Wikidata:Project chat

(Redirected from Wikidata:PC)

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

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

On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2021/03.

How to add subsidy payments?Edit


How can I document subsidies (capacity payments) to power stations please. I know there is feed-in tariff (P6826) but these subsidies are a bit different as they are not just per MWh but also include payments for MW installed capacity.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs).

@Chidgk1: This sort of data tends to be tabular, and would typically differ from year to year. Such data are often unsuitable for the data model Wikidata use, and I'd consider using tabular data on Commons.
@Vojtěch Dostál: That's right it differs from year to year: but if we look at an example: on Çatalağzı power station (Q6099668) there is annual energy output (P4131) for which I can add a different quantity each year. So I was wondering if there is something similar or if not I could request a new property which could be qualified by point in time (P585) each year, such as "payment", "subsidy" or "capacity payment"? As I am using wikidata for the rest of the data if I used tabular data on commons for that one item I think it would be more complex to add the whole lot into a Wikipedia table - like I do at tr:Türkiye'deki kömür yakıtlı enerji santralleri listesi

Estacion Espacial InternacionalEdit

In spanish version of Estacion Espacial Internacional (International Space Station) thera are some mistakes in "Especificaciones Tecnicas" and "Parametros orbitales". It has several numers 3 like cubic kilometers in Altitud de Perigeo. It must be just kilometres. The same mistake there are with several "3 " number in different measures

Interpreting "described at URL" (P973)Edit

I have some questions about the proper use of described at URL (P973). As I interpret this property, it should be used to point to a web page or document that is about the Q item. On items for subjects, e.g. data-driven modeling (Q102047184) and safari industry (Q105347324), I have added P973 and linked out to some articles about these topics that didn't have Wikidata items themselves. Jura1 has been removing these statements and creating new items for the articles, and in those items he is using P973 to give the URL that provides the actual full text of the article. I wrote to him saying that this didn't make sense to me, because the article isn't describing the article. Instead, I think that full work available at URL (P953) is the correct property to use for a URL that provides the full text of an article. As an example, I changed P973 to P953 on Safari tourism (Q105534089). Jura1 said to me that "it isn't consistent with the purpose of described at URL (P973)." Am I misunderstanding the purpose of described at URL (P973)? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I use and have used described at URL (P973) the same way you use it. To me it's a top level property that is roughly analogous to a reference URL or further reading URL you'd see on English Wikipedia. If he's going to move them to a new item, I would recommend adding described by source (P1343) with a value of the newly created item. William Graham (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a very good suggestion. But on the new item, shouldn't P973 just be P953? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to ping @Jura1: as is good etiquette. William Graham (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I use “described at URL” the same way you do. - PKM (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Isn't this exact match (P2888)? Ghouston (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    I think art catalogues and databases mostly used P973, before people started creating properties for every catalogue. --- Jura 06:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ghouston: So should we sort out exact matches on mainly use for Springer papers as in the sample by UWash? --- Jura 09:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Multichill (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC), focus on the Netherlands Husky (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) - Cool, i'd like to focus on building tools to visualise progress. Spinster (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Happy to help with manual finetuning that can't be done by bots, and anything else on the 'soft/wet' side of this project. I'm dreaming of complete artists' oeuvres on Wikidata! Rich Farmbrough (talk) Time to learn2Wikidata Jheald (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Kippelboy (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan paintings (subdivision of Spain) Mushroom (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) work on Dutch 17th-century paintings and landscapes of Haarlem; Most recently, the sum of all "attributed" paintings by Frans Hals, which is nearly done Missvain (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Swiss heritage institutions) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) KRLS (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan area museums) DivadH (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ,happy to help out with any questions in regards to the Europeana API, how to best query it, and/or our metadata Xcia0069 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Work on data related to Gianlorenzo Bernini and Artemisia Gentileschi. Work at Europeana too ! Susannaanas (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Fabrice Florin (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I can help in California later this year. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I can help! Raymond Ellis (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - will give a hand with Creators and AC :) louis-garden (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) for italian paintings (XIIe-XVIIe) Olivier (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Micru (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Geraki (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Focus on Greece) PatHadley (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Working to get data from the University of Oxford (Q34433) and its component institutions shared on Wikidata. Pablísima (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Carl Ha (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Nasty nas (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Sarasays (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Thierry Caro (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) John Samuel 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Reosarevok (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Subsublibrary (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Martingggg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Argentine and Hispanic America Kruusamägi (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia SIryn (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC), focus on moving metadata from Commons to Wikidata Walkuraxx (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC), focus on Japan GualdimG (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Léna (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Yann (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Paul Cézanne (Q35548) for a start... Abbe98 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Have been doing small things here and there — especially improving items around what is depicted on paintings — so might as well sign up. Jbandrews (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Product Manager at the Art Institute of Chicago. Amadalvarez (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Meresquared (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC) I'm interested in adding depiction descriptions to paintings, and improving data around women and POC. Clifford Anderson (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC) focus on danish paintings. TemboUngwe (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Joan E Beaudoin (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Frolicking in metadata about art = heaven on Earth! Currently working on the Uffizi artworks ID file in the Mix'n'Match tool. Subodh (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Marajozkee (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Bhuvana Meenakshi (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Ham II (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Unapeça (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Focus on catalan paintings Edelseider (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Wuselig (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC) active in German GLAM-activities  Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings (given the uses for paintings) @Jarekt: (given the use on Commons). --- Jura 09:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The The Night Watch (Q219831) is described at so that's the contents of described at URL (P973). Looks like only Jura thinks it should be done differently? Multichill (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it? --- Jura 12:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: I would say in response that some of these URLs I would consider valid for use in "described at URL", but only the ones that really describe the original painting. Links to information about books or TV shows with some relationship to the painting would be a bit too far of a stretch for me to use here. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO exact match (P2888) is an indication of a bad smell, and should be avoided wherever possible. Its primary function is to indicate relationships that probably ought to have their own external-id property, but for some reason haven't had one created yet. Wherever possible (IMO) exact match (P2888) should be emptied, and its contents turned into appropriate external-id statements. Where that is not possible (IMO) P2888 should be avoided where possible, so as not to add distraction and noise, that make it harder to see the hard core of P2888 statements that still need external-id properties to be created. mapping relation type (P4390) = exact match (Q39893449) can be used as a qualifier to underline that a relationship really is an exact match.
Pinging @UWashPrincipalCataloger, William Graham, PKM, Ghouston, Jura1, Multichill: -- Jheald (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • And how does P973 "smell" to you? Is it better to add exact matches there? --- Jura 22:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jheald: --- Jura 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1: I see "described by URL" as a parallel to "described by source". One source (eg a book) may describe many things. We compensate to some extent by allowing page number as qualifiers. But I have no expectation that described by source, even with a page-range qualification, will only describe one thing. Jheald (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It is now possible to manage interwiki links to/from multilingual WikisourceEdit

