Open main menu

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2019/06.

Contents

Metadata and reference unification for Economics and possibly other projectsEdit

Mcnabber091 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Note 1 PAC2 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Rjlabs (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Datawiki30 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Sidpark (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) noinclude>

</noinclude>   Notified participants of WikiProject Economics

I believe that we need create metadata template and ensure that all statements have minimal set of informations about sources/additional informations common for all things listed at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Economics#Properties. At this moment i can see that stated in (P248) and reference URL (P854) are very common. nominal GDP (P2131) is more verbose and contain also retrieved (P813) and license (P275) Alternatively, like @Yair rand: proposed we could create separated item for every source (eg for nominal GDP (P2131) item for files from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD would be created) and use it as metadata storage.

What qualifiers are especially important? Should stated in (P248) point to eg World Bank database (Q21540096) or be more precise and point to item created for stuff from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?

After discussion we would create documentation similar to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Open#Organisations_or_projects  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 813gan (talk • contribs) at 9 May 2019‎, 00:02 (UTC).

Mcnabber091 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Note 1 PAC2 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Rjlabs (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Datawiki30 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Sidpark (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) noinclude>

</noinclude>   Notified participants of WikiProject Economics @813gan, Yair rand:.--Roy17 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

given namesEdit

How does wikidata plan to support say Chinese, Japanese or Burmese given names with given name (P735)? Or if we should just stick to name in native language (P1559)?--Roy17 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • There are few items for Japanese names. If you are interested in formulating a plan, please do. --- Jura 10:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Either create millions of given name items, most of which would only be used for a handful of times, or stop using item as its datatype which should have happened right at the start: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Personal names Property_talk:P735#Mess. Problems raised in its proposal and vote are still yet to be addressed.--Roy17 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Are yall sure, that your suggestion is supported by a community consensus? Right now there are less than 50k items that are instances of or subclass of given names. Only seven are Chinese given names. If we were really creating Chinese given name items, there will be millions more. Not to mention some people have assumed multiple names at different stages of life, e.g. en:Chiang_Kai-shek#Names. Most items (maybe 30-50%) would only be used for one person. On the other hand, two other kinds of Chinese names, courtesy name (P1782) and art-name (P1787) have data types of monolingual text: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/32#East-Asian_names.--Roy17 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Fairly confident, this has been heavily debated over many years. It is also not at all problematic or unusual for an item to be only used in one location. Note that unless we specifically import a dataset of Chinese names, it is very unlikely that there would be millions of Chinese names on Wikidata, as there appear to only be ~260,000 items for Chinese people on Wikidata at all right now. --Yair rand (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Coverage for family names is better. It seems that there is just no interest in Chinese given names. --- Jura 07:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
East Asian names have extra complications (homonymns separated by hanzi spelling), and we have relatively few Wikidata users literate in entering hanzi and/or chinese/japanese in general. Circeus (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I ran a sample query. There are ~95k biography articles under zh:Category:漢字姓氏. Eliminating idential given names returns ~60k. This means as much as 60% has a unique given name. Of course, as more people are added, many will share a given name so the rate will go down, so my estimate is about 40-50% of all items of Chinese people would have a unique given name. Jura1 ran an analysis on Sep 2015 and concluded ~70% of all items have a given name. So, 2~3 million items of Chinese people = 1 million Chinese given names items, if this community is willing to host such items. Is that a distant figure? Considering wikidata imports all sorts of researchers, non-notable mentions in databases, etc. that may not even have a wiki article, the answer is no.
That was just the problem of unique Chinese given names.
I do not speak Japanese, but I have heard Japanese given names are often difficult to pronounce for strangers. Quoted from en:Japanese name: given names are much more diverse in pronunciation and character usage. While many common names can easily be spelled or pronounced, many parents choose names with unusual characters or pronunciations, and such names cannot in general be spelled or pronounced unless both the spelling and pronunciation are given. Unusual pronunciations have especially become common, with this trend having increased significantly since the 1990s. So, how is wikidata going to cope with this? Do you create items based on kanjis? Transliteration and labels are gonna be problematic. So based on kanas? But many people are not named using kanas per se. I don't know whether Japanese people consider all the variations of for example en:Toshio the same given name, or different given names. (TLDR: in Japanese, the same kanjis may be pronounced differently; the same pronunciation may be written with different kanjis.)
ja:special:search/intitle:秀夫 is a pretty popular Japanese given name, but it is also the name of en:Lu Xiufu. 俊雄 is quite popular in Japanese and Chinese. Should two items be created for these cases?--Roy17 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"Should two items be created for these cases?" I'd say yes because there is no connection at all between the two names in pronunciation between Chinese and Japanese. Most western wikis seem to group Japanese names by their pronounciations, but I can't quite tell what systems (assuming the wiki has pages for names) that ja:wp uses, much less how Wikidata should go about it: at least some kanjis can even be used to spell completely different names! Circeus (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think if the same kanji has different pronunciations, they are technically different names, and we should create separate items for them. Similarly, when several kanjis have the same pronunciation, we should also have separate items. Those items can be linked with different from (P1889), and perhaps we could use the qualifier criterion used (P1013) with new criterion items explaining the differences.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As there is some interest in Japanese names, we already have more than 2000 items for these. --- Jura 12:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
So, does this community confirm that it is willing to host such given name items? If yes, I will start massively populating Chinese people items with new given name items next year. I have no comment on names in Japanese, Burmese or other languages.--Roy17 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wind speed tiers of a wind turbineEdit

Hello. Each wind turbine model (example: Enercon E-126 (Q114672)) has multiple wind speed tiers. The minimum cut-in wind speed at which any power is generated, the rated wind speed at which the turbine generates 100% of capacity, and the cut-out wind speed at which the turbine speedbreaks are applied, and a maximum survivable wind speed before which the turbine structure will face a catastrophic failure. What is the best way to save these wind speed tier information on a particular wind turbine model item? Rehman 08:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is tricky. As a starting idea: significant event (P793) Q:"cut-in"/Q:"cut-out"/catastrophic failure (Q5051574) with qualifiers of wind speed (P5065) and P:"turbine angular speed" as a new property to link between wind speed and the angular speed of the turbine. Dhx1 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Unless the turbine did catastrophically fail, significant event (P793) is entirely improper for this. Circeus (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, P793 refers to a particular incident. I think we need new properties here, but I'm not sure if that is the best way, as the uses would most probably be limited to wind turbines? Rehman 13:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a generic problem with Wikidata, User:Rehman. The database is only being used for a fixed number of properties (i.e. relationships between keys and values). That's understandable if the community wishes to impose a fixed ontology onto the database, but doesn't give niche applications the opportunity to create relationships like <Enercon E-126><has full power wind speed><30 km/hr>, etc. Perhaps the freer relationships available using structured data on Commons may represent a solution for you if/when we get its API exposed to Lua. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
We do not have properties for that, but maybe:
< Enercon E-126 (Q114672)     > wind speed (P5065)   < value >
criterion used (P1013)   < cut-in wind speed >
That will require only to create items for cut-in wind speed, cut-out wind speed, rated wind speed and maximum survivable wind speed. But note that wind speed (P5065) despite its generic name is used only in relation to sport. That it would mean to broaden a scope of wind speed (P5065) or create a new property (and change a label of wind speed (P5065)).--Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jklamo. This seems to be a good approach. I'll leave this thread open for a bit longer, and then go ahead with the implementation. I'd like to see if anyone has concerns about creating the separate Q items, if any. Cheers, Rehman 02:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, seems like there are no more concerns. User:Sillyfolkboy and User:Pintoch (who were involved in the creation of wind speed (P5065)), or anyone for that matter; are you able to help me expand wind speed (P5065)'s scope please? I' haven't done so before, and don't want to break anything. Rehman 03:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: The wind speed property is currently limited to qualifying usage and a m/s usage. I don't think it's much use for your use case as to apply wind speed types for a turbine even if we unrestricted wind speed to non-qualifying usages you would still need to request new properties to qualify each of the cut-in, cut-out, rated and maximum survivable wind speed types. As this is an unavoidable requirement, a simpler solution would be to simply create each of these as new, top level properties which can be applied without qualification to the turbine items. I can see we've already got similar properties like maximum sustained winds (P2895) for hurricanes. I'm happy to support a proposal for that if the four properties you mention are standard measures for turbines. Given the specificity of the terms, I think it's better to have specialised properties – I can't think of a way to genericize the "cut-in"/"cut-out"/"rated" properties, though possibly "maximum survivable wind speed" could find usage on other infrastructure items. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sillyfolkboy: There's no need for new properties, criterion used (P1013) works as suggested by Jklamo. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Sorry, I missed that part. That is one versatile qualifier property! I suppose if you state the wind speed type item in Criterion Used then plain old speed (P2052) would be just as clear and avoids the issue of redefining every aspect of the sport wind speed property. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Sillyfolkboy, based on the above, are we able to proceed with expanding the scope of wind speed (P5065)? Rehman 12:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

