you are the only one running batches affecting large items at the moment, so I would expect the lag to reduce if you stop these. − Pintoch (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Sjoerddebruin: I've stopped the large-edit jobs for now, will watch the lag to see if it's safe to restart. These same jobs were running for about 10 hours earlier yesterday with no bad lag though. From the 24-hour "wikiscan" there were some other people with multi-GB updates in the past day. Any idea why only 2 of the wdqs servers seem to be affected? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It's been 2 hours, and there's no noticeable improvement in the lag. I really don't see a correlation with the edits I've been doing at all. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
6 hours now. I'm restarting the jobs, there was no discernible effect of my turning them off. My edit rate is really slow, I have a hard time believing I'm causing the problem here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
And now, with those batches running for the last few hours, query lag has dropped almost to zero for all the servers. My jobs at least seem pretty clearly to be not making things worse. ArthurPSmith (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I suspect the "wikiscan" is seriously overestimating the impact of the jobs I'm running - they make generally 4 of 5 edits to the same item one after the other, so the actual volume that has to be moved should be at most 1/4 of what's stated, assuming it's counting the size of the item for each edit, and wdqs doesn't copy the data 4 or 5 times when that's not needed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for experimenting! wdqs doesn't copy the data 4 or 5 times when that's not needed I don't think that is true - my understanding is that it does copy the data 4 of 5 times in these cases (we had a discussion with Stas on IRC about that a few days ago and he confirmed that). − Pintoch (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The lag is now more than two hours again. Like said above, the edit rate isn't the problem but the affected items. Yes, there are a few more with such high edit volume but those edit a lot more items. At some periods of the day there isn't much other activity, thus the query service can handle it. But when others are also running batches it's a problem. Please, for our (data) users: postpone for the time being. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: I turned it off, the lag continued to climb. It's clearly NOT me that's the problem here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that when you're disabling a mass-editing bot, the lag won't go down immediately. The service has still to go through the accumulated backlog of edits, and the lag starts to go down only when the sync point gets past the point where the bot has been turned off. If you have 100 edits/s for the last hour and the Updater can only do 50 edits/s, then it still takes it 2 hrs to go through that hour of updates, even if the editing is turned off now, because updater is not in the 'now' yet. Which means the lag will be raising. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF): But I'm NOT doing "50 edits/s". I'm doing about 1 edit per 10 seconds at most. And as noted above (and has happened today) the lag continued to rise for HOURS after I shut down the job. It really can't be my jobs that are the problem here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I really would like to understand the underlying problem here - Smalyshev (WMF) is there documentation of the different servers shown on this Grafana chart? Why are wdqs1004 and wdqs1005 (and sometimes wdqs1006) always the ones with long lags, while the wdqs2001,2,3 are usually fine? Is a few GB of data over 6 hours really overwhelming to the network or something? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

1004,5,6 are public eqiad cluster servers, 2001/2/3 are public codfw cluster servers. Equiad cluster usually gets the most traffic. The problem is not network data size but the number of updates to Wikidata. Updater has to process all of them, plus process all the query load (and, judging from the number of bans, people still keep ignoring throttling system and try to force through as many as possible). If there are too many updates or too many queries, the servers get slow, which is reflected as lag.
The cluster setup is described here: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_query_service#Hardware
Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF): Thanks, that's very helpful! I didn't know about eqiad/codfw before, and the impact of load balancing explains the discrepancy... I assume all updates have to go to all servers, it's just queries that are load-balanced - so the underlying cause of the lag for the last month or so (given the codfw servers have been fine) has to be high query volume, not a problem with updates (though of course with no updates there would be no lag issue!) However, the peak query time from this chart seems to be daily around noon, while the comparable lag chart seems to usually peak around 22:00 (and is not consistently happening every day). So that doesn't entirely explain things either... Anyway, I guess I'll try to avoid running batches between noon and midnight GMT and see if that helps at all. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, all servers do the updates, but the query load is different. However, it is a threshold problem - if number of updates incoming is less than number of updates server can process, it is fine, regardless of how large the difference it. Once the sum of load + update frequency goes over server capacity, the server starts lagging. While throttling/banning and query expirations can mitigate to some level the load issue, the server still has to process all the updates, so heavy update load can cause lags too. It is the sum of both factors. The servers right now can deal with usual query load + update load, but spikes in either - or both - if they large enough, can be problematic. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata's edit rate is pretty steady according to this chart - though there was a significant dip on April 25 that does coincide with a good day for lag - but other than that one day the whole chart doesn't seem clearly correlated with either edit rate or query rate or the combination, and there's mysterious time shifts like from noon (peak query and close to peak edits most days) to 22:00 UDT (peak lag). Anyway, I'll stick with avoiding the 12:00 - 24:00 times for batch edits for now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the plan?Edit