Hi everyone,

As you may know, you can include Sitelinks (also known as interwiki links or interlanguage links) that go from individual Items in Wikidata to pages on other Wikimedia sites including Wikisource. Until now, it was not possible to manage the interwiki links to/from multilingual Wikisource on Wikidata. This was due to the unusual technical setup of multilingual Wikisource as well as the fact that we can only link to one page for a topic on any given wiki (multilingual Wikisource can theoretically have several pages covering the same topic in different languages though this is very rare).

We resolved the technical constraint and starting today you can connect pages on multilingual Wikisource with the other language-specific versions of Wikisource so these interwiki links don't have to be maintained in the wikitext anymore. After adding a sitelink, the sitelink appears on the Item page (in the Sitelinks section) with language code mul. The restriction of only being able to link to one page on multilingual Wikisource per Item stays in place and was considered acceptable based on feedback by the Wikisource community.

This feature was requested by users from the Wikisource community. We hope that it can give them more access to Wikidata and the freedom to add multiple links to different Items.

If you encounter any issues or want to provide feedback, feel free to use this Phabricator ticket.


-Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Ticket for missing interlanguage links is phab:T275958. --- Jura 12:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Announcement on Sourceswiki is in their Scriptorium. --- Jura 12:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Query for a few items without P31 or P279 (some created months ago): --- Jura 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Scriptorium has now a discussion about the implementation of the missing interlanguage links (phab:T275958). Missing interproject links is another question. --- Jura 14:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What does "20. century" mean?Edit

I've been using "20. century" for approximate dates, under the impression that "20. century" means "20th century". This appears not to be the case, as a constraint clash shows it apparently starts after 1977. Can anyone tell me what it actually means? Is it the years 2000-2099? Or 2001-2100? Or something else? Either way, this seems very confusing to me. -- The Anome (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at, for example Andrea Bergamasco (Q61472634) the date of birth "20. century" is stored as 1 January 2000. I viewed the value using a SPARQL DESCRIBE
DESCRIBE wd:Q61472634

Try it! Piecesofuk (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: There is a precise date, to the day, stored with any date value on Wikidata, along with a precision. Something showed as « 20th century » can have any precise date like « 3rd of may 1949 » or « 4th of july 1960 », with a « century » precision. The « problem » is that it’s difficult to take the precision into account in every computation, and in a lot of one only the precise date is used, for sorting.
For example, imagine you want to sort people by age … you have one person with century precision on the date of birth, and one other with the precise date 1 january 1950. Is the first older than the other ? It’s impossible to know …
if you naively sort by value, it’s easier to use only the precise date. One solution could be to take advantage of the fact that the year is not significant to make an educated guess about the precise date of birth of the person : if you don’t know the year of birth, or even the decade, you can set the precision to « century », but setting the year as 1910 if you guess it’s probably around this period and 1960 if you guess the person is probably born in the second half of the century. That way you get a more plausible sorting using the (non significant) year/month/date of the precise value. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
a constraint clash shows it apparently starts after 1977 - this is a bug in specific implementation of constraint checker. There are multiple implementations - naïve sparql-based, element-based (mw:Extension:Wikibase Quality Extensions), dump-based analysis by KrBot, complex constraints - some of them suffer from precision issues. --Lockal (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we should force the default for "20th century" to be 1950, "19th century" to be 1850, etc, and mass-convert all "nth century" dates with sorting-values of eg n00 or (n+1)00 to be n50 ? It could be done as a very big bot job. (Obviously if there were qualifiers like earliest date (P1319) or refine date (P4241) they could be taken into account too)? Jheald (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Quite pointless and misleading, IMO. According to this logic, year precision should store value not on the 1st of January, but on July 2. Just exclude low-precision values when doing comparisons, like here. It is expected from well-written clients to know about precision anyway. Even more, your suggestion may not be possible due to specification with Wikidata:Stable Interface Policy. --Lockal (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, as somebody who runs queries that often run close to the 60-second limit, with little time for any extra clauses, I would find it useful.
Also, it would be good if the WDQS output UI automatically indicated precision for dates (it's there in the downloads, but not on the screen) -- it's embarrassing when a query is full of 1 January dates being presented as if they had full position. But I guess, on your terms, WDQS UI is just "not a well written client". Jheald (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


The item scientist (Q901) is used very broadly, with subclasses like brazier, byzantinist, church historian, collector of folk music, ironmaster, law theorist, land surveyor, management engineer, mathemagician, mental calculator, mythologist, sport historian, special educator, script kiddie and utopian (full list).

The demarcation between science and other fields is fuzzy, but it would be helpful to come up with some guidelines about what should be included. The guidelines could consider research vs. application to help determine the applicability of chemist vs. chemical engineer or animal scientist vs. farrier. It may also be helpful to create three subclasses for scientists in the natural, the social and the formal sciences. (But right now, natural scientist (Q55002844) is a fictional operatic character.) --Ariutta (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • You can easily create several items for "scientist" each with its definition and references. --- Jura 22:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Since most entries are using scientist (Q901), I'm hesitant to make a major disruptive change, and I want to get some consensus before making any change, because the boundaries can be fuzzy. The most minimal change would be adding some guidelines for the item, so we don't end up with results like scientist as a superclass of theologian (theologian -> religious studies scholar -> social scientist -> scientist). A more major change would be adding three subclasses for scientists in the natural, the social and the formal sciences. While this would be useful for me, I don't have the bandwidth to create and maintain those items myself right now.--Ariutta (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You don't need to change that item to create items for other definitions. --- Jura 00:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that it's mostly a "downstream" thing. At one point a subclass-of link is applied a little abusively (e.g. land surveyor as a subclass of geodesist (Q11699606)). Circeus (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Colonial Mayor of New Brunswick or Mayor of Colonial New BrunswickEdit

