Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata:Project chat

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
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 2018/01.

Xantus's MurreletEdit

We seem to be having a problem at Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167), which User:Succu persists in repeatedly (five times, so far) trying to merge into one or another item about patently different concepts; or from which he removes cited statements. Given previous difficulties I and other editors have experienced when attempting to discuss similar matters with that user, I'm raising it here, and not on the item's talk page which presumably has no other watchers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And a sixth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Mind to count your own reverts too? The item was originally created for the eBird entry xanmur. This is about two species called en:Xantus's murrelet (= Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) and Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043)). Then Mr. Mabbett added ABA bird ID (P4526) = xanmur, witch is referring only to the common name „Xantus's murrelet“ and a duplication of the value ARKive ID (P2833)=xantuss-murrelet/synthliboramphus-hypoleucus. Finally (after some reverts) he claimed taxon name (P225) = Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (=Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043)) about this item. Maybe he could explain here, why and on what base he thinks this is a „patently different concept“. --Succu (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad that Succu has confirmed that the item in question is about a different concept to the items to which he has variously redirected it (albeit he is confused as to why this is so; and about the edits I have made to the item). Perhaps he will now cease doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm confirming nothing. I asked for an explaination. --Succu (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
"The item ... about two species called en:Xantus's murrelet (= Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) and Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043))". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hence the first merge. Is this item about two species? Would be nice if you could explain your viewpoint to other readers of this topic. --Succu (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Your first merge was to an instance of Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). My viewpoint is that Q46338167 represents a different concept to any of those with which you have tried to merge it. I'm also sure "other readers" can read both the item's description, and the sources used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
So no explaination at all, why your new item is a „patently different concept“. Different from other species? Repeat: Is this item about two species? Would be nice if you could explain your viewpoint to other readers of this topic. Looks like are unwilling to do so, Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
To make it easier fr you, is your new item Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) about:
  1. the two species Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) and Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043)) supported by xanmur
  2. the common name „Xantus's murrelet“ supported by ABA bird ID (P4526) = xanmur
  3. the species name Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) supported by ARKive ID (P2833)=xantuss-murrelet/synthliboramphus-hypoleucus
If your answer is "all of them" (=current status) then please explain it to us. Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No Succu, there's explanation aplenty. My reason for raising the matter here is to solicit third-party input. I won't be answering questions such as yours, based on false premises. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Then please list my „false premises“ and explain me why they are wrong. But I don't think you have some real arguments. Otherwise it would be easy to you to give them. By the way: Do thing giving only a ISBN like 0198540329 is a sufficient source? --Succu (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I did another merge. --Succu (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to reply here and generally think it makes more sense to have such a discussion on the talk page by pinging relevant Wikiprojects. ChristianKl❫ 12:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with ChristianKl. I must admit I am completely mystified with what concept Andy Mabbett has in mind. Certainly the item as it now is, seems inconsistent with any way of expressing any concept ever included in Wikidata so far. - Brya (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You're "completely mystified" and - according to your comment on the item's talk page, are "guessing" what it represents; yet you see fit to make changes to the item, which are unsupported by the sources used (and you offer no new sources). That's not a healthy way to proceed. I have again fixed your broken indenting. Wilfully mis-indenting your comments, having been told that doing so is harmful, and having been given advice on how to do so correctly, is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there is very little offered in the way of sources. I see just the ARKive ID link, and given how much junk we already suffered from that source, it is a frail reed to lean anything on.
        And please don't "fix" my comments: you should restrict your religious [?] beliefs to your own comments. - Brya (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There are at least three sources used on the item; none of which are from ARKive. Please stop posting falsehoods. And like I said; disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
ARKive ID (P2833)=xantuss-murrelet/synthliboramphus-hypoleucus states this is Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043). ---Succu (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
BTW, same is true for your weblink to the entry at US ECOS. --Succu (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just undone a seventh attempt by Succu to delete this item through a merger to an inappropriate target. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please argue here and do not revert blindly. --Succu (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
And an eighth... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Perhaps it's time to find a source that they are actually different... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You can find one on Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167). HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Then the easiest way to settle the matter is to cite your "reference" here. --Succu (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The American Ornithological Union checklists "are the official source on the taxonomy and nomenclature of birds found in this region, including adjacent islands." see here: . Looking at the current checklist here: we have Synthliboramphus scrippsi (Scripps's Murrelet) and Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Guadalupe Murrelet). Therefore I believe, officially Xantus's Murrelet has been split, I don't think what other authorities say is relevant. A species with name Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Xantus's Murrelet) was deleted from the AOU list as per the 53rd supplement in 2012 I'm not really a wikidata expert, but I would suggest the best course of action is to retain Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) but change the instance of (P31) from taxon (Q16521) to something which indicates that this is a formerly recognised taxon, but which has been deleted. I had a quick look but couldn't find an item that would describe that, but this must have happened before. Species are split all the time. I don't really think that Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) should be merged into Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) they are different. Just my twopenneth. JerryL2017 (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata follows a NPoV policy, not a Single Point of View policy; for that try Wikispecies. So, the American Ornithological Union checklists are only one source, not THE source. Of course, it may be possible to start creating items based only on American Ornithological Union concepts, but this would be a fairly big departure from existing practice. - Brya (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
We do not model different taxon concepts this way. Thats why I merged the items several and was asking for a good reference to proceed. None was given. --Succu (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the defining reference that concludes Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) is 2 species: based on that paper the AOU adopted that taxonomy as detailed in the 53rd supplement, which I had already given above. However, given that not all sources have yet adopted this taxonomy, and based on what others have said here and what is stated in the wikidata taxonomy project guidance it would seem sensible to retain Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) for the time being, with the correct links to sources that are still using the former taxonomy. That said, there are issues with Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043). This item refers to the "split" Guadaloupe Murrelet but has links to sources that do not recognise the split. It also includes the alternative name of Xantus's Murrelet, which is confusing. JerryL2017 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Rangewide population genetic structure of Xantus's Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) (Q29541111) is proposing a taxonomic opinion about elevating the two subspecies Synthliboramphus hypoleucus hypoleucus (Q47012916) and Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi (Q47012925) of Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) to species level. The American Ornithological Society (Q465985) was following the recommendation. I do not see Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) is expessing this. --Succu (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, whatever the intent is, execution seems sloppy. - Brya (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Since Mr. Mabbett refuses to argue here I will merge both items once again. --Succu (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
And if you do, absent a consensus here, you will be reverted again; for the reasons already given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I expected this. Other people try to argue. Your are not. What a pitty for you. Hopefully you do not miscount your reverts. --Succu (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
And this revert of him. --Succu (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And this revert of him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Obviously you are unwilling to give a reasonable answer here. Probably you can't and are defending the item only because you've created it. --Succu (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No progress here from Mr. Mabbetts side. --Succu (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Now at AN. --Succu (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
ok from the point of view of a taxonomist. Reading the paper from 2011 linked above by @JerryL2017: the two taxa in question were considered subspecies, however overlap and do not interbreed in sympatry. By the definition of a subspecies this is not possible, hence they should be species and have been recommended as such by the paper also. As such from this viewpoint you have two species and should have two items one for each. Any other refs, unless you find one that refutes this primary ref with data not opinion, are irrelevant. I see no reason for any further argument. The nomenclatural act has been made, follow it. Where the common names go whatever, they are vernacular names and not relevant to the concept of the species. That is my view on this so I would suggest fixing the pages to reflect this and as for the IOC, ummm they are not a primary taxonomic reference so why would you be adamant about it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
All major bird checklist (including IOC) followed this viewpoint. The "official" english common name of Synthliboramphus hypoleucus was changed from „Xantus’s Murrelet“ to „Guadalupe Murrelet“. --Succu (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) represents a concept, described by the three reliable source used on that item, which we can refer to, for the sake of brevity as "A". You are saying that a different source refers to the concept "B". The Wikidata model, as I understand it, is that to concepts should be represented by different items, (with, if applicable, mutual "said to be the same as" properties). However, If your contention is that "A" and "B" are the same concept, but with different attributes, then the Wikidata model is to include properties with values stating both attributes, cited to their respective sources. What the Wikidata model does not do, is to pretend that the (reliably-cited) concept "A" does not exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Name it (the concept)! --Succu (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Umm..... I am seriously not getting this. Ok three reliable sources, I looked on the page I did not see anything I would consider as reliable. Please correct me if I am wrong, do you have separate pages for the scientific name and the vernacular names?? I do not understand why you would do that, but no matter. The vernacular name needs to follow the scientific name according to the most recent primary sources. No I do not consider the collective political opinions of eBird or the IOC nd simalar checklists as primary sources. When the species was split I imagine this did require modification of the accepted common names. As such you would use the primary refs that state this coupled with the research paper that did the nomenclatural act to move the common names accordingly. By the way, a taxon is not a concept it is an hypothesis, the concept is the theory of how species are differentiated, ie the grounds for calling something a species. That is for example the Biological Species Concept. However a species is a hypothesis circumscribed under a concept of the primary authors choosing. So please what are we getting t here cause your paragraphh Andy makes no sense. You are reporting science, it needs to reflect science. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I will try and summarise and make some recommendations. Up until about 2012/2013 the ornithological world recognised 5 species in the genus Synthliboramphus (Q287293) . One of these species had the latin name Synthliboramphus hypoleucus, common name Xantus's Murrelet. This is Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167). In 2012, in the paper cited above, it was proposed that the 2 recognised sub-species of Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi (Q47012925) and Synthliboramphus hypoleucus hypoleucus (Q47012916) be considered separate species and that Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) be deprecated. This hypothesis was accepted by the American Ornithological Union (they have a scientific committee which decides on such matters) and their taxonomy was updated so that the genus Synthliboramphus has 6 recognised species including: Synthliboramphus hypoleucus, common name Guadalupe Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) AND Synthliboramphus scrippsi, common name Scripps's Murrelet (Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531)). Subsequently a number of other sources have also adopted this new taxonomy (and I make no comment about how reliable these might or might not be) e.g Avibase ID (P2026), IUCN taxon ID (P627), eBird ID (P3444) and others. However a number of others, that are variously cited in wikidata's items have not adopted the new taxonomy. How do I know they have not adopted the new taxonomy? Because when you look at it in detail it does not include Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531). Examples of these include: NCBI Taxonomy ID (P685)), ITIS TSN (P815) and WoRMS-ID (P850) although there are probably others, I haven't yet reviewed all sources. So, why have these sources not adopted the new taxonomy recommended by experts in the field? I can see 3 reasons: 1) They don't agree with the hypothesis that Xantus's Murrelet is actually 2 separate species - I believe this is unlikely in this case) 2) They haven't updated their taxonomy (highly likely) and over time will probably update their data. 3) They have a scientific requirement to retain Xantus's Murrelet in their taxonomy because of pre-existing data that was linked to Xantus's Murrelet and not either of the sub-species. A good example of this is eBird ID (P3444) where their taxonomy has Guadalupe AND Scripps AND (by their nomenclature) an entity called Scripps/Guadalupe Murrelet (Xantus's Murrelet). So, my conclusion is that wikidata should retain Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167), some sources are still using the former taxonomy and some bona fide sources WILL ALWAYS have an entity that is best described as Xantus's Murrelet. However, having said that there are some outstanding questions we should resolve 1) For Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) what is the best instance of (P31). is it taxon or some other concept that better captures its status. 2) The existing wikidiata items should be updated to ensure each item is linked to sources that best reflect that item i.e. Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) should NOT link to sources that have a taxonomy that does not inlcude Scripp's Murrelet. 3) Other data such as images and synomyms should be updated to make it less confusing. (NOTE: if we have agreement on this I am happy to go and make these changes IF I have assurance that they won't just all be reverted). 4) Consideration should be given within the wikidata taxonomy project for additional avian taxonomy properties (some key sources are not available as properties, which isn't helping here) 5) I've seen various comments on here that some sources are "unreliable" if there is a consensus that they are unreliable then why do we retain them? 6) IF we can resolve this case, consideration should be given as to how this is more widely applied within wikidata - for instance it is very common practise across many data recording schemes to "combine" species into groups when they are difficult to identify. I personally think wikidata should be able to reflect that, we are a broad data resource not a wildlife taxonomy. Thanks, I hope this is useful and moves the discussion on a little. JerryL2017 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe just a slip of a pen, JerryL2017: „the genus Synthliboramphus has 6 recognised species“ but I count only five... --Succu (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Succu, you are correct.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────ok what I have been trying to say is the taxonomic view of the situation, then it is for wikidata to determine how best to reflect the science. In answer to your questions from my point of view. This is a wonderful example of why common names are a pain, unprofessional and honestly useless. I agree with you @JerryL2017: that the issues of different nomenclatures between sources is most likely lack of updating.
1. There are three common names available for 2 species the names Xantus's Murrelet and Guadalupe Murrelet both apply to the scientific name Synthliboramphus hypoleucus however the former is now considered depreciated, and Scripp's Murrelet which applies to Synthliboramphus scrippsi. When the species was split the current common name goes with the species that retained the original combination. There is no justification in retaining the common name Xantus's Murrelet for Synthliboramphus scrippsi, or honestly at all. The name Xantus's Murrelet does not technically apply to a taxon anymore, it is considered depreciated, it is at best an outdated name of historic value only.
2. Agreed, removal of sources that are outdated in their nomenclature will avoid confusion, or if they must be stated have it as "stated in and as" so the the page is generally set up with the current nomenclature but make note of any departures from it without supporting them.
3. Agreed, all information possible should be updated, including where necessary file names and metadata for images. I would not revert anything. Cannot speak for others. But I think if we hammer out an agreed position I believe people are professional enough to follow it.
4. Avian taxonomy should honestly be following the ICZN code, which they do not. Further they have made recent efforts to dictate to other fields of taxonomy that their viewpoint should be followed, to a massive backlash. However, this is not our problem, we present the science we do not revise it. If you feel the need for further avian properties please elucidate these.
5. Your guess is as good as mine. I think there is a generalised tendancy in projects like this to grab every online reference possible, unfortunately with little consideration of the quality of what is presented and no fact checking. Basically the equivalent of google says this, it must be true. Again I think this is also unprofessional, I think sources that are questionable should be examined by wikidata taxonomy project for validity and if rejected they are removed.
6. The act of combining species into groups is I think beyond the realm of a database. This is done through analysis of the given issue. Wikidata should be presenting the data, with reliable and good sources. As best as possible the primary taxonomic literature, in the scope of this issue, the thing that can come out of this is a better discussion on what is a good resource, the acceptance that complex cases need to be analyzed using only primary references, and that in taxonomic issues the relevant codes are the primary determinant on availability and validity. That is, if a name is published in accordance with the Code it is to be accepted as valid or refuted, a point the avian taxonomists breach the code on repeatedly.
Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was established early on that in the real world there are/have been two circumscriptions for Synthliboramphus hypoleucus. That is not a problem. There appear to be several problems:
  • Is this wider/older circumscription notable enough to rate a separate item of its own?
  • Is this wider/older circumscription indeed what Andy Mabbett intends with Q46338167, given that he has already denied this. If not, what does he intend?
  • Is it worthwhile discussing if Wikidata should have items for concepts denoted by a standardised common name set by some bird organization? These clearly exist, but are they notable enough?
  • Given that bird organizations use deviant 'scientific names' with rules of their own, should we have a property for that? Something like "Avian scientific name" or more general "deviant taxon name, used by special interest groups" (to include butterflies)? Clearly, it is not a good idea to put non-Code-compliant names in P225.
Brya (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis @Brya: specifically:
Is this wider/older circumscription notable enough to rate a separate item of its own? I do not think so.
Is this wider/older circumscription indeed what Andy Mabbett intends with Q46338167, given that he has already denied this. If not, what does he intend? My impression was that this is what is being suggested here, I also acknowledge Andy has denied this, but I have no idea what the purpose of this is in that case.
Is it worthwhile discussing if Wikidata should have items for concepts denoted by a standardised common name set by some bird organization? These clearly exist, but are they notable enough? I do not think they are notable in any great degree, unless they are a highly notable list. I would encourage the avoidance of confusion as a priority.
Given that bird organizations use deviant 'scientific names' with rules of their own, should we have a property for that? Something like "Avian scientific name" or more general "deviant taxon name, used by special interest groups" (to include butterflies)? Clearly, it is not a good idea to put non-Code-compliant names in P225. I prefer something along the lines of your second option, since it can be applied outside Aves (Birds) this can apply to Amphibians also. But I definitely agree anything that is non code compliant should be avoided in almost any circumstance. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
All concepts are still in use at Wikimedia projects: de:Lummenalk is about the old concept, en:Guadalupe murrelet is about the new concept. What e.g. is species:Synthliboramphus hypoleucus is about remains unclear to me. So how to deal with #2) Where should we place a) outdated Wikimedia articles, b) outdated external identfiers (in case we can judge they are) And yes, this thread needs some insights by Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The Wikispecies account is about the species in question as part of this, we do not worry so much about common names there as its not really what we are about. Vernacular names get added by people occasionally as they see fit, I ignore them as best as I can. If someone wants to add the english common name they can. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not care much about common names, but I care about references. The Wikispecies article has only a reference to the origninal combination Brachyramphus hypoleucus (not mentioning it at all). So it's hard to know about which taxon concept this entry is. :( --Succu (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, sorry I do not do the birds. I would not know the relevant refs. When I do turtles I already have pretty much all the literature, so is easier for me. However, since species:Synthliboramphus scrippsi also exists, then the other species can only be considering the new combination. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
But this only a guess. Even the genus species:Synthliboramphus has no reference to a current taxonomic treatment... --Succu (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Country of citizenship is WalesEdit