cut-in wind speed (Q64441403), rated wind speed (Q64441440), cut-out wind speed (Q64441513), survival wind speed (Q64441515), are created. An example of those in use can be found in Enercon E-126 (Q114672). Before I continue adding such data for other wind turbine models, appreciate any thoughts if this is the ideal way. Ping Jklamo, Sillyfolkboy, ArthurPSmith. Cheers, Rehman 08:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: Looks good to me. I've modified the wind speed wikidata property to make it more generalised. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Sillyfolkboy! Rehman 06:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Time zones for Ireland are backwards, sort ofEdit

Currently at Ireland (Q27) we've got:

located in time zone (P421) UTC±00:00 (Q6574) valid in period (P1264) standard time (Q1777301)
located in time zone (P421) UTC+01:00 (Q6655) valid in period (P1264) daylight saving time (Q36669)

But this is, strictly speaking, wrong. In Ireland, UTC+1:00 is Ireland Standard Time (IST), while UTC±0:00 is of course just GMT. That is, Irish Standard Time is what the Irish observe in the summer, and then in the wintertime they set their clocks back by an hour, to GMT. (See the Wikipedia articles on Time in the Republic of Ireland and Daylight saving time.)

The situation is more or less the opposite of Daylight Saving Time. It really can't be modeled properly by any properties or qualifiers involving daylight saving time (Q36669).

I think there's a pretty straightforward way to fix this. I propose creating a new entity "alternative civil time". "Alternative civil time" would be a subclass of civil time (Q849275), just as Q1777301 and Q36669 currently are. I propose adjusting daylight saving time (Q36669) so that it's a subclass -- the obvious and only subclass -- of "alternative civil time". With the exception of Ireland, no current uses of Q36669 would change. But now we could better model Ireland as

located in time zone (P421) UTC+01:00 (Q6655) valid in period (P1264) standard time (Q1777301)
located in time zone (P421) UTC±00:00 (Q6574) valid in period (P1264) alternative civil time

Ireland Standard Time (U+1:00) is now the one that's associated with standard time (Q1777301), as it should be. Scs (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone use the term "alternative civil time" of have you just coined it? The en.wiki article refers to GMT. Is there some reason why this would not do? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: The term is my invention.
If by "Is there some reason why this would not do?" you mean, "wouldn't 'GMT' do instead of this hypothetical 'alternative civil time'?", no, it wouldn't. The hypothetical new entity would go after P1264. GMT, in this eample, essentially comes before it. Scs (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think you should be using standard time (Q1777301) for the time in summer. If people consider it worth doing, maybe you could make an item for "Irish standard time" (as a subclass of DST). --- Jura 12:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It is very, very difficult for anyone (not just Wikidata) to model time in Ireland properly. There is a very widespread and deeply-entrenched (and mostly justified) assumption that there are at most two types of time, anywhere in the world:
  • Standard Time, that applies either year-round or during the winter
  • Daylight Saving or Summer Time, that applies during the summer, and is one hour ahead of Standard Time
But in Ireland, according to Irish law, Irish Standard Time applies during the summer, and there's another kind of time (which happens to be called GMT) which applies during the winter, and is one hour behind. So if you try to force this into the "standard, or DST" model, you end up with "standard time = GMT" and "DST = Irish Standard Time", which is just plain weird.
There have been huge debates over this question on the mailing list for the tzdb project (Q187176); see for example here and here. The current tzdb position, I think, is that IST is Ireland's Standard Time in the summer, and that it observes "negative DST" in the winter.
I'm not at all sure how best to handle this in Wikidata, and after further thought, I'm not planning on changing anything right away. —Scs (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with calling daylight savings time "Standard Time" and standard time "Winter Time". It's just a naming question. What would be a problem is using the item for standard time sometimes for one thing and sometimes for the opposite.
    What might be worth doing is storing the dates one changes to the other as well as the years it applies (or had applied). Maybe it's already being done somehow .. --- Jura 14:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility for Ireland, without inventing any new entities, is to say that it observes Greenwich Mean Time (Q30192) during period (P1264) Winter time (Q10860882). I just now discovered Q10860882, which maps to w:Winter time (clock lag), which explicitly describes what Ireland's doing now (and a few others have done historically), as a sort of "negative daylight saving time".
Storing the dates the rules change is done for a few locations; trying to track the dates that DST switchovers occur is probably too much work and not reasonable. I've been struggling for months with how time zones ought to be systematically represented on Wikidata. See Property talk:P421 (and especially @SamB:'s comment there that "Timezones are REALLY REALLY fiddly" and that we maybe ought to just let the tz database (Q187176) handle them). —Scs (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A similar need to depart from the text of the law when describing daylight saving time occurs in the US. The relevant law only refers to standard time, and says " the standard time of each zone established by sections 261 to 264 of this title, as modified by section 265 of this title, shall be advanced one hour and such time as so advanced shall for the purposes of such sections 261 to 264, as so modified, be the standard time of such zone during such period...." Using the terms "standard time" and "daylight saving time" as is common practice does not mirror the law. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request about 50 birthdays via OTRSEdit

In ticket:2019060410009251, Wikimedia Trust and Safety informed us CRIStin (Q4579753) asks us to delete ~50 birthdays which were imported via CRISTin's API (these information are not accessible through their API). You can find the affected articles here. I believe this case is bigger than OTRS agents could handle and I would appreciate the opinion of the community. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Notifying Danmichaelo who made this import. − Pintoch (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand. Is this information publicly accessible in reliable sources? If not, it should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. They are not available via API anymore, so CRISTin asks us to delete them. Bencemac (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds perfectly reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
When information was available under a free license and it has been copied, it retained its free license. It is NOT reasonable to expect us to remove such information when the information is no longer available under a free license. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks like they are purging birth dates of living people to comply with the EU privacy law, General Data Protection Regulation. Norway is not a member of the EU but as a member of the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Association, they comply with EU regulations. I suspect we will be seeing more of this. I agree with the assessment that the license is irrevocable and since the Wikidata servers are domiciled in the United States, we only have to comply with US privacy law. It is very difficult to properly disambiguate people without having proper full birth dates. Truncating the birth date down to the year is a bad option. Someone should do a search to see how many living people have the same name and the same birth year to show how much confusion we would face. Wikidata is a source of information for people writing obituaries. --RAN (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
we lost that battle. you would not want to lose a court fight again; the German court does not care where the servers are. see also [1] and Wikidata:Living people. Slowking4 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as GDPR goes, it allows as a "Lawful basis for processing" (e) To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority.
While I'm no lawyer (and we might ask the Wikimedia legal team on that) it seems to me like the task that Wikidata performs about disambiguating people is one that's in the public interest and thus doesn't necessarily require consent. ChristianKl❫ 07:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
maybe you need to revise this sentence: "Instead of striving to provide all possible information about living persons we strive to provide only information in whose veracity we have a high confidence and which doesn't violate a person's reasonable expectations of privacy." or a European court will order you. Slowking4 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: "public interest" is not appropriate here; as I understand it, that requirement is generally interpreted to mean "doing something the law says needs to be done". Which I don't think we could really claim is the case here.
As far as GDPR & Wikidata goes, we fall firmly into "legitimate interest" - to use the UK ICO's phrasing, "where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact". It's reasonable for us to keep basic biographical data on people for the work we are doing, and as that information is already public, there is clearly minimal privacy impact. Where that data has since been withdrawn and is no longer public, this seems like a less legitimate justification.
I would also add: where someone has explicitly indicated they don't want some information public, it seems perfectly reasonable for us to respect that whatever the law says. I don't see what we gain by doing otherwise. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting that date of birth (P569) is currently tagged as property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) which requires that "statements should generally not be supplied unless they can be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves". As long as we take our LP policy serious we have to either remove that status from the property as I suggested or delete the data. ChristianKl❫ 08:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if they are ok if we keep the year or the decade? --- Jura 11:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. I don't have much to add here. The information was public when I sourced it from Cristin, but now it seems like they have removed it. Other authority registries still seem to include birth dates, and I don't know why Cristin landed on hiding them. One reason could be that the system includes many young researchers who are not really public figures. In my import, however, I only included professors. If we cannot show birth dates for these, it's a real pity. Agree with Andrew Gray that we should generally respect requests from individuals to have it removed though. Danmichaelo (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
(Or, many other authority registries include birth years at least. Exact dates are less common.) Danmichaelo (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Why do we follow EU laws on info removal and not Chinese laws on info removal, when US laws apply to our servers domiciled in the United States? --RAN (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
We have a living people policy too. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
An additional query, WHY do they want these dates removed? What kind of people are they. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Digital Visualisation and Maps - Scottish Witches ProjectEdit