At Talk:Q6797896 for example, the numbering system for politicians of localities begins with independence. Should we call the earlier politicians "position=Colonial Mayor of New Brunswick" or "position=Mayor of Colonial New Brunswick". I tried to find examples as a guide, any help would be appreciated if you can find some examples, or input which is more widely used. In the end they will be synonyms, but the right name earlier is best. --RAN (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Looking at the Wikipedia article, New Brunswick was incorporated, chartered, reincorporated, and rechartered several times. But in my best estimation, New Brunswick was the same municipality, but reauthorized under newer laws. I guess if you really wanted to distinguish those periods it would be "Mayor of the Town of New Brunswick" and "Mayor of the City of New Brunswick". At that point you'd be going down the road to split up the Wikidata and Wikipedia articles into "Town of New Brunswick" and "City of New Brunswick". I don't think that is necessary and would just stick with treating the mayoralty as the same continuity throughout all the incarnations of New Brunswick. William Graham (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The numbering system of the canonical list starts with independence. The list does not restart with each change of government style. --RAN (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Which, or whose, canon are we talking about? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You can search the New York Times archive for a phrase like "3rd mayor" or "2nd governor", "1st president", or "100th pope" or visit the website for that entity and recognize that there is a canonical numbering system, no matter who started it, or who decided it is canonical. I don't think we have to worry about integrating antimayors to mirror antipopes, or pretender mayors. See "he was sworn in as the 21st Mayor of Montclair.", all you need is the current filler of office and their number to work out the sequence. --RAN (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you actually able to point to a canonical list for the Mayor of New Brunswick, RAN, or are you just blowing smoke? Can you point to a NYT search for, e.g. 3rd Mayor of NB? You say "I don't think we have to worry about integrating antimayors to mirror antipopes, or pretender mayors", but I'm old enough to remember that it was you who raised this whole question of how we cater for colonial-era Mayors of New Brunswick. It seems to me that you have decided such colonial-era Mayors of New Brunswick are holders of an office distinct from post-independence Mayors of NB, and are perhaps unhappy that others think that the Mayor of NB is the mayor of NB, irrespective of the situation with the national government. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I agree there are many different ways of thinking about the history of a named populated place. It feels like a corollary to the "Ship of Theseus" question. I generally prefer to begin by building a model that matches well to existing articles in the language Wikipedia of the subject because I'm not a legal or historical scholar. A model where all officeholders have a replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366) property with start and end dates to that the sequence can be walked. William Graham (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nine million peopleEdit

[2]--GZWDer (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Or: Potential merges. --Succu (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Cool. How many have functionally identifiable data like birth or death dates? How many are linked to zero items besides human (Q5)? How many lack external identifiers (not that these are required: not every human who has ever lived has yet been given a code in a database). Increasing the absolute numbers of items should not distract from structuring the data in a meaningful manner. -Animalparty (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
200,000 merges?
One third have family name (P734), two thirds given name (P735). It seems it never gets done ;)
99,991,000,000 to go? --- Jura 00:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Added it to the weekly update. --- Jura 14:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I connect the video game developer Iron Gate Studio (Q105725001) to the publisher Coffee Stain Studios (Q3178586)?Edit

I know for a fact that the publisher mentioned is connected to the video game developer. There's no mention on the internet about the video game developer being a subsidiary of this publisher. Should I mention the publisher and the developer only for the game Valheim (Q105100327), or should I also mention their partnership in their QIDs? Tetizeraz (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • If you can't provide a reference, don't add it. --- Jura 00:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contestEdit

01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Academic publishers preprint policiesEdit

The page on ENWP: w:List of academic publishers by preprint policy has a structured table of publisher policies. How would it be best to encode these into wikidata? A possible way of organising data on the item of a publisher (e.g. Wiley (Q1479654)):

  • Statement: permits (P8738) preprint (Q580922) (or possibly create item for "submission from / sharing of preprint")
    • Qualifier: prohibits (P8739) create items for common restrictions e.g. "commercial preprint server" or "version after peer review"
    • Qualifier: has quality (P1552) alternatively the inverse of the above e.g. "Non-commercial preprint server only" or "version before peer review only"
    • Qualifier: Not sure how to encode conditions such as "If preprint is CCBY, then must pay APC"
    • Qualifier: start time (P580) if people want to add in when different publishers/journals changed policy
    • Reference: quotation (P1683) if people want to quote the policy txt (along with reference URL (P854), obv.)

Please reply at w:Talk:List_of_academic_publishers_by_preprint_policy#Draft_wikidata_encoding to keep discussion centralised. Thanks in advance!. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Please discuss this onwiki. --- Jura 09:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Underscore Smith and unknown Smith (label)Edit

Interesting find: Q100924725 (and a few others) use "_" for the missing first name in the label. A past import went with "unknown" (Q75646725). I also came across others that merely used the family name in these cases. Either has its advantages. "_" probably works better when copied to nl. @IagoQnsi, Edoderoo, GZWDer: --- Jura 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:HMS 'Sappho' capturing the Danish brig 'Admiral Jawl', 2 March 1808- ships engaged RMG A4461.tiffEdit

This picture has been assigned a Q number, it is one of two. One q number has been assigned to two different pictures. The artist for both is Francis Sartorius (the younger). Commons has 5 images of two pictures. Broichmore (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure? HMS Sappho capturing the Danish brig 'Admiral Jawl', 2 March 1808: surrender of the brig (Q50919903) and HMS Sappho capturing the Danish brig 'Admiral Jawl', 2 March 1808: surrender of the brig (Q50919903) each point to a single distinct image on commons. Where exactly is the " One q number has been assigned to two different pictures"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore, Tagishsimon: you're both being very unclear. Broichmore, is talking about multiple pictures and one qid without providing any links. Tagishsimon just linked the same picture twice.
I see that Commons:Category:Admiral_Yawl_(ship,_1808) was created, which has 5 pictures so I guess we're talking about these.
Looks like one of the image was linking to the wrong one. You can just change it to the right one. Multichill (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A demoted pageEdit

Greetings to all. I wanted to change the status of this item, in Farsi wikipedia from good article because the page has been demoted and does not have good article status anymore but the page is protectded and I am not able to do so, so to any who is able: could you please be a dear and remove the good article badge? Thanks in advance Vahid (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This item is not protected so as an autoconfirmed user you can change it by yourself at Special:SetSiteLink/Q183718/fawiki.--GZWDer (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Logo UpdateEdit

Hello, I am new user trying and still learning wikidata, I am trying to create wikidata for company , just for information , i am not associated with company anyway, this is for learning process , i will also willing use some other profile as well.