Can country of citizenship (P27)  Wales (Q25) be true for current day people? Sian EJ has been adding this claim to a lot of items using QuickStatements. As far as I know Wales isn't an independent country, but part of the United Kingdom. Example item: Peter Morgan (Q3376765). Mbch331 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Wales says that it's a country in the first sentence "Wales (/ˈweɪlz/) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain.". As long as the UK is still under the jurisdiction of the Lisbon treaty it's also arguable whether it's currently an independent country.
The subclass tree currently sees country of the United Kingdom (Q3336843) as being states and thus there's no constraint violation. ChristianKl❫ 12:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Asking on Quora gave me the answer that there's no legal category of Welsh citizenship, so I'm now more doubtful. Especially the idea that place of birth automatically translates into a Wales citizenship is problematic and that seems how the QuickStatements are sourced. ChristianKl❫ 13:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both. To quote from the WP Talk page: The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation. As it's a nation, a country, then the nationality of the people born there are 99% of the time Welsh. In the 1% I would include people who have moved in, and moved out again within a few years. But the defacto should be: if you're born in Wales, your Welsh - certainly up until the early 20c. Now, Wikidata does not have an item for 'Country of passport'; and I think it should. The UK did not exist until recently, therefore many 4 - 7c saints and Welsh princes and royalty will only have Wales as Nationality. Since the 1707 Acts of Union, when the UK came into existence, however, there is dual nationality - birth place gives Welsh, being part of that UK gives a second. Sian EJ (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this is the same type of discussion as Netherlands (Q55) versus Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999). It is agreed that The Netherlands is a country, however the country of citizenship is The Kingdom of the Netherlands. I wasn't talking about historic situations from before the UK existed, but only about the period the UK exists. (If you died before the UK existed you can never be a citizen of the UK) Mbch331 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I follow your original thoughts, and thanks! And after 1707, you can be both, and WD can be flexible enough to accept that there are two very strong beliefs (as with many conquered nations). For example, Cerys Matthews is a "Welsh singer": and nobody would say that she is a "British" or an "UK singer"! However she does technically hold a 'British / UK passport', so that also needs to be addressed. Wikidata can respect both points of view, using nationality and citizenship, or dual nationality (in a loose sense). I'll start ploughing through the last century, and revert those born in Wales who would not be called Welsh (the 1%). Can we also start a new statement: 'nationality by passport'? Sian EJ (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating "nationality" and "country of citizenship" - it is the former which Wikidata currently does not have; the latter is "country of passport". How many of these people hold Welsh passports? Also, beware using place of birth as a determiner for either nationality or (United States excepted) citizenship - consider temporary visitors such as holidaymakers, seasonal workers and diplomats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I combigned both, as I did not know nationality (Q231002) existed! Thank you Andy Mabbett! It would be better to use "nationality" = Welsh; country of citizenship (P27) = UK? People giving birth while on holiday + diplomats etc are part of my 1%. Welsh passport = no, that's why I suggested a second / new Statement; but country of citizenship = UK seems fine. Sian EJ (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
nationality (Q231002) is no property, so you can't use it in that way. In the last property discussion about a property for nationality, we decided against having one. ethnic group (P172) might be used to label Cerys Matthews as Welsh but it's nothing that you should add simply because someone was born in a certain area. ChristianKl❫ 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: NB - If nationality is not a property then we have only one ("country of citizenship") and this clouds the issue, unless more than one property can be added (in this case "UK" and "Wales"); this is second best. It is very odd that "nationality" isn't a property (link please)! Note also that "place of birth = nationality" was very true in Wales until the 20c and people are often described as "Welsh by birth" etc on Wikipedia as in the real world. ethnic group (P172) is NOT relevant to Welsh people, as has been reiterated by a number of national bodies including the language Ombudsman, Welsh Government etc! We are a nation, and our nationality is Welsh @AlwynapHuw, Llywelyn2000, Dafyddt:. Sian EJ (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • There's noting cloudy about the issue. Wikidata has a property for country of citizenship (and one for ethnic group) but no property for nationality. was the last property proposal to create one for nationality and that proposal wasn't successful (of course you can also open a new proposal). The people who reside in Wales are British citizens and there's no category of Welsh citizenship. ChristianKl❫ 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Wales is a Nation. My nationality is Welsh. These are facts that are not a matter of debate. I accept, that despite not liking it, I am a subject of the Crown (not a citizen) of the United Kingdom. Because of my health I am not able to travel afar, so I don't have or need a passport. Passport holding thingy won't cover my multiple identities. In the case of Wales and Scotland we have "national" entities approved and acknowledged by the Crown. Scotland and Wales (England too) are nations acknowledged as nations by the unwritten rules of the United Kingdom. Loads of images are available on this site because the NATIONAL Library of Wales uploaded them having been given permission to do so by the NATIONAL Assembly of Wales. The fact that England, Scotland & Wales are Nations under one crown is not the problem; the problem is that France, Spain etc can't be as relaxed as the UK and accept that they are nation states made up of many other nations. Wikidata's problem is that Wikipedia is available in lots of non-Nation-State languages. Spain France etc might not like it but Breton, Catalan etc have an independent Wiki site based on the fact that they are old nations with languages that separate them from their modern nation states. Wikidata has to recognise that or give up nation state language wikis.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlwynapHuw (talk • contribs).
AlwynapHuw, you can harangue the community on this matter, however, the clarity works better if you can come forward with clear definitions as prescribed by the UK laws for what is Welsh nationality; and how is that separated from Welsh people, and again separate from Welsh nationals who were born elsewhere, or those who are born in Wales but are not Welsh nationals. At this point of time, we track citizenship; we don't track this somewhat vague feeling of identification of nationality. If there is no exact definition or means to clarify beyond what a person believes themselves to be, then it is probably not data for Wikidata.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) Citizenship in modern times is a legal/juristic concept, while nationality can have wider meaning. Regardless of whether there is a "Welsh citizenship"-act that I have not been able to find, you are most definitely a citizen of britain (and likely, but not necessarily of the EU). en:History of British nationality law Before 1948, everyone in the commonwealth was a en:british subject, after 1948 it became possible for countries/nations of the crown to create their own citizenship and nationality laws, see also en:Canadian Citizenship Act 1946, while the rest went on governed by the en:British nationality law and it's amendments and evolutions, overseas acts etc. While you could possibly have 3 citizenships (eu, british, welsh), again I see no proof that there is a recognised set of laws that govern what citizenship of Wales would be, and thus you do not have such a citizenship. This is indeed not unique. Puerto Ricans are USA nationals, but not USA citizens for instance (see Q3543841). I do think that this is something that needs fixing at some point in wikidata.. we're speaking of a national identity here, which for most people is a rather specific, but well recognised form of our very wide 'ethnic group'. But 'ethnic group' is just a bad shorthand for saying "a group of people which share soil, ancestry, culture, society or language". It's not wrong, but it's not really recognisable for people either. Imagine replacing all usages of race, nationality, 'descent' etc with 'ethnic group' in Wikipedia. That wouldn't be very helpful. Then again, you could say: "Wikidata has country of citizenship, because it's clear what that is. We don't have nationality, as there is no consistent definition for what nationality constitutes".. Hmm. qualifiers ? TheDJ (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Both billinghurst and TheDJ have missed the point: WD does not have to use a criteria based on laws to define groups of people. The laws in Wales, since 1535 have been created by the oppressor, not by the people of Wales, who have NEVER accepted English dominance in Wales. Wikimedia believes in diversity - and that is about respecting all groups and minorities, not just the few. To say that we need to side with one group over another, just because they had sharper swords, and better killing machines, is rubbish, we are not the UN or state police, we are not bullies and oppressors but free thinking, inclusive Wikimedians. And as such, we need to find a way to accommodate all groups, and include a criteria whereby we can safely say that a person's nationality is Welsh. It is done on Wikipedia (nationality = Welsh); it is done in real life. If we can not do that on Wikidata then we are in conflict with other Wikimedia projects and we might as well give up Wikidata, and start our own projects which would respect diversity. What Sian says is quite correct, and manageable. Of course there is a clear "consistent definition for what nationality constitutes" (TheDJ), it is defined every day for many bodies such as sports teams. We would be 100% correct, in Wales, to say that a person is Welsh if they are born in Wales and have Welsh parents. If other countries can not say this, then they don't need to add 'nationality' on their biogs. We can. The second definition and criteria, which should be equally as clear is academic sources: if the National Dictionary of Welsh Biography lists and accepts that there is such a group as "Welsh people" then we must accept that. To say say that our nationality is "somewhat vague feeling of identification" (billinghurst) is ignorant and unhelpful. It is defined in Wales, we are Welsh, now move on. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
At this point the UK government defines what is their citizenship and we capture that data in that field ... in that English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish people are UK citizens. Ethnic group exists where you wish to define "Welsh people", and many Welsh people are already so stated. There is no nationality property. The discussion is, and was, about citizenship fieluniod, and as such commentary should be taken in that context. The legal status of Wales or Welsh people within the United Kingdom, or the path to that paradigm, is not something that seems within the scope to resolve in this forum.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata doesn't store nationality but citizenship and citizenship is defined by laws. In addition we also have ethnic group that can be used to store that someone is a Welsh person. If you want to draw this information from Wikidata for your infoboxes you are free to show "Nationality = Welsh" for every person that has "ethnic group : Welsh" in Wikidata.