Hi all, I am working as a Data Visualisation intern working with historical data related to Scottish Witches with the University of Edinburgh. The plan is to produce interactive maps and other visual aids such as timelines of events which can help visualise the data in different ways.

These are some maps which have previously been produced related to this dataset:

  • Map of places of residence for accused witches colourcoded by gender: Map1
  • Places of residence for accused witches with a layer for social class: Map2

I am wanting to produce maps that are similar with locational points but have more data and different layers. I also was not sure what would be the best platform to produce these maps such as wikidata itself or ArcGIS?

I wondered if there is anyone that would be able to give advice to help with producing maps or have experience working with historical data in a similar manner? Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, --Emmacarroll3 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • There seem to be plenty of items about Scottish witches on Wikidata, but - beyond a location - they currently lack more information, notably any date. Consequently, one can't do much of a timeline. Possibly you know that they are all in a given timeframe, so it might not be much of an issue. If you have some dates for them, you might want to add it.
What people sometimes get wrong when doing analysis with Wikidata is that a dataset on a random topic isn't necessarily exhaustive nor representative. Maybe this isn't an issue here.
If you can get some dates, you might be able to retrieve additional information about the people around the incidents or actually involved in them. General information about famine, religion, population in the time could be interesting too, but more data might need to be added first, before it can be visualized. --- Jura 22:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 FIFA Women's World CupEdit

Is there a way to query participants of the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup Q4630361? note P1344 - "participant of" is not added to any of the football players. Slowking4 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You... kind of answered your question there? Circeus (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
i gave you the ontology, but without data entry, the query will not give reasonable results. Slowking4 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I actually just added definitions for these categories last night (Category:2019 FIFA Women's World Cup players (Q63673661), Category:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup players (Q8200147), etc.) so I think category membership would be a good place to start if you just need a list. I believe @Ghuron: has a script to generate the associated quickstatements to apply these facts to the child Wikidata items but I'm not sure what their workflow/prioritization is. ElanHR (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Which property for different versions of story?Edit

Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión   15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Harshrathod50
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
Louize5 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Viztor (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
RaymondYee (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Kcoyle (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Tris T7 TT me
Helmoony (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Naunc1
Shooke (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
DarwIn (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I am Davidzdh. 16:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Juandev (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Buccalon (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
MJLTalk 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Books When working on Wikisource, there are many cases, where some story/concept (e.g. from ancient Greece) was used by different authors, or opposite case - one author wrote more almost similar stories.

e.g.

Original story Q53870472 writen by Aesop (Q43423) - The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q1211051), translated to many languages
Variations from different authors, many of them also translated to different languages
Other poems inspired by story
Films inspired by story
Other work inspired

For inspired works there is property inspired by (P941), for editions there is edition or translation of (P629). But how to connect related versions? I found said to be the same as (P460), different from (P1889), see also (P1659), based on (P144) or broader concept (P4900), but none of them seems to be the one I am looking for. And sometimes there is problematic to say which concept was the first (e.g. almost similar we can find in China, Persia, Greece...)

I think, there hould be some property like "related" for connecting different but similar works. JAn Dudík (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case, one can reasonably trace back to aesop in one way or another via (IMO) based on (P144) (which is the only "related to" property that is even remotely relevant here). We don't and will never have a "vaguely related to this other work" property (aside from facet of (P1269), and that's completely different in approach, obviously) because that wouldn't even be useful here anyway. I mean... you still need to put each of these items as "vaguely related to" something and, well, doesn't that just literally take you back to square one?
I wouldn't use edition or translation of (P629) unless it explicitly intends to translate one of the earliest versions purporting to be Aesop's (and even then, those should probably be attributed to their respective author, like Babrius). If you want to go broader than that, it's Aarne–Thompson–Uther Tale Type Index (P2540) or bust, I'm afraid (for this one, it's ATU 280A, in case you were wondering). Circeus (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
See for example Cinderella (Q11841): There are different written versions (Cendrillon (Q2944224) by Perrault, The Cat Cinderella (Q3822509) by Basile, Aschenputtel (Q27075957) by the brothers Grimm), each connected to the story via manifestation of (P1557) (Cendrillon (Q2944224) manifestation of (P1557) Cinderella (Q11841)) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, @JAn Dudík: basically wants to link back even further back than Q53870472 (i.e. to nonwestern versions too). Whether that item, currently linked to a commons category and with nothing else to it, should be independent, is also in question IMO. Actually looking at the property page for manifestation of (P1557) tells me it has no business being involved anywhere in fairy tales. Circeus (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a new property ”variant of” that doesn’t imply a parent/child relationship? - PKM (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The use of manifestation of (P1557) for fairy tales is documented at Wikidata:WikiProject_Narration and Help:Modelling/Arts#Fiction - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know about manifestation of (P1557), I can look (but this name is horrible).
But I want to know how to connect The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q3207418) with The Grasshopper & The Ants (Q28859348). Or how to connect various translations of Book of Genesis (Q9184) in one language with other books about Genesis. (@Shlomo:) JAn Dudík (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
As already stated by Circeus: The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q3207418) and The Grasshopper & The Ants (Q28859348) seem to be direct adaptations of The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q1211051) (Aesop). You can just add the statement based on (P144) The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q1211051) to both of them and connect them indirectly via The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q1211051).
My proposal was related to your last sentence ("And sometimes there is problematic to say which concept was the first"). It seemed to me that you were referring to cases where different works share the same literary theme (Q42109240) without being directly based on each other (or where this is not known). This may be the case with fixed versions of folk tales (see the Cinderella example above) or legends, etc. Here you can link from the fixed versions to the literary theme (Q42109240) (folk tale/legend/...) via manifestation of (P1557) and connect them indirectly. (One could think about creating a new property along the lines of "uses literary theme")
I don't think that a direct link between The Ant and the Grasshopper (Q3207418) and The Grasshopper & The Ants (Q28859348) is needed. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Lists that aren't listsEdit