Help me to upload logo, it is not in Commons.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keith8221 (talk • contribs) at 12:16, 2 March 2021‎ (UTC).

  • If you are not associated with the company you likely don't have any right to put their logo licensed under a CC license. ChristianKl❫ 15:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Keith8221: You can only upload it for Wikipedia fairuse in Wikipedia. --BoldLuis (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both of the above answers overlook that there are many logos on Commons, without CC licences, because they fall below the "threshold of originality". See c:Category:Logos. We'd need a link to a copy of the logo before we can advise whether that applies in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorting by a listeria table propertyEdit

Question originally asked at Template_talk:Wikidata_list#Sorting_by_a_qualifier_property

Any ideas on how to sort a listeria table by a qualifier property (e.g. |sort=P106/Q3809586/P582)? The example below still seems to just sort by ascending QID (see my sandbox). T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Creación de wikimedia commonsEdit

Necesito que agreguen el enlace a wikimedia commons.

Script (style of handwriting)Edit

I'd like to be able to record that a manuscript is written in secretary hand (Q16933853). The current property writing system (P282) is restricted to <instance of> alphabet, writing system, or orthographic transcription and has a short list of one-of constraints.

This seems to have been solved for manuscripts in uncial script (Q784235) by adding <instance of>Latin script (Q8229) to "uncial script". Is that the way to go about this? - PKM (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@PKM: I think a new property "script style", to take values that were instances or subclasses of script (Q33260112) would be the right way forward. It could be overloaded onto property writing system (P282), but I am not sure it would be right -- item writing system (Q8192) says that it encompasses script (Q63801299): set of symbols of a writing system and orthography (Q43091): set of conventions regulating the way of using a writing system, but not script (Q33260112): style of handwritten language -- so it looks to me like something to identify the latter would be usefully orthogonal to writing system (P282). Jheald (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@PKM:: Proposed: Wikidata:Property proposal/writing style. Jheald (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Also known as" for historical names?Edit

When an entity (e.g. a newspaper) has a historical name it no longer uses, should that name be included in the "also known as" alias field near the top, or should it only be included as title (P1476) with start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I usually do both, especially for "official name" of businesses. [edited]] - PKM (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If the alternates are functionally interchangeable besides name, then it's probably a good idea to list them as aliases (but nobody really knows anything here, we're all just blind fools doing whatever we think makes sense: so I could be wrong). If the entities are more substantially different, then it might make more sense to create a separate item for the historic entity. For instance, scholarly journals and newspapers may go through different titles over the years, but keep the same volume and issue numbering. Each title may have its own set of catalogue identifiers, and for ideal bibliographic displaying the accurate title separate items are warranted, connected by replaces (P1365), follows (P155), etc. Businesses and organizations that change names as result of mergers or corporate restructuring probably also warrant distinct item, as the parent organization(s) and notable executives may only be applicable to the one of the items. Simple name changes of schools, companies, and geographic places that don't change materially following name changes may not warrant separate items. -Animalparty (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Normally, anything that is in labels, descriptions and aliases should be in statements as well. If you don't add a former title as alias, you can't select its item with that title. --- Jura 08:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, it belongs in both alias and statements. However official name (P1448) is more approriate for the name of a newspaper then title (P1476). Having the information in the alias makes it easy for people who create an item that wants to link to the newspaper where the source uses the old name to find the item. ChristianKl❫ 11:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

querying and displaying images with author/copyrightEdit

On Querying image (P18), the result at will be an image thumb with a larger size in a lightbox, which restrict's its usage to very private occasions because I cannot fulfill CC attribution requirements (especially when embedding the result). What would be a feasible approach to solve this? I placed a similar question @Commons talk:Structured data, but it might exist a different solution here, like openening the image in the Commons image viewer (like in the item page). Any ideas are appreciated … thanks! Please ping me for an answer --Elya (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

People have said that "click through" attribution is sufficient, and that's what Wikipedia uses. If you click the image you go the page on Commons with the details. Ghouston (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Elya: The solution would be either or both of representing the copyright status and/or licence for the image in Commons structured data, and as a qualifier of the P18 value (copyright license (P275), for instance) such that reports could access one or other value. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon, yes, we have this data at structured Commons, but how to retrieve it? I could start a project completely out of the Query Service and combine 2 APIs, however, it would be nice to retrieve them via the Query service. Writing a bot that copies structured data from Commons to Wikidata as qualifiers … ? Rather not, I think.
@Ghouston, thanks, but not exactly. Check out this random map query: Churches in Wittenberg. no chance to get to the image attributions.
Yes, this particular output is giving no way to get to the Commons image page, so it's inadequate. Perhaps the underlying software could be modified. Ghouston (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I might try however to additionally output the Commons file page as hyperlink in the map, which would be a no-api but sufficient solution. Thanks for thinking around with me ;-) If anybody is aware of an API approach, still highly appreciated! --Elya (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Elya: this technically works, but not as optimal, as multiple requests (first to WDQS, then to commons API, maybe then to WCQS).
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?pbLabel ?cat ?coord ?img (IF(BOUND(?img), ?usage, "") AS ?usg)
  SELECT ?item (SAMPLE(?cat) AS ?cat) (SAMPLE(?coord) AS ?coord) (SAMPLE(?img) AS ?img)
               WHERE {
                 wd:Q75849591 wdt:P527 [ wdt:P527 ?item; wdt:P361 ?pb ].
                 ?pb wdt:P31 wd:Q76598130.
                 ?item wdt:P625 ?coord.
                 OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P373 ?cat. }
                 OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P18 ?img. }
               } GROUP BY ?item
} as %items
  INCLUDE %items .

  BIND(STRAFTER(wikibase:decodeUri(STR(?img)), "") AS ?fileTitle)

  SERVICE wikibase:mwapi {
    bd:serviceParam wikibase:endpoint "";
                    wikibase:api "Generator";
                    wikibase:limit "once";
                    mwapi:generator "allpages";
                    mwapi:gapfrom ?fileTitle;
                    mwapi:gapnamespace 6; # NS_FILE
                    mwapi:gaplimit "1";
                    mwapi:prop "imageinfo";
                    mwapi:iiprop "extmetadata" ;
                    mwapi:iiextmetadatafilter "UsageTerms" .