@Llywelyn2000: You are saying here that the definition of Wales nationality that Sian EJ used is wrong when you say "We would be 100% correct, in Wales, to say that a person is Welsh if they are born in Wales and have Welsh parents". This vagueness where the two of you use different ideas of what Wales nationality happens to be, is a problem that makes natioanlity a concept that's more vague than citizenship which is more clearly defined. For the sake of Wikidata that vagueness can lead to edit conflicts about thousands of items. Given that we want a property that's less vague we chose citizenship. We have also ethnic group for groups of people that aren't citizens and we require sources for that to have a way to resolve disputes.
You could even set some object has role (P3831)nationality (Q231002) qualifier on ethnic group, to say that in this case you are talking about nationality but that still means that you have to follow the sourcing standards we expect for ethnic group. ChristianKl❫ 17:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: The difference between Llywelyn2000 and I does not exist; read what was said! To base nationality in Wales from 1707 onwards on place of birth gives us a criteria which is 99% correct - the remaining 1% being movement of people; until 1900 there was very little coming and going in Wales. Llywelyn2000, adds a second criteria - the birthplace of the parents, which gives us a watertight criteria without any "vagueness". He also adds two lists which could be added: names of Welsh people from the DWB and sports where nationality is defined. You may not think it important to create a property, just because one small country asks for it, but others do, as "citizenship" does not give the whole picture. If citizenship = uk, then Wikidata is in conflict with reality.
Secondly, as was said above, "WD does not have to use a criteria based on laws to define groups of people". Laws are created by one group; Wikimedia respects all groups (or should!) Both last two comments disregard our view on this point.
Ethnicity does not come into it, as I've already said.
Third, my suggestion of having two citizenship ("dual nationality - birth place gives Welsh, being part of that UK gives a second") has not been addressed by anyone. My suggestion is that the status quo (uk citizenship by law) is one, and that a second be created: "Local Citizenship" by birthplace of the person and recognised, sourced lists such as the academic, world standard of DWB.
A new property needs to be created - either "Nationality" or "Local Citizenship". Not to do so is not an option, otherwise Wikidata becomes unbalanced, does not recognise the real world and ignores academic work. And that means that an alternative project be formed - Llywelyn2000 might elaborate on this later, and measures taken to block Wikidata.
To quote "...many people will be offended if called British, but they consider themselves Scottish or one of the other nationalities. And the mistake of calling a Scot, a Welsh person or Irish person "English" is one which is even harder to forgive." If Wikidata continues to offend so many people, then that needs to change and needs changing now. Sian EJ (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The same is for Catalans, Corse, Kurds, Bavarians, Basque etc. These are not citizens, a legal property, but ethnicities, a more subjective property without clear definitions outside the core. Is it of any legal difference if you are in, say Germany, whether you are Welch, Scotch or English? That's what citizenship is about. Sänger (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please note the heading of this thread includes the word Wales. If you want to discuss whether or not the Bavarians have a similar problem, please start a new thread. My request is regarding Wales alone. User:Sänger - you also use legality as your criteria ("These are not citizens, a legal property"), so I take it that you haven't read or you haven't understood my arguments that legality is not the sole definition of citizenship / nationality! I have defined clearly my alternative citizenship ("Local Citizenship") using academic and secondary sourced examples; what part of this is "unclear"? Your last question I take it, is an attempt to defend the existing country of citizenship (P27) property, which no one is attacking or querying in any way! Sian EJ (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
But why make some distinction for the Welsh, and not for the Catalan? Citizenship as a legal property regarding passports etc., is something quite good defined. Nationality, ethnicity, regionality etc. are not. OK, Cerys Matthews is quite explicit about her thanking the god she's welsh, but does it make any difference for her at the swiss border? The property country of citizenship (P27) is about just that, nothing else. The other stuff should be held completely separated from that. Dual country of citizenship (P27) is of course possible as well, as can be seen in the (for me quite unfathomable) disaster in the Australian parliament now, where unknown, involuntary and never used second citizenships now lead to baseless destructions of political careers. But Welsh, Catalan, Basque, Quebecoise, Frisian or Tyrolean are not country of citizenship (P27), but something distinct. Sänger (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Some examples: Is Gerry Adams (Q76139) Irish, Northern-Irish or British? Is Abdullah Öcalan (Q191530) Turkish or Kurdish? Is Carles Puigdemont (Q4740163) Spanish or Catalan? And who is it to determine this? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)
Another fundamental issue to consider here, both for country of citizenship (P27) and more generally for country (P17) and other sub-properties of P17 is searchability, and the expectations of people constructing searches.
If somebody is constructing a search for all British people with a particular set of properties, eg all British painters with works in galleries within 100 miles of a particular place -- they don't expect Welsh painters not to be included; especially if they many not even realise if Welsh painters are not being returned.
That is why we are quite fierce about using quite a limited controlled vocabulary for P17 and similar -- and why suggestions to use what e.g. may be technically more correct values like United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) for UK citizens before 1927 can actually create considerable difficulties, even for the quite wary. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sänger: You say "The same is for Catalans, Corse, Kurds... " - Sian has asked for you to keep this thread focused on Wales; don't cloud the issue. You use "legality" once again as your sole criteria; yet, please read my comments (above). Citizenship is taught in the new Welsh Curriculum (introduced by the National Government of Wales) in every school in Wales whereby they are recognised as having Welsh citizenship as well as British and European. Alwyn (above) mentions that he has no passport, so please don't confuse the issue with points which have already been addressed in this thread. If you want to bring legality and passports, then create another property (Nationality by passport), as was suggested above.
Nationality / citizenship of people living in Wales from 5th century to the death of the Welsh kings were Welsh; no one disputes this. They continued being Welsh until the present day (discounting a few immigrants, who very quickly call themselves Welsh) in everyone's eyes - even the UK Governemnt; but their citizenship - on paper - was defined as being UK/British. Lloyd George was always called 'Welsh' and so is Ryan Giggs. There is no mechanism on wikidata to achnowledge this. The fact that another country forces their citizenship on us (on paper) does not change the fact that we are Welsh. If Wikidata sides with one large group rather than minority groups then it is in conflict with its own aims and objectives in its support of diversity. That is not how data works. If a group exists, then we can give several titles / names to that group. I'm Welsh, British and proudly European. Several titles; no problem.
Your paragraph "If somebody is constructing a search for all British people" - is not a "fundamental" problem; there are several ways over this (and I'm sure you could find other solutions). For example, Wales is part of the UK as well as being a nation in its own right (different to some other stateless nations and minorities) and by connecting both properties / and making Wales a subgroup of the UK, a search for British painters would also give you Welsh painters! When we search for churches in the UK, it brings up Welsh churches as well as Scottish, English etc. There's no difference, from data perspective.
So far, there have been no reasons given for not going ahead with Sian's suggestions; either create a new property 'nationality=Welsh' or allow a looser definition of 'citizenship' which allows dual citizenship. We are here talking about Wales, and the new properties could be limited to Wales. Otherwise Wikidata is going against the National Library of Wales' National Dictionary of Welsh Biography etc etc which state categorically that there is a data group called Welsh. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This can't be "focused on Wales", this is a fundamental question about the property. Is this property about citizenship only, or should it be widened to autonomous regions? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's look at them one by one, starting at our feet, with Wales. If 'Nationality' is acceptable in the real world then it needs to be defined and used on Wikidata. If the real world says that so and so is Welsh, then Wikidata needs to be able to do that, otherwise it becomes political, biased and falls flat on its face. The percentage of live feeds coming in from WD into the Welsh language Wicipedia (cywiki) is higher than any other WP language. For example, we have 17,000 Wikidata Lists, Lysteria updated (twice as many as all other WP languages put together) - and live infoboxes, which at present use "| suppressfields=citizenship" as a lock to keep out incorrect Wikidata information eg Gwen John.
I know very little about some of the other nationalities mentioned above, and will not be drawn into specific cases. Wikidata has a number of properties which only accept good solid references from sources such as National Libraries, Academia, National Governments etc. And if they state that person X is of Y nationality, then we must accept that; and if there are two different solid references with two different nationalities, so be it! One could be defined by the stateless state, the other by the recognised state, and each Wikipedia could decide whether to opt for one or the other or both. If we don't recognise both groups, if we don't change the existing void on Wikidata, then we're on a very, very nasty slippery slope towards political censorship. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! And as we already have Q188353 / Welsh people (Q188353) with the description 'Welsh people' = 'nation and ethnic group native to Wales' then a similar property should be created. As Q188353 exists, then so should Property = Welsh people be created. All arguments above that nationality can not be defined for Wales fall down, as we already have that definition. Sian EJ (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