List of Egypt in the Middle Ages (Q1779501) is a case of an item that is tagged as a "Wikimedia list article" when it's not. Many useful statements are removed because they don't apply to lists. Is there any way bots can confirm that articles are actually lists before making these changes? Even if one interwiki link in one language is a list, the linked articles may not be, and these are really hard to disentangle. It's rarely just a case of reverting on one earlier version (though this particular example may be). - PKM (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@PKM: Wikidata is... a wiki. If the problem is the instance-of statement... why don't you just... change the instance-of statement? Is there an edit war over that statement I'm not seeing in the edit history?! Circeus (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: That’s the easy part. It’s undoing all of the “list article” descriptions added by bot that's a nuisance, since some of them replaced perfectly useful descriptions. And it’s not all done in one pass, so there’s not just one edit to undo. I often find there are perfectly good new labels intermixed with the bot descriptions, so it becomes a forensic process on “view history”. And one really should look at all the sitelinks in case there are legitimate list articles that need a separate item. Finicky and tedious, not actually difficult. - PKM (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I checked all articles except for the r-t-l languages and the only (mild) outlier I found, as mentioned, was ru:. Circeus (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
When P31 is wrong for some sitelinks, I think the solution is to move the sitelink to an appropriate item, not to re-purpose the item. --- Jura 23:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I can live with that as a best practice. Less work, I suspect.
  • Weirdly, "list article" is marked as imported from Swedish... but that item didn't have a Swedish interwiki at the time (and never has done, as far as I can see). I wonder if it was initially an error? Andrew Gray (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think the bot that added it is known to have had problems back then. --- Jura 11:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I have created a new item Egypt in the Middle Ages (Q64495056) and moved all of the sitelinks except RU to the new item. The RU article should probably be Wikimedia timeline article (Q18340550) rather than List. - PKM (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
        • It seems unfortunate to break the sitelinks between the Russian page and the others just because it has a marginally different format (given the topic is the same). It would be different if there was a Wiki that had both an article and a timeline. Ghouston (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          • It seems unfortunate for Russian Wikipedia to have different content and still want sitelinks to other wikis through Wikidata. --- Jura 07:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
            • Agreed. RU article moved as well. At this point the list item has no sitelinks, so I think I should remove statements that refer to it, remove its “list” P31, and merge it into the new item. Any better plan? - PKM (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Raise echo limit to make ping project work again for bigger projectsEdit

Hi everyone, I propose to raise the configured limit ($wgEchoMaxMentionsCount ) for {{Ping project}} from 50 to 100 on this project. That way the ping works again for the bigger projects. Any objections? Multichill (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I support this, just because the paintings project seems to have broken the ping barrier. Jane023 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, the Books project passed the limit long ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  Support, but this has been rejected on technical grounds before - I think there’s a Phabricator ticket. - PKM (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel like any project that's grown so large should just be having its discussions on the Wikiproject talk page. I'm not sure there's as much use for mass-pings for such large projects. --Yair rand (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Andromeda and the Sea Monster, and Leda and the SwanEdit

 
Andromeda and the Sea Monster, and Leda and the Swan, by Massimiliano Soldani

Hi, These sculptures were designed as pendants. The museum presents them together. Should we have one or two items for these? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • How about 3? --- Jura 14:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) Three items. One each for the individual works, which are part of (P361) an item for the pair, to support e.g. links to the Getty object number. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • … and connecting the two single ones with pendant of (P1639). --Marsupium (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Start/end timeEdit

What parameter I can use to indicate certain period (one year) instead of add the same year to start/end time property? Eurohunter (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just use the same year with start time (P580) and end time (P582) if the value isn't know with better precision. Maybe add qualifiers like earliest date (P1319) and/or latest date (P1326) or others if apropiate. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dipsacus fullonum: Thanks Eurohunter (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Import global-warming potential (P2565) from a PDF tableEdit

In order to add global-warming potential (P2565) to items, the GWP 100-year (line Total) would need to be extracted from Table 8.SM.16. Is anyone skilled to do so? --Leyo 23:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Leyo (talkcontribslogs): Just converted it to a CSV through a combination of Tabula and custom code in pandas (Q15967387). It's available at User:Vahurzpu/sandbox/GWP 100 year data. Just go to the edit tab and copy the contents into a text file or straight into OpenRefine (Q5583871). Vahurzpu (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I am preparing a list for the mass import at de:Benutzer:Leyo/GWP. Unfortunately, manually assigning the names to Wikidata items is quite time-consuming. --Leyo 09:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Leyo: Matching names to Wikidata items is precisely something OpenRefine should help you with - please give it a try! We have plenty of tutorials available. − Pintoch (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, that did not help that much, unfortunately. --Leyo 23:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Are there a way to block specific users and bots from my watchlist?Edit

Normally i don't mind bots and people using QuickStatement but having my watchlist cluttered with hundreds of Added [x] label' is pretty annoying. --Trade (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Now, it should be possible with watchlist filters, but I have never done this myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If this about QuickStatements, see Help_talk:QuickStatements#Hide quickstatements from watchlist. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

iTunes artist IDEdit

This property recognise only American iTunes. What to do to recognise all iTunes versions? Eurohunter (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I read that iTunes is going to be terminated soon~, so I don't know if they will use those id's anymore. Stryn (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Stryn: Really? What about Apple Music? It use the same id's. Eurohunter (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Property creationEdit

I would like to proceed with the data import for swMATH work ID however the property has not been created. I was asking for help on IRC #wikidata several times but I didn't see any response. Where else can I get help with the property creation? --Physikerwelt (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Physikerwelt: I've just created it: swMATH work ID (P6830). I let you complete the property. Ayack (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Property extensionEdit

What is correct property for Q1454723 for person item? It also should work with Property:P1595 which should be similar to Property:P1399. Eurohunter (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

has effect (P1542)? It does seem odd there's no proper parallel for charge (P1595) Circeus (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Make Wikidata Q id more visible and make it shine. We should encourage usage in external sources of the Wikidata ID. But how?Edit

Today external identifiers are exploding in Wikidata (+3900) and also MixAndMatch (+1200). Another approach is that external sources start using Wikidata Q numbers in their data ––> this will grow even faster and the "classification" will be better as the Wikidata objects will help them see possibilities is my guess.

To succeed with that the Qnumber needs to be more visible in Wikipedia articles is my thought. I suggested yesterday that the sv:Wikidata Q number should be seen in the Authority template together with VIAF/GND etc. but I guess there are better solutions. Lesson learned yesterday when started to connect SVT Open archive ID (P6817) that is Swedish old TV shows I realized rather soon that it would be much better quality if they started to think Wikidata objects when classifying. So I think this is a win win. Any thoughts? Salgo60 (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not the Wikidata community that you need to persuade but those of each separate Wikipedia.
That said, what currently appears in the sidebar of (for example) each en.Wikipedia article as "Wikidata item" could instead render as, say, "Wikidata item (Q1138080)". For that you should raise a ticket on Phabricator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I have also long thought that "Wikidata item" could be made more prominent in that sidebar by moving into the "other projects" section -- with a second link if we have not just an item but also a whole substantive wiki page here. Jheald (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
About moving the Wikidata item link out of toolbox, see this task (it's been stalled for years because of an issue that could occur when a Wikidata page would be already linked in other projects, eg. c:Help:Contents), and this task where the Basque community used a script to move the link to other projects. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Primär källa (Q112754) vandalismEdit

I was talking with a friend and we were trying to figure out Greek words for various expressions related to primary sources and looking for primary sources and in this search we stumbled upon this item. Looking at it now, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5369651 was what that item was an instance of and then somebody(207.160.227.118) put that the item is a subclass of League of Legends https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q223341. Maybe there is more vandalism there? If you are interested take a look, I don't have so much time on this right now, we were looking for the Greek version of reliable sources. Ελλίντερεστ (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Number of subscribers propertyEdit

Property:P3744 is often used for number of subscribers in social media. What is the point of it if it changes probably in every hour? Eurohunter (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what timestamps are for. Or the precision function. Why, do you think anyone would think it sane to update it hourly? Circeus (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: Yes but how do you want to source it? It's probably impossible to verify if until you manualy save copy of the profile in Wayback Archive at the time. Eurohunter (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree this property is of debatable interest for these reasons. I guess in rare cases people might be notable only because of their number of subscribers on some platform and in that case it might be useful to document the order of magnitude, but in other cases I do not see the point. − Pintoch (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • number of subscribers (P3744) wasn't initially designed as a qualifier. I don't think its use as such is optimal, but we haven't really come up with a better solution in previous discussion. A possible solution could be more specific qualifiers, e.g. "number of subscribers in 2017", "number of subscribers in 2018", etc. --- Jura 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Inception date ranges across century boundariesEdit

What's your best solution for recording an inception date range that crosses a century boundary (for example, 1250-1325)?