    ?usage wikibase:apiOutput "imageinfo/ii/extmetadata/UsageTerms/@value".
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "de". }

Try it!

There are few other interesting fields in extmetadata you may want to use. Note, that it does not take multiple licenses into account, for example, for it shows only "Public Domain". --Lockal (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Lockal, oh, wow … I'll have to dig into that, maybe with the folks at „request a query“ which I bother a lot recently, because my own map query is a bit more complex than this church example. Only one thing: is it possible to get not only the license but also the author? --Elya (talk)
Oops, I forgot to add a link I used for debugging -,Kirchplatz,Stadtpfarrkirche_St._Marien.jpg%7CFile:Wittenberg_Schlosskirche.JPG&prop=imageinfo&iilimit=50&iiprop=extmetadata (api help). There is an "Artist" field, so updated query is here. Also, you may want to start with WCQS + P180 (depicts) instead of WDQS + P18 (image). --Lockal (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I beg to suggest that SPARQL queries federated across wikidata and commons is not the way to go. If the licence / author / whatever data is in commons structured data, then it can be reported on and added to the wikidata P18 statements as qualifiers, such that your report can be based on wikidata only. Q78227747#P18 --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmmmm … Tagishsimon, really? I see the performance issue, my data soul shouts „but redundancy“ … however, apart from my feelings, is there a bot that does this already? If this became a standard procedure, it would make things easier, indeed. It would albeit be necessary to have an automated check in place in case someone changes the image but not the respective license/author qualifiers. Still a bit hesitant … --Elya (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving options ?Edit

What archiving options are currently supported for talk pages on Wikidata ?

Is there one where a thread will stay on the talk page until someone adds an "I think this thread can be archived now" template, and then it gets automatically archived eg 2 days later ?

I think I've seen this on other WMF wikis. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Aha! {{Section resolved}} is what I'm after. And it looks like User:SpBot will take care of things from there (Special:Contributions/SpBot). Jheald (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Focus languages for improvements to the lexicographic extension of Wikidata and Abstract WikipediaEdit

Hi. We would like to find two or three language communities who would be good matches to help to start and guide some long-term improvements to the lexicographic data part of Wikidata, and the closely related work in the Wikifunctions wiki and the Abstract Wikipedia project, over the next few years. Participating communities will hopefully find that this project will lead to long-term growth in content in Wikipedia and Wiktionary in and about their language. See Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Focus languages for more information. Please help us identify potential good matches. More details are on that page. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/11 requestEdit

Hi, an Indonesian editor noticed vandalism in a BLP entry. The editor wondered if the following words could be added to the AbuseFilter/11:

Is here the correct place to ask for this kind of addition to abusefilter? Also, please block Ixarising1 (talkcontribslogs) for vandalism. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DannyS712 is the last person to edit that filter, so if we ping him he can probably fix that. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I was just updating deprecated variables - I'm not familiar with the filter, sorry. DannyS712 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the general consensus regarding blocking/filtering profanities and such in Wikidata? I suppose this is also a problem in many languages short description? Is there a general strategy taken by Wikidata to combat such vandalism? Maybe each language can be assigned a specific filter of bad words (after making sure they are really bad and such). I don't want this to be just a stopgap solution.

@DannyS712: I manage such filters in, so if you need some general syntax help, I can probably help with that. Bennylin (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Library of Congress identifierEdit

I want to connect to Records of Officers and Men in the Civil War, 1861-1865 (Q105755689), but it doesn't seem to fit any of the Library of Congress identifier schemes, am I missing something, or just use the url? --RAN (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The formatter URL in Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) (bibliographic) (P1144) is$1/ so that property would seem to achieve the link. Heaven knows whether the regex will be happy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. I always wondered what they other LCCN number was for. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Systematic human abuse at Wikidata and MetawikiEdit

How negligent WMF staff can be? 19:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes they don't clean the coffee cups before going home. Did you have a point, or are you just grinding an axe? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
If you see the issue happened in one page repeatly, you may request protection at WD:AN.--GZWDer (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability of data about myselfEdit

I've changed my name and gender. How can I provide verifiable citations about these changes to my own data? Marnanel (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC) (aka Thomas Thurman (Q90844917))

That's a great question. Because Wikidata includes items for people who are not actually notable (e.g. relatives of notable people, candidates for minor offices, people imported from random databases, etc.), how do we expect those items to be maintained, especially given that incorrect data about living people can cause actual harm to those people? Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Marnanel: Assuming there are no public sources such as newspaper articles that you can refer us to, the only suggestion I can think of at the moment would be to email privacy with evidence of the changes and request that they update the information. If that doesn't work, I would suggest posting a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. I went ahead and removed the gender from Q90844917 (as it was unreferenced anyway). Good luck. Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Surely privacy ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Help:Sources explains how to reference information on Wikidata, emailing WMF isn't mentioned and I don't quite see how that could be an acceptable way of referencing.. --- Jura 07:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It depends on current statements - see Wikidata:Autobiography#On_Wikidata. If statements are unsourced you can just remove them. If statements are sourced, you can contact the source owner and ask them to update info (otherwise even WMF cannot do anything - you would just trigger algorithms which will reimport old data either in the same element or creating a duplicate). --Lockal (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    I doubt that it would be possible to change the name of a candidate in a 2016 election. Ghouston (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you had something like a twitter account, which could be verified as belonging to the candidate in the 2016 election, then it would be possible to publish whatever biographical information about yourself that you liked, and this would be accepted as a source for Wikidata. Ghouston (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One issue is, with the best will in the world, we have no proof that User:Marnanel is the same person as that represented by Q90844917; it would be just as easy for a malicious person to make that claim in order to present false data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


Two people were improperly merged, I am not sure if I know how to de-merge properly yet. See Jens Dietrich (Q1687151). --RAN (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully sorted. Now Jens Dietrich Zimmermann (Q3177184) and Jens Dietrich (Q1687151). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to join new Wikiproject: Early Modern England and WalesEdit

We are building out a new project, Wikidata:WikiProject Early Modern England and Wales. The purpose of this project is to improve Wikidata's coverage of England and Wales in the 1500s and 1600s, with a particular focus on building out items needed to understand developing transport networks in the period before mass industrialisation. We'll be working in partnership with the collaborative Viae Regiae (Q105547906) project which is building a Gazetteer of Early Modern England and Wales (Q105548625). You can learn more about the Viae Regiae project on its website.