We generally don't create properties on Wikidata because there's a specific items. We have millions of items and allow any user to create new items but we keep properties more limited. ChristianKl❫ 00:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata properties don't get created because you want a solution to model a single case. If you want to have a solution for a single case, then you have to use the available properites and that's the ethnic group property to store information about who's Welsh. Saying that you don't want to speak about any cases besides the Welsh one, is basically saying that you don't want to contribute any effort for the creation of a property for nationality. That's okay, but it won't help you with getting such a property. ChristianKl❫ 00:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a lot in recent months. I think the suggestion for a new property is really the only workable solution here. Running through it all in order -

  1. This is a hard problem, but it's undeniably important for representing UK people, both now and historically; even without a legally defined concept, we know what it means to say that Gordon Brown was Scottish and David Lloyd George was Welsh, and we know why that's more significant than saying they were both British. We need to work out a good model for it.
  2. The situation for Wales and Scotland is directly analogous, so whatever solution we come up with will hopefully work for both. It will also hopefully work for pre-1922 Irish people, a similar situation that we don't represent well.
  3. Identities can be complementary - eg saying you are Scottish does not automatically mean that you reject being British, and different people may prioritise them differently, or use them in different ways at different times. In some cases, stating one and not the other is an explicitly political act which may not be appropriate for us to do. This means we need to be able to record both the formal citizenship and the national identity..
  4. The options discussed here are to use country of citizenship (P27), ethnic group (P172), or a potential new property.
  5. country of citizenship (P27) does not work well because of the complementary nature of the labels - if we do Wales or UK then we would be making an explicit decision to prioritise one over the other, which is inappropriate for some contexts. If it is Wales and UK then we get into all sorts of problems with double-reporting and preferred values.
  6. ethnic group (P172) is a minefield. These national identities are not the same as ethnic groups, although historically they did line up a lot, and things will get confused quite fast if we start treating them as such. The property does have "nationality" as an alternative label, but I'm really not comfortable with forcing this concept into a box labelled "ethnic group".
  7. So... perhaps the best approach is to restart something like Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality - but with an explicit constraint limiting it to only certain specified values, so that we keep it for contexts where that makes sense, ie distinct and widely understood national identities like Welsh, rather than trying to force historic states into the model as well.

Thoughts? I think that the suggested constraint might be the key to making a new property work - it means that we can use it for situations where we know it's appropriate and push back on using it in others, which gets around one of the key problems with the earlier failed "nationality" proposal. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense! @Pigsonthewing, Jura1, Richard Nevell (WMUK), Mike Peel, RexxS: Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all, thank you, Andrew. I agree with all of the points you make.
Can I then recommend that further commentators take the time to read the en:Nationality article, especially the Nationality versus citizenship and subsequent sections, which carefully examines the differences between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity - based on reliable sources and with instructive examples? Please note this distinction: "Conceptually, citizenship is focused on the internal political life of the state and nationality is a matter of international dealings."
If you want to consider criteria for constraints, then I suggest that nationality is an appropriate property where international relations indicate that nationality. To be useful, this cannot be simply confined to matters such as passports (mine says "European Union United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"), but should take into account broader concepts such as representation. An obvious example would be international sports teams, which have a variety of categorisations. When I played rugby union (Q5849), I would have been eligible to represent my country by playing for the England national rugby union team (Q378628) and the British & Irish Lions (Q733600), but I was not eligible to play for the Ireland national rugby union team (Q599903), the Scotland national rugby union team (Q945016), or the Wales national rugby union team (Q822877). That eligibility to represent a country in an international sports competition depends on my nationality, not my citizenship, nor my ethnicity. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Hmm, I think the "international relations" thing here is potentially a bit of a red herring. w:Nationality is focused very much on nationality-in-a-state, and in that context the answer would be "British" for us both. The concept of "nationality" we're considering here is briefly touched on in the fourth paragraph of the lead ("In English and some other languages, the word nationality is sometimes used...") but it conflates it with ethnicity, which is a bit confusing. I'm not sure if enwiki has a solid discussion of this or not. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: The idea that Kant having German nationality is not a widely understood nationality is interesting (there was no historic German state when Kant lived). Could you expand your view of what you think a widely understood nationality happens to be?
What about Italy? Which historic people have Italian nationality and which have Padanian nationality? How do you go about figuring that out? ChristianKl❫ 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Apologies, I wasn't clear. I meant to say cases where "multiple nationalities within a single country" is a widely understood concept. I explicitly don't think we should try and deal with the historic concept of German or Italian 'nationality' in the same way as the contemporary concept of Scottish/Welsh 'nationality'. These are different things and I don't think the same model will work well for both - which is one of the reasons the last property proposal had trouble. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I hope somebody will come up with some proposal for such cases. I'm continually frustrated that when I have a major painter described as "Flemish", or even English/Scottish/British from the 17th or 18th or 19th century, I really have no idea how I ought to be represented, and tend to just walk away. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I think you are clear. You want a concept of nationality after which Kant doesn't have German nationality. I'm not sure there's an existing notion of nationality out there that's defined in that way. There's a good chance that it will be misunderstood.
When it comes to the UK nationalities might be more clear but when it comes to Padanian nationality there's a lot more room for debate. The same goes for many modern conflicts. Is South Korea a nation? What about Taiwan? ChristianKl❫ 23:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The thread opening is, like often in the wikiverse, a bit too anglocentric, thanks Christian for straightening this. There can't be a solution just for the UK, this ain't an english project, this is international, and solutions for such questions have to fit the whole world. And don't give sport as an example, as the UK is in some disciplines the (for me not really fathomable) exemption, as it has special status for it's second-level country entities. (Strangely enough there are all-irish Ireland women's national field hockey team (Q762483) and Ireland men's national field hockey team (Q1672803), including Northern Ireland.) A solution has to fit Cyprus (north and south, greek and turkish), Russia (lots of nationalities in different kind of autonomy status), Africa (many colonial borders without consideration of ethnicities (aka nations in Europe)) and so forth. No, this is not just about Wales. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree we need an answer for all of these things - I just don't think that the answers will all automatically need to use the same approach! The Wales/Scotland situation is pretty unusual and easily distinguished from most of the other cases, and I had hoped we could deal with that bit seperately and get at least one thing sorted out. Apologies if I've overstepped - I certainly never intended to suggest it was a universal answer for all cases!
So, hmm, let's think about the overall problem as a whole. What sort of ways can people have "nationality" that we might need to describe? I spent a bit of time going over this and I can think of a dozen different things we might want to describe - list below. Some of these we have an easy way to describe, some we don't, but all of them are things we'll probably want to decide how to model. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
People from modern states
  • Case 1: person from a modern state, with nothing unusual.
  • Case 2: person from a modern state, with an unusual type of legal nationality (eg Indian overseas citizenship)
  • Case 3: person from a modern state, who also has a distinct national identity within that state (eg Wales in the UK)
  • Case 4: person from a dependency/territory of a modern state (eg Faroe Islands, Isle of Man)
  • Case 5: person from a region disputed or claimed by two modern states (eg Crimea)
  • Case 6: person from a modern state which has declared independence but not been widely recognised (eg Northern Cyprus, Somaliland)
  • Case 7: person from a modern state who was previously from a historic state (eg East Germany > Germany)
  • Case 8: person from a modern state which has become independent, and was previously from another modern state (eg South Sudan)
  • Case 9: person who is stateless
People from historic states
  • Case 10: person from a historic state or territory that formed a modern state (eg Kingdom of France > France)
  • Case 11: person from a historic state or territory that is part of a larger cultural group which is associated with a modern state (eg Prussia > Germany)
  • Case 12: person from a historic state or territory that has many modern successors (eg Austro-Hungary, Joseon Korea)
  • Case 13: person from a historic colonial state or territory (eg British India > India)
  • Case 14: person from a period or context without a clearly defined concept of statehood or nationality

