Wikidata

Wikidata:Project chat

(Redirected from Wikidata:Help desk)
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by 178.201.237.227 in topic Sachsen-Anhalt

Wikidata project chat
A place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.

Please use {{Q}} or {{P}} the first time you mention an item or property, respectively.
Other places to find help

For realtime chat rooms about Wikidata, see Wikidata:IRC.
Start a new discussion
Edit
On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/04.

Problems with naive user merges with Distributed game: duplicate authors edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

Dealing with different Google Knowledge Graph IDs for same item edit

Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

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

Thanks,

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

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

throughput (P2957) edit

Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Birth after father's death edit

Latest comment: 23 hours ago15 comments4 people in discussion

We need to change the calculation so that we do not get the error message unless the difference between death and birth is more than 9 months, perhaps 10. See George Francis Valentine Scott Douglas (Q75268023) RAN (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

People have used "exception to constraint" to get rid of these messages, but this doesn't scale. The next step people tend to use is adding "separator" but "object has role" is too ambiguous for this purpose, we would need a qualifier that is more or less single-purpose. Got any ideas? Make a new one maybe? Infrastruktur (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just noticed "separator" only works for the single value constraint. :-( But it does seem like a good way to mark claims that are manually checked. @Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Something similar for contemporary constraint might be a good idea. At least it's a solution that doesn't have complexity issues. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Infrastruktur: I don’t understand what you’re trying to do. What does this have to do with a “separator”? What are the date of birth / date being separated from? Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Forget about "separator" that was my mistake. I was interested in hearing if you thought it would be feasible to add a way to manually mark claims such as child (P40) with a qualifier basically telling the constraint checker that this claim have been manually checked so don't show an error message here. Basically doing what "exception to constraint" does except the exception info is moved to the claims themselves so it should be more scalable I guess. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn’t mind adding that, I think… should be relatively simple to implement in WBQC, at least. It’s not an ideal solution, but it’s not like we have any much better solutions lined up either (“constraint exceptions don’t scale” has been a known issue for a while, and the last proposal I dimly recall, which I think would’ve encoded exception lists as additional items, was probably worse). My main concern would be that people would object to these qualifiers, but maybe I’m being too paranoid there ^^ Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking about how to encode the exception. If we use a single new qualifier "constraints manually checked" that would remove warnings for any and all constraints, which might be ok. Trying to encode information about individual exceptions in the predicate position strikes me as a bad idea, but they could be encoded in the object position if there was a URI prefix reserved for this purpose. The "wdno:" prefix encodes which property it pertains to, so likewise an "wdnoexception:" prefix could encode which property and exception it pertained to e.g. "?statement_node pq:P99999 ("constraint manually checked") wdnoexception:P40-Q25796498". Edit: Or maybe something like "?statement_node wdnoexception:P40 ("constraint manually checked") wd:Q25796498" would be better after all? It would add new things to the data model so it's not something that can be rushed. Edit 2: Or since we know which property from the claim itself, we could do without any new URI prefix at all which is actually way better, e.g. "?statement_node pq:P99999 ("constraint manually checked") wd:Q25796498". Infrastruktur (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think any addition to the technical data model is a non-starter, to be honest – if we want this soon, we should just encode it using the normal data model and accept that it won’t be 100% precise. I was thinking we could reuse exception to constraint (P2303)subject type constraint (Q21503250) as a qualifier, and when it appears outside of a property constraint (P2302) statement, reinterpret it as “ignore all constraints of this constraint type in this statement” (i.e. in the main snak, qualifiers and references). Or create a new property, of course. (In theory, we could use a URL-valued property, where the value is the URI of a property constraint like http://www.wikidata.org/entity/statement/P31-A89E967D-82B7-4081-BAE3-BADF28B4E7E3; this would let us distinguish between multiple constraints on the same property with the same constraint type, but it would look ugly in the UI and also be much harder to edit.) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I like your first suggestion. Would it be worth using exception to constraint (P2303) only for the main-snak, and make a similar property that is transitive (applies to qualifiers and references as well)? Infrastruktur (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could also do that, sure. Would need a new property proposal, I guess ^^
(Also, disclaimer: right now I’m not sure who’s “responsible” for pushing this proposal forward, if we want to go ahead with it; I’m not sure if I should be doing it as a staff account – I see myself more in the role of implementing it once it’s been decided. But I’m also not sure how much more consensus we need, or if we think it’s enough if nobody objected to reinterpreting P2302 here.) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Perhaps we can do a search for all the children born within 10 months of the father's death and mark them all object_has_role=born after father's death (Q105083598) and rewrite the rule for the error message so that it is not triggered when object_has_role=born after father's death (Q105083598). I am not familiar with how the error message rules are coded to make the changes myself. Do we have an error message when a child is born after the mother's death, which would indicate that the child belongs to a different spouse of the husband? --RAN (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suspect a general implementation of such a check (not limited to humans) would have a high complexity cost. It also trades false positives for false negatives. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) how costly would it be to implement the solution that RAN proposed? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Written work edit

Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Getting a filter error with reference URL entrepreneur.com edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago18 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

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

Lexeme reference failure edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

main_subject/major_subject versus secondary_subject/minor_subject in Wikidata entries edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago17 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

Query Count in Table edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

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

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

SELECT (COUNT(*) AS ?count)

WHERE {

?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .

?item wdt:P27 wd:Q408 .

?item wdt:P106 wd:Q60461966 .

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

Property documentation / Current uses edit

Latest comment: 11 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Cross-wiki article queries edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Lisa Sotilis (Q17101800) edit

Latest comment: 10 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Russian labels edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Can't edit Wikidata edit

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

On Vandalism Tracking edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

  • Special:RecentChanges lists too many changes. Even if you narrow it to unpatrolled changes and filter out other generally low-risk changes, you are left with a haystack that is replaced by another one in about two hours. Except for obvious cases, fast reviewing is impossible since you need to gather some context first.
  • Special:AbuseFilter works well for isolated cases/patterns or can help add tags to recent changes. But it is not scalable to all properties/languages/etc. and has access only to limited context.
  • Property constraints are a very well maintained, integrated and understood system. Every property has some constraints, and violation of a constraint means something is wrong or someone is doing something wrong. But reports of violations are scattered over thousands of pages with no indication of recency and no available integration with RecentChanges and AbuseFilter.
  • More ideas: [1][2].
  • See also Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2024/02#An unexpected effect of Covid-19 on the Wikidata project?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone,

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

🌟 About the Course

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #622 edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2024-04-15.
Translations are available.

Discussions

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

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

Other Noteworthy Stuff

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

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

Development

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

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

Weekly Tasks

Edit groups tool seems to be broken edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Twinkle or similar? edit

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Items to be careful with, controversial topic edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

old-computers.com ID Property:P5936 edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Systematic error related to patrollable edits edit

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

New update about splitting the Wikidata Query Service graph is out edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Ability to revert batch edits appears broken edit

Latest comment: 5 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Wikidata_talk:Edit_groups#Not_working?. Sdkb talk 18:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Umm, why isn't this causing alarm? Sdkb talk 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merged Uzbek ministries edit

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671) edit

Latest comment: 16 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

Simply purged the page with gadget... Seems now it appears in a proper way. --Wolverène (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually it does not, purging/cache cleaning was not enough. (Also, I believe that such frequently-used properties should be indefinitely semi-protected). --Wolverène (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
All properties are already indefinitely semi-protected. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and why I did not know this... Every day's a lesson. :) --Wolverène (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Link to other wiki projects edit

Latest comment: 19 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Like in en-wp, 

[[Roundabout]]

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

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

Question edit

Latest comment: 4 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it correct for

and/or

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

@MSGJː How about followed by (P156). (Folllowed by, at least for former bridge), I would not use subclass of in that way. Do you see a reason to do so? SM5POR (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how P156 would be relevant here. In my naive thinking, a former bridge is a bridge which has fallen down, and a proposed bridge is a bridge which has not yet been built, i.e. they are both bridges. But I understand that other views exist — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Latest comment: 4 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Sachsen-Anhalt edit

Latest comment: 3 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2133025845"