We know about growth in Wikidata, we know that future ambitions will not cease to be as ambitious as they are and were. As we are unable to service our current ambitions, what is the plan for the future. What growth is planned for and what are the contingency plans. As I said earlier, Wikidata is not a relational database, what we experience is the consequence of the absence of relational mechanisms. There is a science to this, what are the plans for the future. How are we going to cope.. PS throw some iron at the problem. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@GerardM: See this Phabricator ticket which collects a series of requests for more hardware for WDQS as you suggest. It's not a simple problem - scalability in the long run means having to abandon the "vertical" model (the entire graph on one server) and splitting it up among multiple servers, which is a complex technical problem, and may require changing the underlying graph query software (currently Blazegraph). Meanwhile we need to work within the constraints we have right now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It does not provide me with the answer I am looking for. It is technical, what I am looking is the scenarios considered in growth, not technology that is to follow. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The issues are technical. If Wikidata is growing faster than the capacity of individual units of computer hardware, then we have to spread the pieces of Wikidata across multiple individual units, which requires significant development. If computer hardware capabilities are growing faster than Wikidata is, then we can just upgrade the hardware and be happy. It looks like we're under the first scenario, not the second. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Technical approaches get you a hack that "makes it work" for now. I am not interested in that, I am interested to learn if exponential growth is expected, planned for and that we are considering "next generation" approaches that enable growth like 1000% in a year (when it is the growth that is considered plausible). Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The technical requirements - and the money to pay for them - are the limiting factor in any growth plan. Read the phabricator tickets I referenced, and you'll see wikidata developers are asking for more capacity, and getting some pushback. Maybe you can spearhead an effort to give the developers more resources? ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We had a good week, but today is badEdit

@Sjoerddebruin, Pintoch, Smalyshev (WMF): Grafana is showing the worst lag since last Monday today - and steadily going up. I stopped all my large-item jobs earlier today, however, this SourceMD batch from GerardM editing large items has been running for over 6 days now. I don't think there's any way to pause it that would allow it to restart? Magnus?? Is there any way to tell what else is happening this morning (or is it just Monday morning heavy query volume?) that may be causing trouble? ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way for admins to stop an individual batch, let alone enabling later resumption. Blocking the user is the only thing I can help with, I am afraid. − Pintoch (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like things are recovering. Maybe it's just around noon UTC Monday's will always be bad? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Jobs from SourceMD can be stopped using the UI. They can be restarted at a later date. I have no problem when need be jobs are halted in this way. I have been at work all day. I have stopped the job for now. Given that the job has run for a couple of days, long periods where everything was smooth, you cannot say that it is this job on its own that is the problem. So what happened at noon that gave us such issues ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I assume it's heavy query volume - I don't know if it's a small number of specific users, or a more general problem of many people hitting WDQS at the same time. Stas mentioned that the problem seems to happen when query + update volume together go over some threshold, updates don't generally seem to cause trouble on their own. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And today, the following Monday, looks even worse - and all the large-item batch jobs were stopped over 2 hours ago. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

clickEdit

Hi ArthurPSmith, thanks for setting Wikidata:Property_proposal/music_video to ready. Would you click "create"? I can then do the other steps. --- Jura 17:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, it's now music video (P6718). ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks once more. BTW, would do the same for this and that? I will do the other steps. --- Jura 18:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: Ok! ISO speed (P6789) and f-number (P6790) ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of ISSN for DOI identifiersEdit