What other cases have I missed? Do we need to break any of these down further - particularly #11? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What's #3 in regard of recognized national minorities, like the Sorbs (Q146521) or Frisians (Q106416) in Germany? What about Scotland as long as there was no national assembly? What was the difference to an autonomous region like Catalan (besides the for me just ridiculous British exceptionalism, they always pretend to be something else from the rest of mankind) and Wales? And there was no Germany before 1871, it was founded then and not before, so nobody from before 1871 could be German. Before were other entities, but not Germany, the thought of one Germany was revolutionary in 1848. The same could be said about a lot of regions/nations/ethnicities, there are no clear boundaries between the different case. The only valid case for p27 is #1, and the same for every year in history, a state or a territory that formed a modern state is completely subjective and sentimental, not encyclopaedic. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
My (limited) understanding of the Catalan situation is that yes, this fits case #3 - a group with a defined identity as a nation, which is not necessarily ethnicity-based, who are part of a larger state. "Distinct" here is subjective and not legal; it doesn't imply political autonomy.
We don't have to use P27 for each of these these, but they are all things we should try and understand how to model in some way. "Subjective and sentimental" doesn't mean they're not important to people! To be clear, am I right in thinking that you're saying #1 and #10-13 should all be "use P27:country at the time", so eg country of citizenship (P27):Kingdom of Prussia (Q27306) for Kant? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The concept of citizenship (Q42138) has to be of relevance to the person at the time of their life in the region of their life. Otherwise such stuff makes no sense. So that may be a problem for most colonies: They are artificial countries, usually with borders with no connection to those who lived there and their identities. And I don't care about the legalese of colonist nations, that tried to justify their land robberies;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I broadly agree with "facts on the ground at the time" for P27 and historic people - it's what I've been doing for the past few years - but it doesn't help us with "why won't Kant show up in a search for German philosophers?", one of the other key issues raised here. Maybe the solution is to make sure these predecessor states are linked in such a way that a query can pick them up? I'm not sure the best way to do that without being very complex, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Kant wasn't German in relation to country of citizenship (P27), he has written in the German language and was Prussian, with Latvian ancestry. If you put him in a "modern state" (whatever that may be) he could be quite a lot: German, Latvian, Russian at least. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The list of cases doesn't say what "from a modern state" means. As far as case 3 goes, does Padanian nationality count? Is there something like an Arabian nationality? Are Han Chinese a nationality? What sort of nationalities does China have? What's the relationship to Taiwanese nationalities?
If you say that "distinct" is subjective, how do we solve cases where the subjective opinion of different people differs? ChristianKl❫ 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, to go with "facts on the ground at the time" for P27 and historic people, what about say Alfred the Great (Q83476) ? We're currently going with country of citizenship (P27) Kingdom of England (Q179876), but that's anachronistic by at least a couple of generations. For his father we say Kingdom of Wessex (Q105313), but is that still right for Alfred, whose dominion ran somewhat wider? In some ways one might like to call him an Anglo-Saxon king, but is that something we should code in?
And how does one manage search discoverability, if one wants to find him in a list of British people? Is country (P17) any part of the answer? My understanding is that, for places etc, P17 should generally point to a modern country. Does it make sense to write Kingdom of Wessex (Q105313)country (P17)  United Kingdom (Q145)? (Though that wouldn't help us find kings in England). I see that at the moment Kingdom of Wessex (Q105313) has no value for P17, while for Q83476 we currently have Kingdom of England (Q179876)country (P17)  Kingdom of England (Q179876). Jheald (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it further, P17 doesn't necessarily generally point to a modern country. But (I think) it should be acceptable for it to do so, even in cases where the relationship is an anachronism, if eg qualified with something like determination method (P459) "present-day boundaries". Jheald (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Okay, I am looking forward now to the guidance that needs to come out for British subjects of Commonwealth countries prior to 1949—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.—for the nations when they are nations, and for when they were colonies. Similarly how we will be handling territories, are they of the (mother) nation? or of the territory or both? For these colonies or territories, how will we define whether they are of the colony, or the mother nation? Is it a place of birth? Or a place of belonging, and how will that be determined? This has to be done if this is to be implemented successfully at Wikidata, otherwise we are going to be half pregnant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's one of the challenges. People from pre-independence US colonies are another thing I'm wondering about (presumably the pre-unification Canadian and Australian territories will have similar issues). Andrew Gray (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Source based approachEdit

We could just try to look at specific sources that state that some is (e.g.) Welsh (and possibly why) and then try to determine the appropriate way to add a statement reflecting that to Wikidata.
--- Jura 08:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the following is what you had in mind, but below is the full set of nationalities retrieved by running the following query on the British Museum's SPARQL endpoint at (Note it's not on the federated list, so despite "Try it" below this will not run from our own endpoint). This is the kind of list of values from sources that (IMO) we ought to be able to benchmark ourselves against, and match.
PREFIX rdf: <>
PREFIX rdfs: <>
   ?subj <> ?nat
Try it!
I am not sure that either country of citizenship (P27) or ethnic group (P172) really work consistently for this lot. Even when modern states exist, it seems to me that identities like "Afghan" or "Trinidadian-and-Tobagonian" do not cleanly match to times when those states might or might not have been in existence as independent entities. But I don't think this is what people talk about when they talk about "ethnic groups" either -- in the context of the USA for example, "ethnic group" I think would tend to indicate something quite different, at the very least something a list of hyphenated-Americans, rather than a single nationality "American-USA".
In my view, especially for people, we should cleave quite closely to sources. If a source claims to be giving a value for "ethnic group" we should use ethnic group (P172). If it claims to be giving a value for nationality, IMO the best way forward would be to use a new property "nationality". And if there is no source then neither should be used. That does seem to me to be the best way forward, and I don't think we can jam it into the existing properties.
Anyway, here's the list:
Jheald (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand, Pigsonthewing, Máté, Vladimir Alexiev, Pharos: You all !voted against the previous Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality. IMO being recently called out by User:Fram on en-wiki (diff) for the statement Arnold van Westerhout (Q18511480)country of citizenship (P27)  Belgium (Q31) (when the original source said "Flemish") is a wake-up call that it is way past time that we sorted out a way forward to deal with this. I also don't think it's sustainable, when a source says eg "English painter", to have to look up which one of a seemingly endless number of legal entities may have constituted the UK at that particular moment -- none of which actually code accurately what the source was saying. Do any of you have a better suggestion, or should we just bite the bullet and open a new Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality (2nd proposal), as at least a workable, least-worse, closest-to-the-external-sources option?
Also pinging @Jarekt, ArthurPSmith, Blackcat, Marsupium: @PKM, Thierry Caro, ChristianKl, Pasleim: who all also participated in the previous property discussion; and

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)   Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings, since we have particularly strong resources for painters, which may make a useful case-study group to consider what may or may not work. Jheald (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have some rough notes on how P27 is currently being used in practice that I'd like to put together first - could we hold off for a little bit on the new proposal? I think it might help us focus better on some of the issues here and while we do have to fix this, we can afford to take a little bit of time over it to avoid getting stuck in a confused discussion about two or three different things. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrew. Rather than jump straight to a proposal, what I was thinking was perhaps i) canvass for options here, then ii) put those options to an RfA, then iii) propose new properties (or not) based on what comes out of that RfA.
I was hoping people might come up with some alternative suggestions, hence the call above. Jheald (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record what I said in the discussion of that proposal was "Oppose: I don't think there is sufficient clarity about how this would be used". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Generating citations on Wikidata generated Maps and Graphs on other Wikimedia projectsEdit


I'm looking at creating some maps and graphs using data we are importing into Wikidata from UNESCO. To make them more acceptable to English Wikipedia (and other projects) I want to include citations for the sources of the data, is this possible to either manually or automatically?


--John Cummings (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, @DTankersley (WMF):, @Yurik:, @Pigsonthewing:, @MartinPoulter:, @Mike Peel: any ideas? Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You can definitely make a Lua call and get the reference independent of the graph. I am not sure if there is anything in the graph code itself to do this. Yurik would need to say. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talkcontribslogs), do you know of any examples for this? I'm imagining something link a button underneath the graph that would say 'sources' and then when you click on it it gives you a list of sources. A Lua call is a high technical barrier to be able to be able to make graphs with references.... Hopefully @Yurik: will have some good news :) --John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
If the data is stored in a .map or .tab page on Commons, you can use a trick I used in lines graph (and some other): {{#invoke:TNT|msg|I18n/|source_table|{{#invoke:TNT|link|{{{table}}}}}}} -- this magical bit of code (on all wikis that have TNT lua module) show a localized link to the Commons data. The {{{table}}} param is the name of the data page on Commons. If you are using graph extension to dynamically query Wikidata, you can use a slightly different {{#invoke:TNT|msg|I18n/|source_wdqs|{{urlencode:{{{query}}}|PATH}}}}. Here, {{{query}}} is a sparql query that becomes a link to WDQS. Both of these options are used in the mw graph collection. Note that none of this is using the graph extension itself, but rather some simple Lua scripting. Hope this helps. --Yurik (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Yurik:, I don't think its practical to add the data to Commons every time but I think we may have found a short term work around using the same set up as the first graph on this page. We also are writing a little outline of what a possible inbuilt reference could look like. --John Cummings (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings:, you don't need to add any data to Commons to have a citation - I meant you can use a Lua invocation to link to your WDQS query for the reference purposes, and that link will have a standard, autotranslatable text. But sure, a free-form text at the bottom of the box would work too. --Yurik (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yurik:, ah thanks, I think I understand now :) --John Cummings (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings, Yurik: sorry for the late reply. I can offer a minor hack: the line chart view of the Query Service UI will include a fourth result variable in a “label” area above the chart. I’m not sure what it’s actually intended for, but you can use it to add a list of all the sources to the chart:
# population of New York City, including sources
SELECT ?time ?population (" " AS ?dummy) ?sources WITH {
  SELECT ?time ?population ?source WHERE {
    wd:Q60 p:P1082 [
      ps:P1082 ?population;
      pq:P585 ?time;
      prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference
    OPTIONAL { ?reference pr:P248 ?statedIn. }
    OPTIONAL { ?reference pr:P854 ?referenceUrl. }
    BIND(COALESCE(?statedIn, ?referenceUrl) AS ?source)
    FILTER(BOUND(?source)) # we don’t want references which have neither “stated in” nor “reference URL”
} AS %results WITH {
  SELECT (GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ?sourceLabel; separator = "; ") AS ?sources_) WHERE {
    INCLUDE %results.
    SERVICE wikibase:label {
      bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en".
      ?source rdfs:label ?sourceLabel.
} AS %sources WHERE {
  INCLUDE %results.
  INCLUDE %sources.
  # change “source; source; source” to “source; source; and source”, and “source; source” to “source and source”
    IF(REGEX(?sources_, "; .*;"),
       REPLACE(?sources_, "(.*); (.*)", "$1; and $2"), # the first .* is greedy, so this replaces the last ;
       REPLACE(?sources_, "(.*); (.*)", "$1 and $2"))
    AS ?sources)
Try it!
It’s not perfect – just throwing it in the ring as another possibility. (Perhaps we should add dedicated support for something like this to the query service UI?) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE):, this is amazing. How would we request that sourcing became part of the query service? My only suggestions for changes would be that the sources were shown at the bottom and that they linked to query results so that people can see the reference URLs and also it could have a maximum number of sources shown if there is a very long list of sources and people click the link to see more. --John Cummings (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I’ve created phabricator:T185308 to investigate this further. I’m not sure what you mean by making the sources link to the query results – aren’t people already seeing the query results when they see the sources embedded in the results like this? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE):, amazing, thanks. My suggestion to link to the query results are for a couple of reasons:
  1. Where there are more than maybe 5 sources where it is probably not practical to list them all under the graph.
  2. It allows people to which data comes from which source, this would also be helpful in spotting wrong or partial data, e.g if there was a graph for climate modelling and the graph had one very unusual point, this could looked at to make sure the data wasn't coming from
  3. It adds another layer of transparency for people who are suspicious of Wikidata (I'm thinking of English Wikipedia especially where there is some push back against Wikidata integration).
I would be very happy to work with you on developing this further although please be aware I am a level 1 mugggle with no coding ability.
Thanks again
--John Cummings (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: ah, I think I forgot that “link” can mean more than just “hyperlink” in English :) you want to have the sources on each individual result, not one overall list of sources, is that correct? In that case the query should actually be easier (example), but unfortunately right now the Chart result views don’t support this very well. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE):, I don't know what the right answer to how it displays references, I really like the way you had them display in plain English (is this manually added or automatic?) but I also think it needs to link through to the query. Is it possible? One additional thought is if it is possible to have a limit to the number of sources shown? If there are 10s of different sources then it is not practical to display them all. Maybe if you say what is possible and then we consider the different options?