We want to enrich Wikidata's coverage of maps, cartography, manuscript itineraries, and historic places and people. We're just getting started - come join us! - PKM (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Heads up: page protections of "highly used items"Edit

A couple of months ago I proposed a bot task to indefinitely semiprotect "highly used items" as per Wikidata:Page protection policy#Highly used items. I have not been able to kick this off due to Covid lockdown constraints that leave little time for Wikidata, unfortunately, but now I am pretty much ready to go and want to let you know that this is going to happen within the next days. There are roughly 25.000 items to receive indefinite semiprotection, and fewer than 100 which do not qualify for protection under this scheme any longer and need to be unprotected. The plan is to ramp this up over a couple of days with a series of manually executed bot runs; once this is done, an unsupervised weekly job will manage the protections (protect items which newly fall into this scheme, and unprotect those which do not any longer).

I do not actively seek for input at this point; previous thorough discussions have already taken place in the bot approval process and the request for admin rights for the bot account User:MsynABot. Nevertheless, you may comment here and I will read all the input :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for doing this. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: the first ~1.5k protections have been added, but I did receive complaints about how the protection log entries render on watchlists on English Wikipedia. There is now a phabricator task at phab:T276613 where I want to wait for some more input by the dev team before I can proceed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikidata consultation about the Universal Code of Conduct is closedEdit

As you can read from the title, the second phase of the consultation about the Universal Code of Conduct is now closed. This means that the phase in which several communities (Arabian, Bengali, Italian, Korean, Malay, Nepalese, Polish, Yoruba, plus Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons) commented with their concerns, suggestions, ideas and opinion is now over.

Now, we facilitators will work to collect and sum up all of your feedback and answers. The results and the relative data will then be published on Meta (you'll be noticed when this will happen), and will also be available to the Committee that will draft the second part of the UCoC, regarding the implementation of the Code and the reporting system.

This doesn't mean that the discussion is over! There will be new rounds of consultations on Meta and with our numerous Affiliates, and there is space also for a community discussion here on Wikidata about implementing ourselves the UCoC. I'll be glad to give a help as a volunteer, if it will be so.

Meanwhile, I want to thank all the people who took part to the discussions, reached to me in private, answered the survey or were victim of my requests for participating! You've been great, and I truly thank you for your help!

If you want to keep in touch, keep following the page about the UCoC here or on Meta, and please let your voice be heard!

Cheers, --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

White fieldEdit

On right half of screen on item pages I have big white field. I use FireFox 86.0 Windows 10. FireFox 56.0.2 with same OS hadn’t this problem. 17:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ordering statement valuesEdit

I am currently developing a page for the fictional solar system depicted in Kerbal Space Program I must have done this link incorrectly, so just search the above item. ERBuermann (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC) . I wanted to list the planetary systems in order, but I forgot to link the page about the central sun. How do I change the order that the statement values appear in? ERBuermann (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
order doesn't have meaning on wikidata. you can reorder things but it's not meaningful and you should assume it'll get shuffled. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Order does have meaning in the UI. It will not be shuffled unless someone shuffles it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I mean it has meaning only in that it is preserved. But it has no semantic meaning to wikidata and a bot or another user would be totally free to mess with the order as part of a refactor. Honestly I think the backend API should shuffle the order just to avoid people trying to assign meaning to the statement order. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I know what you mean. But equally when consulting items with, for instance, 10s of P39s, it's more easy when they're in date order. When reading qualifiers, start date before end date is probably more intuitive & arguably requires less brain-power to comprehend, than end before start. All manner of standarised ordering and standardised wording (e.g. for descriptions) helps the user; which is (also) what we should be about. Agreed that more could be done server-side, were we to agree a rule base. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
hmmm, maybe we should implement sorting of statements front-end (alphabetica/series ordinal/etc). could be a plugin or something. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Q55107400 and Q28772011Edit

Hello, I'm working on Palace in Bologna with QAnswer. I merged Q55107400 with Q28772011 because both are about the same palace. But Q28772011 is also about a museum. Perhups should it be possible to use Q55107400 redirect as an element only for museum ?--Patafisik (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably better not to have merged them. The palace is a building. It has within it - at the moment - a museum. These are two distinct things, which can be linked, as separate items, by properties such as 'location'. I see you have made may label changes since the merge, but I'm inclined to wind back the merge. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, I will use one element for 'museum' and the other for 'palace'.--Patafisik (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Is case sensitivity considered acceptable for multiple statements, or merge ?Edit

Having multiple entries under the taxon common name property (P1843) which simply differ in their case sensitivity is not an uncommon issue, usually driven by imports from different sources which use different standards.

For example, the page for Corvus corax under taxon common name, language English has entries for 'Common Raven' and 'common raven'. Obviously these refer to the same data and the duplication seems to just be taking up space.

Is it acceptable to combine these and their references into a single entry, or is there some rule or guideline that says no, you have to leave them both in place ?

Thanks CanadianCodhead (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

if two items represent the same concept they should be merged. even if they have totally different labels (or nearly the same labels). BrokenSegue (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC) oh I was confused ignore that. Oh yeah I think you want to delete one but don't ask me which. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say merge, no need to delete, the external sources we loaded here, may be linking back to us. --RAN (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleting one common name over another could cause issues. Common names of different organisms in different countries can have different standards. So removing one capitalization in favor of another would be favoring one country's norms over another country's. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't upload or store dates in different formats to reflect different standards in different places when they clearly represent the same thing, why would we not adopt the same standard for text? CanadianCodhead (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    Because we have the ability to convert dates using standard protocols. There is no uniform nor standard protocol for conversion of common names; you'd have to encode lots of additional information about the grammar of individual parts of the name. For example "Common Raven", "common raven", and "Common raven" would suggest a rule about capitalization, but that rule would not apply to "California condor", where the first word must be capitalized. Words do not have uniform display rules in the way that dates do. Further, any rule that did apply would be specific to names in only one language. Some languages never capitalize common names, but in German all nouns are capitalized. So again, there are no uniform rules that can be universally applied in the way that uniform standards are applied to different dates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting choosing or forcing a standard display format of capitalization. I'm questioning why duplicated data is allowed and the need for it. Having the same name entered 2, 3, 4 times just varying in capitalization is unnecessary and confusing. If they do need to be there, then they should be disambiguated in some way to reflect where they are used, be that through different language strings, some property such as the Stated As qualifier or other that indicates where this format is used etc.
  • We would not support or allow separate numerical values for a statement to be entered as '35.4' and '35,4' to reflect different uses of a decimal point in display, why support it for text?CanadianCodhead (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