Hi Arthur. I think we can use DOI identifiers for journals as well. There is a recommendation here. At least Wiley uses it widely. That's why I included it in Q6295227 and other items. Best regards. --Gerwoman (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gerwoman: Hmm, ok, but in this case it looks like Q29011411 was created earlier (based on that DOI)? Perhaps the instance of (P31) there needs to be fixed and the two items merged? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Now merged. --Gerwoman (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerwoman: Ok, thanks! There may have been some others of yours that I removed DOI's from for the same reason - I'll be more careful checking for that sort of problem in future! This was based on looking at constraint violations on the DOI property. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Aren't chemical elements substances?Edit

Hello Arthur, you reverted my attemt to make 'chemical element' a subclass of 'pure substance'. I'm new to wikidata and want to understand. I hope this is the correct way to contact you. You stated: "Chemical element" is not (only) a kind of substance" That may be right, but I didn't want it to be a substance only. I wanted it to be a substance too. I have got the intuition that chemicals like sodium or oxigen somehow should be chemical substances and not only abstract classes. Don't you agree? All ontologies I know, classify substances like this:

matter
 mixture
  homogeneous mixture
  heterogeneous mixture
 pure substance
  compounds
  elements

See

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Chemistry_-_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/01._Introduction%3A_Matter_and_Measurement/1.2%3A_Classification_of_Matter https://www.slideshare.net/ewalenta/ch-2-classification-of-matter-ppt https://eschool.iaspaper.net/classifications-of-matter/the-classification-of-matter/

Why shouldn't wikidata do so?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Micgra (talk • contribs) at 17:08, May 15, 2019‎ (UTC).

  • @Micgra: Wikidata's upper-level ontology is a bit of a mess; however, please don't change anything in it without discussion with members of the associated wikiproject - in this case Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry. On this specific question, Wikidata already has the entry simple substance (Q2512777) which would take the spot you have for "elements" in the suggested classification above, and note that the two entries (chemical element (Q11344) and simple substance (Q2512777)) are linked via a "different from" relation here, which indicates we have considered the relation and for the purposes of Wikidata they are distinct. In particular, "chemical element" here represents both substances and individual atoms whether they are in a pure substance or combined with other elements to form molecules or compound substances or mixtures etc. It is an overarching class - actually a metaclass, whose instances are the individual types of atoms that nature gives us. So yes, they are quite distinct in meaning here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

New duplicate DOIsEdit

Hi, I just found a couple of new duplicate items with DOIs containing < (see Q63976771 and Q64357784). Both were created during the last two weeks by SourceMD. It looks like the problem is encoding in the DOIs but I don't know why they are encoded. The DOI for each article appears to be correct in Crossref - could SourceMD be encoding the < and >? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 00:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sic19: It sounds like that's what's happening; however it's possible SourceMD is getting the DOI's from somewhere else (ORCID, PMC?) where the real problem is. I have been working on cleaning these up after the fact so it's not a huge problem, but it's still annoying... ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How's ORES working out for you?Edit