--John Cummings (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Retracted papersEdit

We have an issue at retracted paper (Q45182324) where GerardM insists on repeatedly removing subclass of (P279)=academic journal article (Q18918145); apparently in order to justify his repeated removal of instance of (P31)=retracted paper (Q45182324) from Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children (Q28264479). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the misrepresentation and for the edit war. As it is, retracted papers are scientific papers. When they are retracted, all kinds of options are open including that papers are reinstated sometimes with changed information but not exclusively so. Consequently the notion that there is such a thing as retracted papers as a subclass is wrong and, what is left is to identify retracted papers as a significant event. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Using significant event (P793) rather than instance of (P31) to model this sounds fine to me, but we should strive for a reasonable discussion and consensus on this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that significant event is more appropriate for modeling this relationship then instance of (P31). ChristianKl❫ 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
"retracted papers are scientific papers. " Some retracted papers are humanities papers; which is why subclass of (P279)=academic journal article (Q18918145). "papers are reinstated sometimes" So class them as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Are we really going to discriminate in the kind of paper involved.. REALLY !! Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
If you speak about the identity of the paper than the kind of paper obviously matters a great deal. If you don't want a solution that cares about the kind of paper instance of (P31) isn't your property. ChristianKl❫ 13:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Subclass as a variable propertyEdit

@Pigsonthewing is edit warring on the notion that a retracted paper is in a different subclass as scientific paper. It follows that subclass is no longer stable. As has been indicated, a retraction can be followed by a re-publication. Help me understand, can a subclass be this fickle or is it something that should be solid. If not can you please provide other examples where a change of state changes the subclass for an item? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

GerardM All subclass (P279) means is that if X is a subclass of Y, then when item A is an instance of X (A P31 X), it should also be considered to be an instance of Y, without having to explicitly add that statement in wikidata. If a specific article (A) is retracted (so A P31 X where X is "retracted paper", though as I mentioned above I think the significant event approach is better) then with the current subclass statement, A is also an instance of Y (academic journal article). This seems fine to me. Can you be clearer about what your concern is with this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion being part of a subclass is not something fickle that changes on arbitrary events. This is imho quite basic. I understand quite well what a subclass is, my understanding is that the arbitrariness of this approach is wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify? We start with item A, an instance of "academic journal article". It is retracted, and its P31 statement is changed to "retracted paper". Then the retraction is rescinded or whatever and it becomes "academic journal article" again. There is no change in "subclass", the change is to the P31 (instance) statement on A. This seems ok to me. Or did you have a different scenario in mind? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok another item .. a human .. he dies ... so we change the instance to "corpse"? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No, all humans are P31 Q5, but that's a wikidata policy decision. And we don't have a wikidata class for "deceased human" at the moment anyway as far as I can see - if we did it would still be legitimate to make it P279 Q5. We do have woman (Q467) subclass of (P279) human (Q5). We could make a similar policy decision here if the consensus is for that, I certainly agree that would be sensible. But you're the one who created retracted paper (Q45182324), what did you have in mind with it if not as a subcategory of academic journal articles? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
We have many things that have start time (P580) and end time (P582) attached to their instance of (P31) statements — e.g. most countries have conditional subclass status for being member state of the European Union (Q185441) or Commonwealth realm (Q202686) or permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (Q6688521) etc. I think we often use instance of (P31) for things that would probably be better expressed using some other property, but currently this is a fairly well established approach. --Oravrattas (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It shouldn't change based on arbitary events and that's why it's bad to model arbitary events like retraction with instance of (P31). 13:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)ChristianKl
Not sure what "arbitrary" means here. "Retraction" for an academic journal article is a major major event, important for anybody considering making some use of the article to be aware of. It would be unwise to favorably cite or otherwise rely on the results of a retracted paper after it was retracted, for instance. So I can see an argument for making that more obvious via the P31 relation. I don't think that's necessary, but I really don't see a significant problem either way. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I also am a little unclear in all this, in my own area I only deal with scientific and academic publications, retracted means the paper is not published and hence is not a citable resource. For the purposes of science, retracted papers effectively do not exist. Why would you try to list them at all? Whatever the reason of retraction there is no implicit garuntee of peer and editorial review, hence they are no better than a self published doc on a website. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: The core question is whether the event of the retraction is an event that happens to the paper or whether it's something that changes the core about what the identity of the paper happens to be. It's arguable whether the word "arbitrary" is good for speaking about this. ChristianKl❫ 00:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Next IRC office hour on January 30thEdit

Hello all,

The Wikidata team will organize an IRC office hour, January 30th, at 17:00 UTC (18:00 Berlin time). It will take place in the Wikimedia office IRC channel #wikimedia-officeconnect. As usual, we will present you some news from the development team, the projects to come, and collect your feedback.

This year, we would like to try something different, and have a topic to focus on during the office hour. If you have any topic you'd like to bring for the first meeting, please share it here!

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the information. I would like to learn more about strategies that are being considered for how to address the growth of Wikidata. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There is that redirect RfC from last year which we still wait WMDE to comment on. I fully understand that the outcome is not easy to implement and maybe somewhat undesired by WMDE (I don’t like many of the details of it, either). However, there is clear demand for improvements regarding sitelink management (per RfC), and several disputes of the past months could have been avoided if a solution akin to the proposal of the RfC was available. I thus think that it would be fair to have a WMDE/dev comment on the outcome of this RfC, and in case that this comment leaves space for an actual implementation at a later time, an IRC office hour could be used to discuss critical aspects with the community. @Lea Lacroix (WMDE), Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), ChristianKl: FYI. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexa rank (P1661) for a municipality?Edit

I just saw that the User:Alexabot added a property Alexa rank (P1661) to a municipality (that of course has a web-page as a property) [1]. As a property for the web-page that may be fine, but the item is a municipality, not a web-page. Should I simply revert the bot, or is there a possibility to put the property to the property of the web-page? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just revert the entry - sorry for it. --Tozibb (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC) (operator of Alexa bot)
Could your bot please revert all this false Alexa rank (P1661) I see in their history? Only items with instance of (P31): website (Q35127) should have it, and I don't see a single correct edit by your bot in this regard in the last 500 edits. It's a bit too much for a real person to clean up after a bot, that ran amok. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tozibb: I've reverted the last few of your wrong Alexa-spam, could you please clean up yourself after this mess you created? I think it's very unfriendly to do so much bot-vandalism and leave the clean-up to humans. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tozibb: Any reaction from you? Your bot hasn't done anything to clean up this mess. OK, it's as well not vandalising non-webpage properties up to now, but probably hundreds of those edits are still not reverted.
@All: Is there some other bot who can resolve this, or does it have to be done by humans? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
One would at least use Petscan to query for items where a P1661 claim is not appropriate, and let this tool remove the claims. Nobody has to do that manually. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I am working on this - thinking about a SPARQL query to search for {P|1661} and delete the wrong ones
@Sänger: reaction  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tozibb (talk • contribs) at 09:56, 12. Jan. 2018‎ (UTC).
@Tozibb: What are your plans about this mess? When will you start to do anything about the havoc you created? You and your Bot haven't done anything at all since your vandalism, do you plan to do anything contructive at all? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sänger, Tozibb: Maybe add a constraint violation to the property? This would need to be quite broad and include any instance of a subclass of a part of Internet (Q75) to allow it on e.g. Imgur (Q355022) (instance of (P31) image hosting service (Q2721136)). (Tozibb, you should sign your posts with ~~~~.) Jc86035 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, the constraint violation should disallow things like sub-domains, though I'm not sure if that's possible. Jc86035 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I see this, it's already there on Property_talk:P1661. Or how should I read the fifth clause under the big one? The bot just doesn't act according to it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That constraint was added on Jan 10, so after this topic was started. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, so it was probably a reaction to the bot vandalism. It still hasn't happened anything in regard of reverting this vandalism besides my meagre efforts by hand. How hard is it, to revert a bot, that was wreaking havoc? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
We talk about 2867 items that have a Alexa rank (P1661) claim, but not instance of (P31): website (Q35127) (or subclass thereof) (list of items). It is a matter of less than 5 minutes to set up a petscan batch that removes just all of them (the removal itself takes more time, but no human interaction is required; one just has to leave the petscan browser tab opened).
However, on second sight the instance-of relations imply that many of the items listed in the query above may qualify for a P1661 claim, so just removing all of them seems to be inappropriate either. I am not sure whether one could come up with a query that exactly finds the ones which are to be removed—it would probably be easier to remove in smaller sets, i.e. first from human items, then municipalities, then zoos, and so on. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, on first sight and with a big thumb it looks like ~2-5% could be rightfully included in those items with an Alexa rank. That's not much, I think we should remove first all of those completely rubbish claims, like for municipalities, persons, universities and so forth, and leave it to those, who want this rank added to the more complicated cases to add them by hand. Or to invent a method, that fits the description. I fail to see why those bogus properties should be in those items any longer. (And regarding your 5 minutes: I don't have the faintest idea how a petscan-batch could be executed, that's nerdy insider stuff, nothing for me as a normal user. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Running petscan batches is a pretty common job here. First authorize Widar, then open Petscan and go to the “Other sources” tab, run a query such as the this one in the “SPARQL” field. When the results are loaded, you’ll see another input box in the upper right corner of the results list. A command like "-P1661" removes all P1661 claims from all checked items in the results set, as long as the tab remains open.
I have meanwhile started with the more obvious cases (humans, municipalities, etc). I still expect the bot operator to help here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there any objection to shifting the P1661 to be a qualifier on the website statement? It seems reasonable useful information to have, if its readily available -- eg making possible queries like: what are the 100 most accessed city websites in the United States? Jheald (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK the idea was to add multiple P1661 claims with time, in order to be able to have the Alexa rank evolution of each website as well. This would be impossible with a qualifier approach. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Search without 'scientific articles'Edit