generic sugar vs. table sugar (sucrose)Edit

sugar (Q11002) in the English Wikipedia is about generic sugar which can be a monosaccharide or disaccharide. The Wikidata description describes table sugar, which is saccharose (Q4027534), a very specific disaccharide. The Wikipedia links are a mixture of articles in various languages on generic sugar and the exact chemical sucrose (table sugar). Can another chemist confirm, before I tackle the difficult task of teasing apart the links and changing sugar (Q11002) (the generic one) to "a monosaccharide or disaccharide". --RAN (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles being conflations of several concepts is ubiquitous. I'd suggest to wait until we can link to Wikipedia redirects, or create an item instance of Wikipedia overview article (Q20136634) and list all concepts as main subject (P921). --SCIdude (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • also I think that the articles are not talking about the chemical compounds but the food ingredient(s), and the item does reflect that. What is missing is that as a plant product it is not a pure chemical compound or a group of such, but a group of mixtures. Even table sugar is probably a mixture. --SCIdude (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Table sugar is a 100% pure compound, that is why it crystallizes. The leftover material is sold separate as molasses and turbinado which contain the other sugars, as well as other chemicals. I changed a few links so that now most of them point to the proper "generic sugar" or the pure chemical "sucralose" (table sugar). A few more may have to be changed. And as User:SCIdude points out, some Wikipedia articles are conflations, that have no exact target. --RAN (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I have adapted the description and statements. The items linking to it support my assessment. Fortunately we didn't need an overview item. --SCIdude (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

levels of specificity with P131Edit

There is a (probably very large) number of items of geographical places with absurdly/unhelpfully broad values for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), e.g. a building, park, or cemetery that is stated as being simply located in Mexico (Q96) or New York (Q1384) (many because they were auto-populated by Wikipedia categories of "Xs in Y" at a time when "Y" was only as coarse as Mexico or New York State). Someone more adept with with querying, feel free to add some hard numbers. I would imagine this is a suboptimal data structure: ideally a discrete entity should be located in the narrowest (most exclusive) locality, which in turn is nested in the next most inclusive jurisdiction, and so on, and so on. Someone trying to query all churches in New York City are going to be stymied if half of the churches are only located in "New York State". Right? So I have a handful of questions: 1) How big a problem is this: If reasonably big, would someone be able to generate a table of discreet geographical entities (e.g. buildings, structures, basically any geographical place that cannot be placed in a more exclusive P31) that have P131 values equal to or greater than federated state (Q107390), province (Q34876), state of the United States (Q35657), and/or maybe some sort of system for flagging/detecting such entities when they are created? And 2) if an item has an explicit value for coordinate location (P625) but a vague/broad P31 value, is querying improved at all? Does the mother brain of Wikidata recognize that just because the lat-long of a statue is situated in Central Park (Q160409), that therefore the statue is in Manhattan (Q11299)? -Animalparty (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You make a huge presumption, that the narrowest P131 value should be used, and all higher values found by following the P131* path. Before we analyse the presumed problem, we might want to dig into that somewhat. First, I don't think there is consensus that only the narrowest value should be used. Seocnd, you "imagine this is a suboptimal data structure" but do not state the nature of the suboptimality. The cost and scope for inconsistency in maintaining multiple layers of P131 per item might be considered suboptional. The benefits of maintaining multiple layers of P131 per item when reporting might be considered optimal. Redundancy is often used in data structures to diminish runtimes and make report construction simpler.
In other news, there is no "mother brain of Wikidata". Coordinates are of some help in establishing which P131 values are appropriate for an item, but there is no automated way of establishing P131 values from P625 values.
I point to Scottish items as a case in point: the vast majority of geolocatable items have P131 values for their civil parish and their local authority area. P131s in Scotland tend to use object has role (P3831) such that it is clear what level is being represented. Civil parish is, of course, the lowest level of P131 - the narrowest. But in my experience, the local authority area is the most useful P131 value. Bluntly, few care which parish a thing is in. Many care which local authority area it is in. Your proposal / unilateral declaration of a problem currently seems completely unhinged from any consideration of the way in which data is consumed.
I have to tell you, too, that any idea that there should only be a single P131 value is for the birds. Geolocatable items tend to be within the bounds of multiple orthogonal administrative territorial entities - in the UK, for instance, parishes, local authority areas, health provider areas, flood defence areas &c &c &c - and P131 users will have to become adept at ascertaining which P131 values they consider, based on their type, as wikipedia moves forward with the collection of richer datasets.
This is not to say that there is not massive scope for improving P131 data, which should, ideally, always identify the narrowest entity for the item. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Backlog of property creations?Edit

There are over 40 property proposals that haven't been modified for more than 100 days -- does anyone know more about what is causing the backlog? Are there insufficient property creators, or some technical issue, or what? JesseW (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I suppose you are interested in Wikidata:Property proposal/Fancyclopedia 3 ID: it lacked support and had an open question for months. --- Jura 06:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That was what prompted me to look into it, yes, but I also observed what you did about the state of that particular one, so my question is broader. :-) JesseW (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like the majority of them should be closed as "no consensus" or rejected. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, if that can be done by non-property-creators, I'll take a stab at it. JesseW (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly different things linked to same itemEdit

The four Wikipedia articles linked to OpenFL (Q6954720) (OpenFL / NME / F4L) seem to be about two or maybe three different things. I don't know the context so I have no idea if they're actually the same thing. Is the item supposed to be split somehow? Overcast07 (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I undid this merge. Now F4L has its own item. --Shinnin (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Warning: the last edit to the page has not yet been patrolled.Edit

Hello, How to patrol the last edit, for example, concerning Q2847390 ? Thanks Cquoi (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Go through the revisions and click on 'Mark as patrolled'.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ 19:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia category interwiki controlEdit

Hi there.

Suggestion: This is a suggestion to increment how items on categories are created. We are missing at this point the relation between categories and subcategories on these items. Example: in this category item (Category:Crimes by century), we should have a way to connect to the subcategory on English Wikipedia subcategory item (Category:21st-century crimes), and reciprocally.