Hi ArthurPSmith, I'm working with User:EpochFail (@halfak on irc) on a research study to look into how mw:ORES is working out on wikis where it has been enabled. I was hoping to talk a little about what the kind of work you do on Wikidata and about how the ORES edit filters and classifiers have been working out. Do you use any tools other than Special:RecentChanges or Special:Watchlist that take advantage of ORES? Do you know of any other tools that are used to patrol that do not use ORES? I'm also interested in any other observations you may have about how the ORES scores are working out. Thank you! Groceryheist (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Groceryheist: You should probably go visit Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism, which lists some tools for counter-vandalism on Wikidata, and people who are heavily involved in it. I've used the Open-ended Recent Changes tool [ORC] a bit. I don't pay a lot of attention to the ORES data; it doesn't seem very well calibrated for Wikidata, which has very different sorts of edits from the language wikipedias. A lot of edits flagged by ORES here are just fine, they were flagged just because an anonymous user did a bunch of work to fix up an item. On the other hand, the volume of edits here that need patrolling is pretty overwhelming so we seem to miss a lot. It would definitely be helpful to have better tools for that. The multilinguality here makes it hard though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs), thanks so much for getting back to me so soon! Your comments about anonymous users are particularly helpful. Do you have any other thoughts about how ORES treats anons? It's also interesting that you say ORES doesn't seem well calibrated for Wikidata. Also thank you for pointing me to the counter vandalism project and to ORC! Finally, can you think of anyone else who might want to chat a little bit with me about quality control and ORES on Wikidata? Groceryheist (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Groceryheist: I think anons on wikidata probably should be treated pretty much the same as any user requiring patrolling (less than 50 edits?); I'm not sure if ORES does something different. A lot of the wikidata edits that ORES seems to flag but which I think are fine are creation of descriptions for items in a new language; ideally ORES would run the description through some kind of translation software to see if the words match to some degree the existing descriptions in other languages. Of course we should flag vulgarities in any language; but it seems to flag a lot of perfectly innocent translation work. For example. On who to talk to - User:YMS I think is particularly knowledgeable about Wikidata vandalism. You might also want to talk to some of the admins who have to deal with vandals. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: The feedback about the difficulty with translations is interesting and I'll pass this on the User:EpochFail. I'll also reach out to User:YMS as you suggest. Thanks for your help! Groceryheist (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Groceryheist, EpochFail: This discussion on Project Chat mentions several tools used for Countervandalism and some other people involved in it here, so you might want to get hold of that group also. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith:, awesome! Thank you! Groceryheist (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Property creationEdit

Hi there!

Could you please create Wikidata:Property proposal/Réunionnais du monde ID?

Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC).

@Nomen ad hoc: - it takes me about 10 minutes to create a new property (unless I'm just asked to "click the button" which takes about 1 minute, if you are willing to fill in all the detailed attributes on the property after creation that's a big help). Given there are 70+ properties waiting to be created, that's a lot of work to get them all done... when I get a free 10 minutes I'll take a look at yours next though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, I didn't know that it take such a time! Best regards, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC).

Property creationEdit

I would like to suggest you to use a script to create automatically properties when the proposals have reached maturity. The script also reports some common issues back to the proposer. This page explains how to improve the property proposals. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

re:Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikispecies template for this workEdit

Just gonna say that if this one fails I'm throwing the towel and someone else will have to be the one proposing it again. Part of the failure rests entirely on me butting head with user:pigsonthewing (not even on Wikidata!) in-between the two attempts I've made at it. I am 100% convinced it is the only reason his support switched to the mos misleading oppose I've seen in a long time. He has a storied past for grudges.

Either way, I do hope someone bringing it up has more luck persuading the people at property proposals than I did. Circeus (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Circeus: I wasn't aware of a previous attempt. I don't think it was linked from the current proposal? In any case, I don't understand exactly where you stand on this - would you support it with URL datatype? Given the centrality of properties to data modeling in Wikidata we do need to strive for consensus on how they are to be, and that means proposers need to be engaged in the discussion and try to be as clear as possible. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The first proposal is briefly mentioned (though not linked) in my answer to Andy. It's here, if you're curious (and should you desire to be really nosy, this is the incident I'm talking about). It was actually more focused (aside from the name) but apparently, that made it even less attractive to the reviewers.
I'm not sure a url version (aside from issues connected to the template moving for whatever reason) would allow the backlink from the template to the work. This is ultimately what the property is intended to provide (and is needed for eventually building automatic lists of work with templates, or nomenclatural acts, as mentioned in the proposal), but doing the link in the other direction ("work that this template generates a reference for" template -> work instead of the proposed "reference template for this work" work -> template) would definitely not be acceptable to the Wikidata users. You gotta pick your fights and all that. At this point, this is just not a fight I want to bother with anymore (especially if Andy, who has no actual interest in Wikispecies's content quality, is going to get in the way out of spite). Circeus (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
"Part of the failure rests entirely on me butting head with user:pigsonthewing" False. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
"Andy, who has no actual interest in Wikispecies's content quality" Also false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "ArthurPSmith".