Is it possible to use search and get rid of hundreds of 'scientific article' items? Sometimes I get a few hundreds results and 99% of them are scientific articles... Also: is it possible to search within properties (and without using SPARQL for this)? E.g. I can't find an item using labels in several languages but I know CAS Registry Number (P231). Wostr (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's already   Done. If something doesn't work, please note on the phab task. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I have already noticed a lot of improvements, especially when searching for English terms using another language. Maybe Wostr can give us some example query? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I had a problem with searching for e.g. aliphatic hydrocarbon. Now there is an item about it, but I've just created it. Before, I got some 'scientific articles' in the first place, then some chemical reactions and biological processes, and again a bunch of 'scientific articles', then one book and Heptene (Q151375) (which was something similar to the searched phrase). In the first 200 results there wasn't Category:Aliphatic hydrocarbons (Q8900110) (I found it just right now and I could link this item to the newly created). But still, I'm not sure whether there was some item describing aliphatic hydrocarbons before and I just missed it in the results. But that was not an isolated problem: I've created some items that I had to merge with older items when I had accidentaly found such items. I think deprioritization of 'scientific articles' won't be of much help here, because (1) items are still poorly described, (2) sometimes I need to find not only specific item, but also categories, disambigs etc. and check connections to existing chemical classification. Maybe there is some hack with search to exclude unwanted phrase with regex or something? Wostr (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Fortunately, we have now reduced the ranking of the scientific article items so hopefully when the right item exists it will show up. ChristianKl❫ 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
well, for simple search on the labels/alias of items, I'm pretty sure @Magnus_Manske: made a simple tool, that can return all items with the same string you are looking for (I use it for Names). I can't find it right now (not on the right machine)... maybe someone can give it... or I'll do when I'm home ^^ --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
got it : - simple but efficient when you are looking for a name or a scientific designation of a substance, taxon, etc. ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that is something. Not a solution for the whole problem, but may be useful for me, thanks :) Wostr (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This whole deboosting thing with 'scientific articles' is still far from ideal. I lost over 20 minutes today while searching for "alginate" (I stopped at 2k result, as from about 1,5k there were only scientific articles). I found 9 results that I was looking for (incl. 2 duplicated items), but ammonium alginate (Q9147958) was ~900th result? (right now, it's ~400-500th result) Probably because it hadn't English label/description (only French). Fortunately, I knew about this item before searching, but I was determined to find it this way (also, I didn't know if there were more items like this, so I had to check it anyway). Wihout some way to exclude 'scientific articles' from search results, using search at this moment is, sadly, just a waste of time. Wostr (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    If the item doesn't have an English name, then I think it's understandable if it's ranked badly when you search in English. As far as the subject matter goes, should alginates (Q11685373) be linked with conjugate base (P4149) to alginic acid (Q422092)? ChristianKl❫ 20:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Opening days and pricesEdit

I just discovered this project and did some experiments with SPARQL and it's awesome.

Since I'm currently planning some tourism trips, I am currently digging into castles data.

Some pieces of information which are quite difficult to specify are the opening days and prices of admission.

I saw three properties realted to opening days, but these do not seem to allow specifying things such as "open from 9h00 to 18h00 on Tuesdays, but closed on public holiday, except a particular day for which the opening times are different"

Do any of you know if there's currently some ongoing work on these subject ?

--Gzorg (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to propose to create a new property using the scheme of osmwiki:Key:opening hours/specification with a new property once again! --Marsupium (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That seems quite interesting indeed. Let's see. The Louvre is open from 9h to 18h on Mondays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays, and from 9h to 21h45 on Wednesdays and Fridays, but is open from 9h to 18h on 04/16 04/17 05/25 06/04 06/05 07/14 11/1 11/11 and closed on 05/01 08/15 and 12/25. Can the hours specification handle this case ?
Another example which is a little different is the Amboise castle : 9h - 16h45 from 01/01 to 07/01, 9h-12h30 and 14h to 16h45 from 01/08 to 31/01, 9h-12h30 and 13h30-17h in February, 9h-17h30 in March, 9h-18h30 in April and May and June, 9h-19 in July and August, 9h-18h in September and October, 9h-18h on 11/01, 9h-17h30 from 11/02 to 11/15, 9h-12h30 and 14h-16h45 from 11/16 to 11/30, 9h-12h30 and 14h-16h45 from 12/01 to 12/24 and 9h-16h45 from 12/26 to 12/31, and closed on 01/01 and 12/25. --Gzorg (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
There was a proposal to add open days and opening hours: Wikidata:Property_proposal/opening_hours. Most of the proposal was accepted, except opening hours because it was judged that not enough people were interested in them. Now that more and more people (including me) are interested in them, and with Wikivoyage having integrated Wikidata in their listings editor, I think it is time to open a new discussion about this. I know someone will always be able to find a tricky case such as "everyday except when it snows", but I am confident we can find a way to make this work for 99.9% of the cases. Cheers! Syced (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
From having used Foursquare, google places and facebook places editing a lot, I can tell you that opening hours is really hard to keep accurate and up to date. You have seasonal times to model, exceptions like holidays, 24 hours open, does not apply, open to general public, open to tours, open for kids, open vs. consultation hours, open for as long as people drink beer. Most often, people can't be bothered to accurately specify all of those details and then next year, they change it up again... There is a reason why facebook and google back this with automatic "popular times" features, it simply proved more accurate then what people were entering into the entry fields quite often. Another problem was that it was VERY hard for those parties to find reviewers of this information. Most of it is now auto approved if you are an experienced places editor, simply because no one will approve or disapprove small things like this, esp when it gets complicated. When disputed, or when contributed by non-experienced users, they will ask app users when they visit the specific location ("Please confirm if the following opening hours are correct for this venue"). So i'd put some significant consideration into it. TheDJ (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Each Wikivoyage has been maintaining opening hours for a decade, and is doing a reasonably good job at it. Sharing this data via Wikidata would reduce the maintenance cost by factorizing the efforts of all Wikivoyages. I believe this is exactly what Wikidata was built for in the first place, so I support the creation of the property. I agree that now is the time to decide what is the best format, and I see no reason to not use the OpenStreetMap format. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
In any event, here's the expression for the Louvre : Mo,Th,Sa 09:00-18:00, We,Fr 09:00-21:45 ; May 05, Aug 15 closed ; Apr 16, Apr 17, May 25, June 04, Jul 14, Nov 1, Nov 11 09:00-18:00, and there is an evaluation tool which is quite fun to play with. I plan on doing Amboise soon for the sake of completion --Gzorg (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Castles as occurrences ???Edit

For a project finding Commons categories for map images, I am trying to find the items with a CommonsCat nearest to a known geographical coordinate-pair. I also prefer to avoid items in the subclass tree of occurrence (Q1190554), i.e. to prefer Stonehenge (Q39671) over Stonehenge Free Festival (Q1407488).

However, I've just run a set of lookups, and I'm finding all instances of castle (Q23413) (and other classes) now in the subclass tree of occurrence (Q1190554).

Using this query to extract the chain, it looks like the problem is down to the following sequence of P279 links:

architectural structure (Q811979) -> real property (Q684740) -> property (Q6422240) -> exclusive right (Q1146011) -> rights (Q780687) -> accord (Q321839) -> contract (Q93288) -> legal transaction (Q327197) -> legal action (Q27095657) -> human action (Q451967)

Where do people think would be the right place to break this? It seems to me a castle is not a legal transaction (though ownership of a castle might be the result of a legal transaction).

The immediate cause of the chain creation was this edit (diff) by User:Osteologia on 27 December, making exclusive right (Q1146011)subclass of (P279)  rights (Q780687); but that in itself doesn't seem so inappropriate.

How would anyone suggest this could be fixed? Jheald (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC) --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)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology Jheald (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • « Property », for a start, is a relationship between a good and an owner. It’s also a right to own something, that allows the former relationship to be assessed by the state. But the two senses are definitely not to be mixed up. Also, as a class of stuffs, the definition of the property class could be « the class of all stuffs that are legally owned by someone ». But a castle may not be owned by someone, so it’s not really a superclass of castle.
    I think it’s safe to break the chains here, for a start. Then we need items to disambiguate the different meanings. The relationship is best modeled with a property, of course, which may be associated with a Wikidata item. The legal right should be in a legal class tree. The class of all (real estate) stuffs owned by someone is more casual and may not be needed. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    I do not see that architectural structure (Q811979)subclass of (P279)  real property (Q684740) is universally correct. Pyramids aren't necessarily real property and "legally defined", I'd (also) remove that. --Marsupium (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)=
    Wait a moment, that's just the English (whatever country defined it) description, the German one is closer to the Latin original, i.e. just not mobile (and not natural). You should not make such statements based just on one judicial system (and imho definitely not on any English one;). Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    That’s why we need to split the item. One meaning, one item. Actually my definition is definitely not an official one, in any language, that I know of. Just an idea of what is conflated here author  TomT0m / talk page 14:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    If we split the item, how will we keep the articles in the Wikipedias interwikilinked? That's one of the main use-cases for WD, and if you destroy interwikilinks with nitpicking granulation, you should have a resolution for this problem first. Interwikilinks are more important than such sophistries. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Another issue, that would be my first instinct to think about, is the question of time. "Occurrence" one would normally associate with a point in time (or perhaps a short interval, or a limited number of repetitions). But "rights" are an enduring state. I think the meaning-leak comes with "contract", being a subclass of both "legal transaction" (an event), but also "agreement" (an ongoing state) -- and also "document". Not all of these meanings are applicable to all of its current subclasses. (A castle is quite definitely not a document). So how does one address something like that? Jheald (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Jheald: My interface is in french, so I don’t see any occurence of « occurence » (lol) in the label of the items on my screen. Which item are you specifically referring to ? My knowledge of « occurence » used as an ontological term is about the token type distinction : and is rather subtle - how to count stuffs that occurs several times in a type. Not really seems relevant here. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    @TomT0m: occurrence (Q1190554) -- used here (I think) to mean: something that has occurred, ie an event. Jheald (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Jheald: Mmm in the type token distinction the meaning is not an event at all, the occurrences of a letter in a word are not events. I guess an event is more something that « occurred at some point in time ». A building is not an event, its building is. And the points in time at which its ownership changes. I guess also that there is a totally temporal thing about the fact that someone owns something, as its totally limited in time. Maybe sentences like « Louis XIV’ reign is a big event in France history » for example. But the event is then delimited by the period the ownership itself lasted. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    @TomT0m: Well, indeed. So where do you think fixes need to go in, in the chain above? Jheald (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    See above. The item « property » is a key. For a start. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The clearest problem here to me is property (Q6422240) is defined as the thing (concrete or abstract) that may be owned, but is subclassed to exclusive right (Q1146011). That is clearly wrong. right to property (Q11917765) maybe should be a subclass of exclusive right (Q1146011), but not the property itself. If nothing better strikes anyone, I would just make property (Q6422240) subclass entity (Q35120).  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArthurPSmith (talk • contribs) at 15:36, 12 January 2018‎ (UTC).
    @ArthurPSmith: On the other hand one does quite strongly want to keep the chain patent (Q253623) -> intellectual property (Q131257) -> property (Q6422240) -> exclusive right (Q1146011).
    right to property (Q11917765)subclass of (P279)  rights (Q780687), I think, not right to property (Q11917765)subclass of (P279)  exclusive right (Q1146011) -- the right to hold property is a fundamental human right (Art 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Q7813)). That's distinct from property rights over any particular piece of property, which are something a person might or might not hold. Jheald (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Intellectual property is definitely ontologically not on the same level than concrete stuff. A patent is a right to claim money or whatever whenever someone use the processes described. A concrete property is an object. A concrete property is not a right. What you own is the right to use the concrete object as you like.
    brevet (Q253623) -> propriété intellectuelle (Q131257) - I don’t think this is right. IP refers either to the legal field of patents and copyrights, or, for a legal person, to the set of patent and copyright owned. Ontologically, instances or IP are then « Microsoft IP ». A correct claim on « Microsoft IP » would be
    < Microsoft IP > has parts of the class (P2670)   < patent >
    or Template:Microsoft FAT patent abc.
    On en:patent we also can read « A patent is a set of exclusive rights ». This means that a single patent is NOT an instance of exclusive right by itself. A patent grants you a set of right. Also beware that « exclusive right » seems to be an anglo-saxon law concept. In short, stuffs are way too complicated to be modeled by a simple chain like that, you can’t mix easily concrete instances and abstracts stuffs like a patent which abstractly describes concrete process and grants you the right to sue person when they concretely use the process to build objects they sell without telling your lawyers (headeach). It seems hopeless and full of traps to use only « subclass of » to describe the complexity of this. The good news is that there seem to be existing work on legal ontologies : . author  TomT0m / talk page 18:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jheald: Hmm. Well intellectual property (Q131257) is already subclass of (P279) exclusive right (Q1146011), there is no need (and I argue it is wrong) to have that relation on property (Q6422240) - that implies that *ALL* instances of property are rights, which is untrue. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    I have added has quality (P1552) ownership (Q6498684) to property (Q6422240), which now makes me a lot more comfortable with instance of (P31) entity (Q35120). We should probably have an item for "property right" (as distinct from: "right for any property rights one has to be respected"), and that should probably be linked somehow -- perhaps "property right" facet of (P1269) property (Q6422240). Linked articles to economics of property rights (Q8799101) tend to specialise in economic analyses, though some of the external links appear to relate to the concept more generally. Jheald (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