I hate every workaround for this problem that I have come up with. - PKM (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What about: "inception (P571) 2. millennium", with qualifiers "earliest date (P1319) 1250", "latest date (P1326) 1325". --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If you do go with the above solution (which isn't ideal, but I am not sure I can think of anything better), do enter it as something like "1300 - precision - millenium", rather than just "2nd millennium" directly, to give it a chance of sorting more-or-less correctly in queries. It's a shame we can't define a precision tighter than millenium, but looser than century -- or alternatively, that "1300 - precision - century" doesn't render as "1200s / 1300s", with only spot values between 1325 and 1375 with precision century rendering as "14th century". Jheald (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as indicated. Only if the range crosses the era border unknown value Help has to be used. --Marsupium (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I found one yesterday that crossed a millennium boundary (800-1200). <sigh> - PKM (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all! I'm using "1300 - precision - millenium" as suggested (i would not have thought of that. - PKM (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@PKM, Dipsacus fullonum, Marsupium: I've raised the question at WD:DEV of whether it would be straightforward to make say "1330 - precision - century" render as "13th century", but "1300 - precision - century" render as "1200s / 1300s". If the dev team think this could be done without too much trouble, then an RfC on this could be worth taking forward. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking there! --Marsupium (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"1330 - precision - century" should be "14th century", not "13th century". - Jmabel (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You're quite right. I can't have been properly awake this morning. Now fixed in my comment at WD:DEV.
For the avoidance of doubt: currently if you enter "13th century" that gets recorded as '1300 - precision - century', and displayed as "13. century".
If you enter '1301 - precision - century', that gets displayed as "14. century".
I'd like to suggest that anything between '1275 - precision - century' and '1325 - precision - century' gets displayed as "13th-14th century"; and that "13th century" defaults to getting recorded as '1250 - precision - century'. Jheald (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary articleEdit

How to indicate that certain article is not applicable for certain item but is a "unofficial" summary article to desribe for example two soundtracks released to game? It can't use "instance of: album soundtracK". Eurohunter (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Instance of Wikimedia page outside the main knowledge tree (Q17379835). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I mean article instead of Wikipedia page. Something what is not officlal series/group like "organisations in Europe". Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of "article" you mean. Please give an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Q17089282 Eurohunter (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Instance of = Wikipedia article covering multiple topics with links to the different soundtrack albums covered in the article using main subject is one way of doing it. Moebeus (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Moebeus: Thanks Eurohunter (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Property:P406 (soundtrack album)Edit

This property is for film/video game/book but what is the other way to indicate film/video game/book which soundtrack album apply to on soundtrack album item? Eurohunter (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "based on"? --- Jura 10:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, based on (P144) looks the best bet. Jheald (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: @Jheald: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

schema againEdit

I know Wikidata's schema is fluid and not always concisely documented. But is there any attempt to systematically list, for each "type" entity E2 that some other entity E1 can be an instance of (P31), what statements each E1 ideally should (and should not) always contain? Like: every human (Q5) should have a date of birth (P569) and a country of citizenship (P27), every city (Q515) should have a coordinate location (P625) and a time zone (P421) and be located in an administrative territorial entity (P131), every book (Q571) should have an author (P50) and a publisher (P123), etc. (And I know it's always more complicated, and there are always exceptions, but you get the idea.) —Scs (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Scs: Please check out Wikidata:WikiProject ShEx - shape expressions are live now, but how they are to be used is perhaps a bit up in the air still, but I think that's what you're looking for. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. I suppose that's the right answer. I was hoping for something (a) simpler (like a simple list or table) and (b) that exists already. (Yes, I know, ShEx is live, but just barely.) But, anyway, thanks. —Scs (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #368Edit

Commons link should existEdit

Commons Creator page (P1472) of Su Shi (Q36020) has this warning, but the link does exist.--Roy17 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no Commons link in Su Shi (Q36020). c:Category:Su Shi cannot be added because it is linked to Category:Su Shi (Q30745776). --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dozens of V&A item ID (P3929) properties added to wrong itemsEdit

Here's a case where Mix'n'Match has gone badly wrong. Take a look at what Wikidata thinks is in collection (P195) Victoria and Albert Museum (Q213322):

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription WHERE {
?item wdt:P195 wd:Q213322.
 SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

The museum has a photograph of Edna Best (Q445510) but the V&A item ID (P3929) ID has been added to the actress herself, not an item for the photograph. The museum has posters and designs for Shakespeare plays such as Twelfth Night (Q221211), but the IDs have been attached to the plays themselves. The ID for a specific capital (Q193893) has been added to the concept of capital (Q193893). The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane (Q1756626) is not in the collection: a watercolor painting (Q18761202) of it is. There are dozens of these.

The situation has been complicated by the fact that Krbot has added collection (P195) Victoria and Albert Museum (Q213322) statements to items that have the V&A item ID (P3929) property. That's a helpful thing to do in theory, but it means that the wrongly-tagged items acquire additional false statements. I won't get time to fix this all myself, and I've notified the owner of Krbot, but this needs wider attention; both on the wrongly-tagged items and the careless use of Mix'n'Match. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Things like that occasionally happen. If you want to help clean-up, have a look at Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P3929. You could use PetScan or QuickStatement to remove the problematic statements. --- Jura 12:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @MartinPoulter: ran into that one too some time ago. Only used on 173 items. I would remove all usage and ask Magnus to flush the database so you can start over again. All the errors were made by one user who left Wikidata some time ago. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree with this course of action. I ran into a lot of these and tried to clean up my share, but it was largely one person's misunderstanding of how to match correctly. -- Fuzheado (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @MartinPoulter: Perhaps you could ask for turning on "high-quality automatching" to reduce junky matches. Magnus has implemented this for other catalogs when I requested to take them down from MnM. --Marsupium (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • There are lots of these for fashion items, including Philadelphia Museum of Art, MoMA, and MFA Boston. Maybe we should turn on high quality matching for all museum collections? - PKM (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Property proposal: "Authoritative country ISO 2 letter code for Nagoya Protocol regulations"Edit

I would like to add the property "Authoritative country ISO-2-letter-code for Nagoya Protocol regulations" (data type: string, domain: country Q6256) to all country items on Wikidata. Afterwards, I would add the statements to all countries, for example "UK" as a value for the newly created property for Jersey Q2280052. It would be handy to create all these statements using the quick_statement tool instead of a bot, but I am unsure. Before I can use the quick_statement tool, the propert needs to be added to all country items.

AddNPBot (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)AddNPBot 12th June 2019

I don't know how the Nagoya Protocol (Q1963613) specifically uses ISO 2 letter codes, so I might be missing something, but I would certainly hope that our existing property ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (P297) is accurate and authoritative enough for any use! I can't imagine needing a new property which is somehow "more authoritative" for just this one purpose. —Scs (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be that they don't use ISO codes correctly. --- Jura 10:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Valid sourcesEdit

Ursula Vernon (Q7901282) is a writer/artist that I am familiar with. The birthplace (P19) listed for her is incorrect (Pittsboro is her current residence, not her birthplace), but there is no reliable source stating her actual birthplace. What would be the best course of action to get this info corrected? Sario528 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Based on your explanation and given that the statement has a reference, I set it to deprecated rank. --- Jura 17:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mixed language labels for artworksEdit

Hi @Yann:,

You are performing mass changes to artwork titles that depart from long-standing best practices. Can you please pause and discuss them?