Rationale/Context: I had this idea as I was skimming through Pi bot, per Mike Peel's request, and realized that an interwiki mess-up had happened between the categories I have used as examples in the first paragraph. The ptwp category Categoria:Crimes do século XXI had been mistakenly connected to Category:Crimes by century, which led Pi bot to create a new category for Categoria:Crimes por século for ptwp without any interwiki. I have undone the mess up. I kept wondering how many cases we might have like this and that the Pi bot creation of items for categories could actually lead to a strategy to provide a better interwiki control for different Wikipedias. This could be done as we might be able to envision some sort of mismatch check tool.

Caveat: I am not sure how to model this. I thought about the is part of property relation, and its reciprocal property, with a qualifier to which Wikipedia version this relates to. Not sure it makes sense, though. I have no idea what a mismatch check tool would look like.

I know this is very vague and not necessarily helpful, but anyway I thought it might resonate to some of you.

I hope everyone is safe and well. Cheers. --Joalpe (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If we did that, how would we coordinate all the possible category structures across all Wikimedia projects? Not every project has the same subcategories or supercategories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I don't think uniformity is the goal here. We can replicate the category structure existing on Wikipedias as they are, not force upon them any uniform structure. The structure of categories and subcategories is knowledge, and at this moment we are not modeling this knowledge as we build items for categories on Wikidata. --Joalpe (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand that, but how many category structures do you want involved, because we're not just talking the Wikipedias, but also the Wikisources, Wikiquotes, Commons, and every other project with categories. How will anyone detect useful signal with so many potentially conflicting systems coded? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I don't know for sure. You are one step ahead of me. The first step to find interwiki mistakes would be indeed to identify differences in category structures. The big question, and again I don't know how to answer this, would be how to parse what is just a legitimate different strategy of category structuring and what is a mistake once you have differences identified. Do you have any ideas, or you think this is impossible? Thanks for responding, by the way. --Joalpe (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
All that assumes that the goal is always the same, but it isn't. The reasons for certain category structures are fundamentally different between Wikisource (which uses library categorization) and Wikipedia (which uses encyclopedia topical categorization) and Commons (which categorizes images, data files, and audio). What counts as a "mistake" in one might be correct for another, as the projects are using the categories for different purposes and in different ways. Look for example at what is linked on the data item for Oedipus Rex (Q148643): the Wikipedias have articles about the play, but Wikisource has listings for editions of the play, and Wikiquote has quotations from or about the play. The content on the sites differs sufficiently that pages linked together through the same data item will be categorized in different ways on different projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
A long time ago, I thought it might be useful to have a relation X sub-category of Y, with qualifier "applies to wiki" (taking a list of wikis it applied to), and a qualifier "nature of sub-categorisation" = one of various different types of pattern, to capture the way in which the sub-category was a narrowing of its parent category. In such a way it seemed to me that on wikidata one could build up a representation of the nature of all of the category structures on all of the wikis, and to try to annotate them. Having identified the sub-categorisations, one could then look to see whether or not there were corresponding statements linking corresponding non-category items X1 to Y1.
I think creating such a representation within Wikidata would have been quite useful -- at the very least it would have helped identify missing statements. It also would have told us more about what types of sub-categorisation humans like to make. And on the wikis' side, it might have helped them get closer to wikidata-assisted subcategorisation.
But my thoughts were dismissed. I was told that what was relevant to wikidata to try to represent was the real world, not different human editorial choices. (And there were questions about maintainability). I still think those objections are wrong, and the idea was a worthwhile one. But I have moved on to other things. Jheald (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Grant applicationEdit

i applied for a project to add and improve content on Nigerian female choreographers, dancers, musicians etc on wikidata. will appreciate advice and suggestions. the link is,_Dancers_and_Musicians --Anurikaonu (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Searching for ISBNsEdit

Searching Wikidata for an ISBN requires an exact match, with hyphens (and spaces) being relevant; for example, in Resolver:

resolves correctly, whereas:

does not.



Is there any tool that can resolve the latter form? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How to identify a man who impregnated a womanEdit

I have an 1878 court case and I want to link the QID for the man in the entry for the woman. How would I do that? Normally we would use "Spouse". --RAN (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Via their child? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The child was anonymously adopted, I suppose I could make an entry for the child as "unnamed child" like we have at The Peerage. --RAN (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Constraint errorEdit

Can someone peek at Desert Sentinel (Q100293098) and see why I get the constraint error at "Chronicling America newspaper ID", the links work. I know why I get the expecting single value. --RAN (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

have they changed their numbering recently? Looks like the regular expression was recently changed but not in the property constraint field, I've changed it to match but still getting the error?!? Piecesofuk (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Very vaguely recall there's lag after regex is changed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I updated the regular expression. --Lockal (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Baron FrolikEdit

Baron Frolik is an American film director who has created films such as Attempted Murder[1] and The Microchip.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnatas1 (talk • contribs).


Hello! I wanted to create an item for BD-08 rifle, that is redirected to en:Type 81 assault rifle (en:BD-08) in enwiki, but is a separate article on bnwiki (bn:বিডি-০৮). Should I link that redirect page to the item (while creating)? Adibhai • আদিভাই (Talk • আলাপ) 16:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Same about Mahiravana. (Please ping to Meghmollar2017.) Meghmollar2017Talk 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: yeah this is a known issue. Yes you should link to the redirect page but wikidata won't let you do that. Your best bet is to temporarily unredirect the enwiki article, link it and then restore the redirect. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unusual editsEdit

Does anyone know what these edits and these edits are supposed to be for? Some of them have shown up in my watchlist, and a lot of the changes seem to be arbitrary or destructive. Overcast07 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mostly destructive. Bug in mobile editing? --SCIdude (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the difference between the tags Mobile edit and Mobile web edit is? ChristianKl❫ 18:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #458Edit

Beginner question on second authorEdit

I am trying to enter that (Q104744987), "Practical Astronomy" a 1902 book has two authors. The first is already listed and now I'm trying to add the less famous (Q105826927), Frank Stowell Harlow as second author. How? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Q105826927 to author (P50), and use series ordinal (P1545) to denote order. See for example A new species of Kali (Salsoloideae, Chenopodiaceae) from Sicily, supported by molecular analysis (Q22077741). If authors are known but do not currently have Wikidata items, author name string (P2093) is preferred to "unknown" value until it can be replaced by an item. -Animalparty (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)