Wikidata:Identifier migration/0

See Wikidata:Identifier migration for full history and User:ArthurPSmith/Identifiers/0 for statistics for properties on this page.

Properties in range P1 - P999: Wikidata:Identifier migration/0
Properties in range P1000-P1999: Wikidata:Identifier migration/1
Properties in range P2000-P2999: Wikidata:Identifier migration/2


Good to convertEdit

Properties with serious objections to conversionEdit

  • FAA airport code (P240) 99.21% unique, 100% single-valued on 2283 statements. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ISIL (P791)
    • Disputed by Multichill at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/02#upcoming_deployments.2Ffeatures
    • See P345.
      --- Jura 08:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't understand this comment. P345 has multiple formatter URL's; P791 has only 1. What are you implying is the problem with P791? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
      • It is really a technical detail to be sorted out by the devs. Don't worry about it. It assumes some knowledge about the identifier at hand.
        --- Jura 14:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The first three letters of "ISIL ID" stand for "International Standard Identifier". It should be moved to "good to go" ASAP; not least as no good reason not to do so has been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • See also Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#DE-ISIL.
      --- Jura 12:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Have you tested this one, ArthurPSmith?
        --- Jura 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Is there a URL linking issue? Please be specific on what the problem is. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I think the problem is still the one described on the property talk page. Only DE values can link to the German website.
            --- Jura 16:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Ah, ok. Looks like there's a list here. I'll take a look. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
              • To avoid many dead links, we could just remove the formatter url and add it through the gadget only.
                --- Jura 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
                • @ArthurPSmith, Jura1: So why didn't this become an identifier? --Epìdosis 11:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • I could not track down a workable formatter URL or combination of them. We could, as Jura suggests, just make it an identifier without a formatter URL, but that loses most of the advantage of making it an external id. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • IATA airline designator (P229) - only 53.12% unique out of 2065 uses ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ICAO airline designator (P230) - only 92.42% unique out of 2454 uses ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • IATA airport code (P238) - only 82.56% unique out of 9437 uses ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ICAO airport code (P239) - only 78.91% unique out of 15384 uses ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I object against converting these three airline properties. These are more like abbreviations, not identifiers. Multichill (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • They are generally unique within a given scope. Similar to P428 some are abbreviations.
      --- Jura 14:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
      • what scope? If you try to resolve via the IATA the designators that are currently in wikidata, MOST of them do not currently resolve to anything. This is very different for example from P428, where the abbreviations are persistent over a very long period of time. The IATA designators for an airline often don't even last 10 years. Plus they are - by the IATA - deliberately allowed to be ambiguous simultaneously, so even if you know the time period you can't be sure what it's designating. I don't know what you mean by "given scope", but this is the same situation as a number of other properties that we have decided NOT to convert due to ambiguity. And unilaterally moving these to "good to convert" with minimal explanation is a rather surprising action after Multichill's comments, I have moved them back here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I have moved here properties that are either less than 60% unique-valued or have otherwise received serious objections about their validity as identifiers. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

already doneEdit



  • ISNI (P213) 99.99% unique, 98.37% single-valued on 279153 statements. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Apparently, the stated criteria hadn't been applied when evaluating these.
      --- Jura 13:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: can you give a detailed reason why you moved the above properties to the disputed section? --Pasleim (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Absent a reply, in over two weeks, I propose that we move these back to "good to go". In particular, ISNI and BnF should be there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
          • I agree - all of these meet at least the over 99% unique constraint and are widely used, I think these (the items remaining on Jura's "not applied" list here) should all be in "good to convert". ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
            • I see it has 4552 items with multiple links. Not sure if that's an indication any problems. Multichill (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
              • What has 4552 items..?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
                • Andy Mabbett I believe Multichill was talking about ISNI - I've been discussing this elsewhere, ISNI definitely has some issues with duplicate identifiers for the same person or organization. However, it is an international standard identifier (ISO 27729) and as such I think among those on the above list that most clearly should qualify as external identifiers... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
                  • Since ISNI is not about persons &c. but their "public identities" the number of single value constraint violations is partly by design and does not matter for the other part. Being recognized here as an external identifier does not imply that the target follows Wikidata's criteria for notability and entity shaping. -- Gymel (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
                    • A problem specific with ISNI is that the standard formatter URLs currently don't work. We would need to make sure the code works before converting them. We don't want to end up with conversions that apparently can't be undone as for IMDb.
                      --- Jura 06:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ISNI must be converted. Nemo 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I would like a headcount from the above users about conversion since it is not obvious to me whether there is consensus to convert. @ArthurPSmith, Jura1, Pasleim, Pigsonthewing, Multichill, Gymel: Please just either {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} conversion below. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      •   Strong support ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • This is not a vote; and voting is not how we determine consensus. (See en:WP:VOTE for background.) The few objections here are either not substantiated, or are irrelevant, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Oh come on, we've had discussion spanning months here, Izno was just trying to get a feel for where everybody stands right now. Multichill's comment above seems ambiguous for example. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
          • We have, lamentably indeed had "discussion spanning months here". And in all that time, we have had no relevant, substantiated reason not to do the conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        • If it is true that the few objections are neither substantiated nor relevant, then the others I requested feedback from will surely agree to support conversion. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure it is an external identifier for entities sufficiently aligned with Wikidata's view upon the world, had there ever been real dispute over it? So if the discrepancy between the way we store them here (in the official presentation form with interspersed spaces) and the URI/URL form (plain 15+1 digit string) is not an obstacle for conversion - just do it. -- Gymel (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It is for me hard to understand why ISNI (P213) does not yet have the external id datatype. Lymantria (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        If you want to understand why, you might want to follow the history of edits here - in this one on Feb 4 I moved ISNI among several others to "good to convert". That was objected to as the above discussion suggests, without any clear explanation. Later on the issue of the format/formatter URL problem has been raised but we have a number of external ID's that don't even have formatter URL's so I'm not sure why that's been blocking it so far. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        •   Support I think I already identified this 6 months ago one. Just do it correctly. -- Jura 03:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • with a new URL formatter there is really no reason this should not be converted now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  Support who can convert? @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):? -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The easiest would be if you open a ticket on Then I'll get it to the developers. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not going to convertEdit