Your Quickstatements are changing labels in English to a hybrid of another language and English. Example: Self-Portrait in a Casquette -> Portrait de l'artiste à la casquette (Self-Portrait in a Casquette) link

Our best practice is to split these out to their respective languages, and add an English alias with the foreign language text to aid in discoverability. Example link

Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Andrew. I noticed this too and completely agree. Multichill (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Q64350339Edit

I am doubtful about the statement “Follows” on Q64350339, because iPadOS don’t have older version, this is the first version... --151.95.23.253 18:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

citation needed constraint (Q54554025)Edit

How I can indicate exact qualifier need source in certain items? I mean there is a lot of qualifers which need to be sourced in Hardwell (Q923731). For example genre (P136), occupation (P106), record label (P264), place of birth (P19) date of birth (P569). The only way to do it is to add citation needed constraint (Q54554025) to these properties? Then citation needed constraint (Q54554025) should be really common. Eurohunter (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding both the level of referencing that is reasonably expected on Wikidata and the purpose of the constraint. None of those call for anything remotely as drastic as citation needed constraint (Q54554025), which is intending to be used on property to mark those properties that inherently should be sourced (usually b/c of likelihood of controversy), such as religion (P140) and sexual orientation (P91). Circeus (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: Only very obvious things could be left unsourced but for me it's obvious we need references otherwise all data of 57 millions elements is unreliable and useless full of false data. Eurohunter (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Poor Google search resultsEdit

Try googling Hon Kwok Jordan Centre site:wikidata.org, you wont find Hon Kwok Jordan Centre (Q29291170) which was created and given the English label in 2017.--Roy17 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Basing on my experience it's ratcher common Google problem not only applies to Wikidata. Eurohunter (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Full text in-wiki search is usually more effective in my experience. Not perfect, but more effective (long as you can avoid having 200+ journal articles get in the way @.@) Circeus (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, that if you tried googling this ("Hon Kwok Jordan Centre" "wikidata"), it could only find c:Category:Yau Tsim Mong District because that page mentions "wikidata" and uses a file whose name contains "Hon Kwok Jordan Centre". If such brief mentions could be found by google, why couldnt the actual wikidata item? (Well after I posted this thread google now finds the item and this thread itself.) So I think there's something wrong or that could be improved about SEO of wikidata.--Roy17 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It's a mostly empty item. So why would you want anyone but Wikidata contributors to find it ;) --- Jura 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: I have to link Commons cats to a wiki article, or an wikidata item. The most convenient way to do this is to select the name, right click and Google search. The first results dont work? I add a keyword wikipedia and search again. Still doesnt work? Change wikipedia to wikidata. To open this homepage and try to get the item from wikidata's in-built search engine is usually fruitless because god knows if the item has correct labels. Google can do fuzzy but not wikidata. (Hon Kwok Jordan Center gives you nothing within wikidata.) I am not really a wikidata user, but I have no choice but to cope with this mess.--Roy17 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

geographic place namesEdit

I'm trying to generate a list of all known "place names"; in other words, any geographical point that has been given a name, such as:

a river, a lake, pond, mountain, hill, creek, city, township, county, etc.

Can that be done?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giacomogiammatteo (talk • contribs) at 13 June 2019‎ 00:22 (UTC) (UTC).

You'd have better luck just using Geonames. Circeus (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Giacomogiammatteo: I'd say yes, but you will face several challenges:
  • Obviously you will have to decide exactly which geographical features you're interested in.
  • Many features are notoriously hard to define. Where do you draw the line between mountains and hills? Islands, islets, and rocks? Cities, towns, and villages?
  • Wikidata doesn't define what you might think of as a single "type" for each entity it describes. Instead, each entity is an instance of one or more classes, and each class is described by its own entity. (For example, mountain is Q8502 and hill is Q54050.)
  • Often what you think of as an item's type isn't actually one of the item's listed instance of types. For example, you might think Boston (Q100) is a city, but Wikidata lists it as a big city (Q1549591) and a city of the United States (Q1093829). But these classes are all interconnected, in an obvious enough way: we say that one class can be a subclass of another class. For example, both big city and city of the United States are subclasses of city (Q515).
  • Therefore, when it comes time to write a query to list all the things, you usually don't want to say "give me everything which is an instance of city (Q515)." You usually want to say "give me everything which is an instance of city (Q515), or is an instance of something that is a subclass of city (Q515), or is an instance of something that is a subclass of a subclass of city (Q515)", etc.
  • Wikidata is multilingual, and not all entities have labels (names) in English (or in any given language).
  • Finally, of course, the world is a very big place, and Wikidata tries to describe all of it, so you're going to get a lot of names back.
At any rate, putting this all together, here is an example to get you started. One way to fetch data from Wikidata is with ``queries`` written in a query language called SPARQL. We're going to find all the entities which are instance of "continent". That instance of relationship is what wikidata calls "property P31", and "continent" is Q5107. So here's what a typical SPARQL query looks like:
SELECT ?id ?idLabel WHERE {
	?id wdt:P31 wd:Q5107
	SERVICE wikibase:label {
	    bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
   }
}
Try it!
Here I have not followed my earlier advice, in that this query lists only entities that are exactly instances of Q5107 continent. To additionally list entities that are instances of things which are subclasses or sub-subclasses of continent, I would have used the notation wdt:P31/wdt:P279* instead of wdt:P31, and I would have gotten back not just the familiar continents, but also supercontinents like Afro-Eurasia (Q27527) and paleocontinents like East Gondwana (Q2606411). (As you might have guessed, Wikidata property P279 is subclass of.)
But as I said, for just about anything other than continents and countries, simple queries like this to try to list "all islands" or "all rivers" are probably going to return an overwhelming amount of data. (The queries are likely to overwhelm not just you, but also the Wikidata query service.) I don't know how to limit the results to say "just give me the first 100" or "give me the biggest 100".
You can read much more about Wikidata queries at the Wikidata Query Service User_Manual, at a list of example queries, or (my favorite) the Wikidata:SPARQL tutorial. —Scs (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Best way to represent complex contemporaneous constraint?Edit

JakobVoss (talk) ClaudiaMuellerBirn (talk) Criscod (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Pintoch (talk) Ettorerizza (talk) Ls1g (talk) Pasleim (talk) Hjfocs (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC) PKM (talk) 2le2im-bdc (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC) ElanHR (talk)


  Notified participants of WikiProject Data Quality --Micru (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) TomT0m (talk) Genewiki123 (talk) Emw (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) —Ruud 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Emitraka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bovlb (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Lechatpito (talk) --Andrawaag (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) --ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) --Cmungall Cmungall (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Cord Wiljes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) DavRosen (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Diana de la Iglesia Jsamwrites (talk) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) --Horcrux92 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) Bamyers99 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Malore (talk) Wurstbruch (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Ninokeys (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Yair rand (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Tris T7 (talk) ElanHR (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC) linuxo Gq86 Gabrielaltay

  Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology

I am trying to express (in as general of a way as possible) the constraint that people cannot have an occupation (P106) or position held (P39) prior to the inception of the stated occupation (Q12737077)/position (Q4164871). Violations would indicate a quality issue with either the date of death (P570) of the start time (P580) for the occupation (P106) or possibly the inception (P571).

Motivating examples:

For positions I think the most straightforward way to simply use inception (P571) of the positions of interest.

For example:

For occupations however I'm wondering if there's a better way of modeling this. Essentially I'm trying to represent the fact that "a real person cannot have a profession before the the required technology has been invented or the stated first instance for the field of work". My question comes down to what would be the best way to model these relationships between occupation (Q12737077)/field of work (Q627436) and the required technology?

One way I've seen the relationship between occupation (Q12737077) and occupational fields modeled with with practiced by (P3095) and field of this occupation (P425) but was wondering if there was a better way to look at these.

Cheers, ElanHR (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

OCLC control number (P243)Edit

Why is bot removing OCLC control number (P243) here? How I can add [2]? Eurohunter (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This property is designed for works only, as you may have seen before adjusting the type constraint. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: So how I can add this id? Eurohunter (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The url contains Library of Congress authority ID (P244), where the given website is listed as third-party formatter URL. The bot summary also gives the same indication. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: Yes but there is no explanation what to do, how to achieve it. Eurohunter (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:DeltaBotEdit

Bot is removing valid FA badges. I'm unable to stop him. @Pasleim: Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot blocked for five minutes, I hope this will cancel all running jobs. I think the problem is that DeltaBot uses Petscan for data evaluation, and there was a problem with Petscan earlier this day. Pasleim is inactive since April 3. --MisterSynergy (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Can you somehow cancel these edits? Eurohunter (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I have no other options than you have. If I understand the DeltaBot code correctly, it should re-add the badges at some time. Unfortunately I have no idea how often that job is run. I have written an email to Pasleim, but he did not reply yet. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

John Paul II (Q989)Edit

MicrobeBot updatesEdit

Hi!

I am looking at what is causing current load spike in the Query Service, and one of the things seems to be MicrobeBot: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MicrobeBot - which seems to clock at 44 edits per minute, and most edits as far as I can see are updates for "retrieved" dates in various references. I would like to ask whether these updates are really necessary in this volume? Each of these items is not small (checking random one, its RDF dump is 200K), and right now each update loads the whole data set for the item (yes, we know it can be optimized, we're working on it, but it's the case so far), and if the only thing updated is the retrieved data in references, I wonder if this update is necessary at all, and if it is, can it be executed at a slower pace? Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smalyshev (WMF): Thanks for raizing this issue. I already saw the note on the mailing list and as a precaution suspended all our bots for review and to update our user agent headers as requested on the Wikidata email list the email. We do submit user agent headers, but there is room for improvement which we are implementing now. However, as you say, it is the update of the timestamp that is causing disruption. W.r.t. the retrieved field. The Wikidata integrator does have the "fast run" mode that prevents edits like the ones you just mentioned - i.e. only edit an item if there is a difference in the values. However, periodically we do run a the bots where for all statements the retrieved reference is updated to show its up-to-dateness. If this is causing havoc, which it seems to do, we should definitely review this procedure again. Do you have any suggestion, would it help if I drastically limit the number of edits per minute? Or does the size of the RDF remains the issue? Apologies for the inconvenience we might have caused, we are working towards a less disruptive solution. --Andrawaag (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
With slower edits, that definitely would be much less of an issue. Given that this is not main data but just an update of the recency of data retrieval, it's not a huge deal if some items wait for a while with their updates, so reducing the rate by 10x or even more sounds possible for me and it would probably create much smaller load and would distribute it over time. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The Wikidata Bot policy says that "bots should respect maxlag and should follow the API etiquette guidelines." If they do that, they would not disturb the project as I understand it. BTW, I also cannot see a need to update a 6 months old retrieved date just so show "up-to-dateness". If something was an instance of protein 6 months ago, I think it is safe to assume that it also is that today. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
We have indeed decided to change our update-all procedure from once every 3 months to once annually. Having said that there are cases, where checking for "up-to-dateness", is needed more than annually. Some resources, especially in the biomedical sciences, are updated more frequently than once every 6 months. However, with the release of the EntitySchema extension, we can now link the timestamp ("schema:dateModified "2019-06-13T11:17:07Z"^^xsd: dateTime;") to an EntitySchema that is being affected by our bots. So we might even be able to adapt our bots in such a way that these full updates are not at all necessary. --Andrawaag (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment on the maxlag parameter: it originally measured the lag of the database replicas, which was for a long time the most important bottleneck during editing. In past years, however, we experienced another bottleneck,which was the dispatching of edits to connected Wikipedia articles. At some point the dispatch lag was factored in into the maxlag parameter, which changed it to something like a "server load parameter" without being renamed. Bot operators and bot framework maintainers did not have to change anything, but in times of high "server load" their batches automatically stopped until load was fine again. This year, the most important bottleneck are the updates on the Query Servers, which are not yet part of the maxlag parameter (there is phab:T221774 underway to change this).
Thus, respecting maxlag is formally enough according to the bot policy, but it does not necessarily mean that the servers are able to cope with the load in every respect. As a bot operator, it is these days worth to have a look at the respective WDQS lag chart and stop editing in times of high lags. In general, the "server load parameter" (maxlag parameter) only considers known bottlenecks which are considered in the maxlag value; as "server load" is anything but a simple measure, there will always be space for high server loads that are not reflected by maxlag.
Another aspect is the type of items one plans to edit. Items with many sitelinks generate a lot of dispatch load (not that much of a problem any longer), and large items with many statements generate a lot of WDQS update lag; reason is that with each edit, the entire item is re-loaded to the Query Servers and that is a more expensive operation for large items with many triples. In order not to bring the servers to the limit with a bot job on items with special characteristics (such as on average "many sitelinks", "many statements"), it is thus sometimes advisable to reduce edit rates beyond what is required by policies. Custom request headers with email contacts are also useful, as the server operators could easily reach out to bot operators in case there is some unusual high load created by their task. Administrators would otherwise not hesitate to block bots that create extraordinarily high load; not because there is a violation of policies, but more because of project protection. --MisterSynergy (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any benefit for this? Wikidata isn't meant to a real-time source, but one that collects data incrementally. Besides, the updates seem to break everything else on Wikidata. --- Jura 14:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference in different langaugesEdit

How to add reference avaiable in two languages under different urls? Schould I add two titles and urls to one reference or add two separate rferences? Eurohunter (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you should add two references to one property. If the reference is a URL, it is of type "reference URL". If you need the same reference as a source for multiple properties, you indeed have to repeat the process of adding them. You can not combine a reference like you an do on Wikipedia. Edoderoo (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: I know but I mean just the case where source is avaiable in two or more languages and has also different urls for certain language. Did you meant that? Eurohunter (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Why does it matter that you specifically list both urls? Circeus (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If source is avaiable in few languages information about it should be provided. Eurohunter (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I usually use two “reference URL” statements, on for each language, since the URLs will include the language specification. - PKM (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Stated in with page number ?Edit

Hi, is there a possibility to add the page of the work in which the information is stated when using Property:P248 (stated in) ? For example, here I added the elevation of a village and sourced it but i'd also like to add the page of the source.--Kimdime (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kimdime: certainly it’s possible, that’s what page(s) (P304) is for :) note that the data type is “string”, not “quantity”, so you can put page numbers like “2-5” or “iv” if necessary. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Change itemEdit

I hope this is the right place; if not: please move this to were it belongs!

Please, can anyone move the dutch article VFF National Super League from WIKIDATA item

Vanuatu Premia Divisen (Q384073) to WIKIDATA item VFF National Super League (Q17632439). Thanks for the help. Pucky (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Edit the old site-links, copy article name to clipboard, then delete the site-link with the bin-icon. Then go to the new/other item, and edit/add the site-link as usual. Edoderoo (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Less than (elevation above sea level)Edit

Hi, I have an information given by my source as Elevation : less than 25 m. Could I render this information using elevation above sea level (Property:P2044) ? Something which would give me a result looking like Elevation : <25 m.--Kimdime (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Kako da ne. How yes no. You can edit 25 with an uncertainty / higher/lower limit. It could be for example 25, with an upper limit of 25 and lower limit of 10. Edoderoo (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
EdoderooYeah but my info is more vague, it just, literally, says "less than 25 m"--Kimdime (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kimdime: I was going to suggest elevation above sea level (P2044) unknown value Help / maximum value 25 m, but apparently we don’t have quantity equivalents of earliest date (P1319)/latest date (P1326) yet? (minimum value (P2313)/maximum value (P2312) are only for constraint definitions, as far as I understand.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the allowed values for qualifier sourcing circumstances (P1480) is less than (Q52834024). --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

depicts (P180) for non visual depictionEdit

Apparently some think that P180 should also be used for non-visual depiction. In the property proposal this was initially included, but the subsequent discussion on property talk and, AFAIK, here on project chat, this was generally rejected. The property samples reflect that, but we don't have too many constraints in place to avoid that and, despite countless correct uses (> 150000), we need to clean up some misguide uses. Imagine a news conference by Sarah Huckebe about some country and we end up with an item about that conference with 20-30 "depicts" statements about various words uttered in that conference.

I think proposals for a "mentions" property were usually rejected.

So the plan is:

  • delete statements that already violate current constraints
  • clean up other constraints
  • add "main subject" where appropriate
  • add more constraints

--- Jura 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no discussion at the property talk that rejects the use of depicts (P180) for non-visual depictions. Property_talk:P180#Ambiguous deals with the question if depicts (P180) and main subject (P921) should be merged. Only the initial sentence suggests that the depicts (P180) should be reserved for visual depictions, which was not approved (at least not explicitly) by the other participants in this discussion. The discussion closed with the proposal by Kolja21 to review the use again later, which is a good idea and which may be done now.
In my opinion some of the uses may be moved to new properties. I already proposed literary motif which should deal with some cases, if approved. Apart from this depicts (P180) on non-visual works is also used for things "depicted" (described) in a written work without being it's main topic. One thing that comes to mind are events that are described as relevant elements of the plot - Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig (Q564388) is a relevant event in the plot of The Tin Drum (Q899334), but it is certainly not it's main topic and it is not only mentioned. One could think about a property <describes event> to cover those cases, but I'm not sure if this is actually needed.
The current use in press statements like Press conference of the President of the French Republic at the Europan Council (Q63494178) may be debatable as this tends towards the "mentions"-use. I think Léna can explain the intention behind this use. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There have been a series of subsequent discussion here, about the use of depicts and the creation of a general "mentions" property. I don't think it concluded that the use such as on Q63494178 is desirable. If needed, maybe someone would want to dig up these discussions. The proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/literary motif might cover any residual uses. --- Jura 17:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Imagine a news conference by Sarah Huckebe about some country and we end up with an item about that conference with 20-30 "depicts" statements about various words uttered in that conference" Why would this be more problematic than a portrait painting with dozen of "depicts" statements about the various flowers in the bouquet hold by the person in the portrait ? Léna (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Search general doesn't work by visuals without them being described. Contrary to full text indexing by search engines: we don't need to re-invent it at Wikidata nor is it its purpose. --- Jura 17:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not about "words", it's about concepts. The plain text research does not understand synonyms paraphrases, so information would be missed. Also, concepts have properties, such as coordinates : you can't generate a map with text indexing. As often with wikidata, the interest in having "so much" information is lost when you only look at an item, it is the queries that make them look relevant. I think it makes more sens to keep depicts (P180) for visual and textual works instead of creating another property. We have to remember that Wikidata is still very young and that with less than 60 million items we barely touched the surface on how much data there is. When we'll have enough data to answer questions such as "show me a timeline of the depiction of Cold War (Q8683) medium by medium, it would be easier to not have to include several properties into the query. Léna (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Feel free to request a property for whatever scope you think is useful. Just don't misuse existing properties for whatever the plan may be. --- Jura 20:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think that Lénas use of depicts (P180) for speeches is a misuse overall. depicts (P180) may be ill-defined for written works which mostly has a negative impact on it's expressiveness in this area. But to use it for persons, places, events or objects described in a written work (without being it's main topic) seems reasonable to me (this use is actually explicitly mentioned in some of it's descriptions, like the Czech one) and I would still defend this use (unless other properties like characters (P674), narrative location (P840), set in period (P2408), cites (P2860) can be used). A literary work may describe a building at length, or aspects of an event, and this may be notable.
If the use of depicts (P180) is inappropriate (as the concept/place/person/... is rather only mentioned and not really described) may be discussed and decided on a case by case basis. To have an example: Press conference of the President of the French Republic at the Europan Council (Q63494178) lists via depicts (P180) Belgium (Q31), France (Q142) and Belgium–France relations (Q2366721). Let's say Belgium (Q31) and France (Q142) are only mentioned as part of the description of Belgium–France relations (Q2366721) (I don't know this speech so this is only a guess). In this case it would be probably better to delete depicts (P180):Belgium (Q31)/France (Q142) and just keep Belgium–France relations (Q2366721). Queries for points in a speech and their association with geographical places would become a bit more complex - in the case of Belgium–France relations (Q2366721) one would need to utilise the path wdt:P17/wdt:P625 - but it would still be possible.- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[undent] Seems to me like historical events and the like shown in a literary work could indeed be dealt with depicts (P180), though a "narrative event setting" or something along those lines (to go along with narrative location (P840)) is certainly a tempting proposal.

That news conference item, though... oh dear, depicts (P180) is most definitely not an appropriate property to list all the things that are covered in it. To deal with that would definitely require a new one. Circeus (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Diamond (shape)Edit

We don't seem to have a "diamond" as a subclass of shape (Q207961) (or it doesn't have "diamond" as an alias). Can someone familiar with our polygon ontology tell me how to describe it? I assume it's a subclass of quadrilateral (Q36810). - PKM (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

rhombus (Q41159). —Scs (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
regular octahedron (Q12557050). --Succu (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, rhombus (Q41159) is what I need. - PKM (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No start time/end timeEdit

How to indicate that something has ended but start time/end time is unknown? Eurohunter (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

end time (P582):unknown value (example. This will mean it shows up as finished but without a known date. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Thanks Eurohunter (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: you could also use latest date (P1326) to encode the idea of the latest possible end date being now (or possibly some earlier point, depending on context) Vahurzpu (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

German (formal)Edit

Why there is formal version only of few languages? Anyway why there is formal version of certain languages while we use here formal version instead of common language? Why PLbot is removing German (formal) but he is not removing for example Spanish (formal)? @Pasleim: Eurohunter (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Your bot just removed few formal versoins. Do you know something about it? Eurohunter (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As Jura said. The answer probably is that es-formal occurred recently. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "formal" is meant for the GUI, not for labels/descriptions. --- Jura 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: What you mean? What is function of it? Eurohunter (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • For the user interface, you can choose "es-x-formal" in Special:Preferences. This ends up being available for labels/descriptions, but shouldn't actually be used. It's somewhat obscure how language codes are defined on Wikidata .. --- Jura 11:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

any Russian-speaking programmers here?Edit

I want to merge Q30278326 into do while loop (Q3242594). But the Russian-language descriptions conflict. Can anyone confirm that they're more or less equivalent, pick the best one, and delete the other one? Thanks. —Scs (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me. Q30278326 has a statement that it is a part of Pascal (Q81571). I made it more clear with subclass of (P279). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to find Azerbaijani speaker to find out concept of this article: is it part of Pascal description or just generic programming construct in as series of Wikipedia articles. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WDQS update recordEdit

Hoi, at this time the lag is over 10 hours. A record. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Also tools like PetScan seem to be slow as he-double-hockey-sticks. Edoderoo (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Edoderoobot edit rate. --Succu (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

shortcuts for starting items / importing data?Edit

Are there more efficient ways of creating new items without going through the incredibly meticulous steps of adding each basic property manually? (e.g. "instance of: human", "occupation: biologist", "birth date", "death date" etc. etc. etc.) For instance, it would be great if I could enter a DOI or ISBN to automatically create an item for a journal article or book, or a VIAF ID to start an item about a person. Or quickly create an item based on a newly created Wikipedia article and categories therein. (User:Emijrpbot previously did this, but has been inactive for some time). I don't know anything about coding or scripts, so if there are existing tools or processes for the layperson, that would be much appreciated. Thanks -Animalparty (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: In the case of journal articles and books you can use SourceMD, though I don't know of tools for other categories of items you listed. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: take a look at Cradle. You still have to add the data, but you can do it all in one pass. - PKM (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)