List of mayors reduxEdit

Another mayor list is up for deletion at w:List of mayors of Traverse City, Michigan. The previous discussion for a mayor list involved whether these lists belong on Wikidata, or Wikisource instead of Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata is not a site for hosting lists, per se, it may have the data that enables a list to be built; it may have the data that resembles a list. Wikisources have published works, and if that list is contained within a published work, then yes, if not, then no. Wikipedias have compiled lists, though where they make their notability standards. Wikipedias can have their discussions about their notability data and probably can look to see whether sites have that inclusion data, they should not be theorising on what other sites should have if they choose not to have something.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
We do not host lists, we have position=Mayor of X with "replaces" and "replaced by" that would house this type of data as a concatenation. --RAN (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates when a style or item "flourished"Edit

Often working with costume and textiles, sources will indicate a date range when an item "flourished" or was "popular". Sometimes this is specifically different from the first appearance.

For example, my source states that fashion plate (Q5436787) first appeared in the last quarter of the 17th century, which I have used as the <inception> date, but "flourished from the late eighteenth to the early twentieth centuries". How should that date range be modeled when it doesn't conveniently fit into an era, and what property can be used? - PKM (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am staring at work period (start) (P2031) and work period (end) (P2032) and thinking that maybe they have potential, though they are worded as being people orientated. I remember them as being floruit start and finish, and wording being less people orientated, and wondering whether that is preferable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a new pair of properties parallel to work period (start) (P2031) and work period (end) (P2032)? I'm not sure how to label them - "popular from date" with aliases "common from date", "fashionable from date"? - PKM ([[User talk:PKM|Template:I::nt:Talkpagelinktext]]) 20:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm considering whether we could handle this with a <significant event> "peak popularity (peak influence)" described as "period when the subject was most influential, popular, common, or fashionable" and then qualified with start/end times. Is this better than new properties? - PKM (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that makes a lot of sense. Also, clients like Reasonator or Histropedia will immediately understand it as an event, and therefore work it into timelines. A controlled vocabulary could be developed to cover slight shades of meaning too -- anything up to total hegemony? Jheald (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Good choice of expressive qualifiers on significant event (P793) too. And useful to have the event on one statement, rather than across two -- eg if one wanted to record that Black Death (Q42005) had peak severity in different places at differernt times. Jheald (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: Excellent point re: Reasonator. I hadn't thought of that. I'm going to move forward with this solution. - PKM (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Created heyday (Q47468023): period when an item was most popular, influential, widespread, or fashionable as <subclass of> key event (Q2245405) and time interval (Q186081). - PKM (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ink Master Spin Off Show DataEdit

There isn't any information about the Ink Master spinoff show.

Ink Master Angels Ryan Ashley Kelly Doty Gia Rose Nikki Simpson

Season 1 Face-Off Winners

S1 Ep1 Viva Las Angels "Tone Chingon" vs (w) Angels "Ryan Ashley"

S1 Ep2 Bigger'n Dallas Angels "Gia Rose" vs (w) "Deanna Smith"

S1 Ep3 Moons Over Miami "Jose Rosado" vs (w) Angels "Kelly Doty"

S1 Ep4 Smells Like Seattle Spirit "Graydon Payne" vs (w) Angels "Nikki Simpson"

S1 Ep5 Angels in Hotlanta Angels "Gia Rose" vs (w) "Tim Furlow"

S1 Ep6 Golden Gate Angels Angels "Ryan Ashley" vs (w) "Daniel Silva"

S1 Ep7 Music City Ink "Tai Orten" vs (w) Angels "Kelly Doty"

S1 Ep8 Steel City Showdown Angels "Gia Rose" vs (w) "Rachel Helmich"

S1 Ep9 Keep Austin Inked Angels "Kelly Doty" vs (w) "Sparks"

S1 Ep10 Angels in the Big Easy "Tai Viper" vs (w) Angels "Nikki Simpson"

S1 Ep11 Angels of the Inner Harbor "Tony Scientific" vs (w) Angels "Ryan Ashley"

The artists that are going on to compete on "Ink Master" Season 10 “Return of the Masters” are: Deanna Smith Tim Furlow Daniel Silva Rachel Helmich Sparks Geralyn69 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You should probably get your head around wikidata and sort that omission out, @Geralyn69: :) . --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Query ServiceEdit

Could someone perhaps tell me a little more about the implementation of this functionality? Is it intended to replace in the future the standard categorization systems on the Wikimedia projects? Is it just an additional functionality? De Wikischim (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To the extent I understnd your question @De Wikischim:, wikidata is additional to Wikipedias, and is not designed to replace standard categorization systems on Wikimedia projects. Wikidata contains records of 'items' to which structured 'statements' are attached. The query service enables sets of items and their statements to be selected and displayed. A number of tools and techniques exist to utilise wikidata within Wikipedias, such as as lists - e.g. Listeria (Q24045615); wikipedia templates that extract data from wikidata; and interwiki language links. If you can clarify your query, more can be said. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyprus places at the north partEdit

Hello. Many places of the island of Cyprus has a problem. An example:


There are many other properties that the item have 2 values, one for Cyprus (Q229) and one for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681).

What to do? How to show these informations in Wikidata?

Xaris333 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it is & isn't a problem. Item statements can take multiple values; ideally there'll be a qualifier which can be deployed to provide some context. From the top of my head, perhaps a qualifier of sourcing circumstances (P1480) taking a value of disputed (Q18912752). Ideally P1480 would take values of de jure (Q132555) and de facto (Q712144) - but right now, they're not listed as permissible values. Obvs, from Turkey's point of view, Northern Cyprus is both de jure & de facto. The rest of the world may disagree with the first of those; which is why Q18912752 might be a better option. (And there may well be other useful qualifiers, or other useful properties to be employed - I note in passing territory claimed by (P1336)). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. But I need a more specific answer what property to use. To be sure about it. Xaris333 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's a certain amount of making-it-up-as-you-go. Crimean Peninsula (Q7835) has the same issue, and solves it with statement disputed by (P1310) and territory claimed by (P1336) qualifiers for an instance of (P31) value (which could equally have been applied to the country (P17) value in that record). That might be the way to go? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Spratly Islands (Q215664) Seems likely, its country (P17) value were removed 2 years ago, and I restored this property as <unknown value> in 1 Jan. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating many itemsEdit

Hello. Is there a tool to create many items by just using the labels?

Xaris333 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'just using the labels'. QuickStatements 2 (Q29032512) is an excellent way of creating items and /might/ fit your brief. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333:, just to be clear: You don't intent to create items with no statements, but only labels, right? --MB-one (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry. I just want to create the item easily, to add the statements later. Already done. Xaris333 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8Edit

The first 2018 issue of the Facto Post newsletter is out today on Wikipedia's birthday. Editorial "Metadata on the March", and a prompt to get involved in the #1lib1ref campaign. Subscription details are in the newsletter footer. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Making P18 values usableEdit

Is there some kind of library that allows to automatically build attribution text for a given image on the commons?

I plan on reusing large amount of images querried from P18 properties and I need some way to automate generating credit. I prefer to avoid writing parser of commons templates from scratch - reusing existing code would be preferable.

I expected that there is some pywikibot script already and I am unable to find it.

I found but all three are usable only as an inspiration

I am pretty sure that somebody already made such code, I would not expect to be the first person who is using WIkidata to find multiple images and intends to not violate their attribution requirements

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

English Wikipedia banned links to WikidataEdit

English Wikipedia banned links to Wikidata and they are being deleted. The discussion was at w:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Linking_to_wikidata, too bad no one at Wikidata participated when I brought it up earlier. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

'too bad' only from the persective of wanting to preserve inappropriate links to wikidata on en.wikipedia. From the quick skim, one/some users were linking to wikidata by way of referencing notability ... that seems altogether against's reliable source & external links policies; and so it's unsurprising that en.wikipedians are taking a dim view of it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The example is w:Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey and you argue it is "inappropriate", can you explain what makes it inappropriate. The mayors appear on the list because they were mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, not because they appear in Wikidata. Removing the link at the table of mayors leaves us with a names like "John X" that can be any John X. The whole point of Wikidata is to be able to distinguish between people of the same name and point to more data on that person, like their entry in Findagrave or in LCCN and VIAF. --RAN (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really want to relitigate an en.wikipedia matter here, if it's all the same to you. The discussion you linked to discusses the point you are trying to reheat, and I think speaks for itself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. In deWP links to outside deWP are as well forbidden in the article text (with just five exceptions). They are allowed in references, as web-links and in infoboxes, that's it. We have this rule for quite some rime, and it's fine that we do. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I also don't see a problem. Such inline links would be forbidden in as well and I really don't know why it should be discussed here – it's problem not WD. Wostr (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not really convinced by the inline links either, but there should be a way to link rows in lists to Wikidata items they relate to similar to Wikivoyage. This when Wikipedia has no article about the person.
    --- Jura 19:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    It can be done similarly to how it links to other language Wikipedias - essentially, this is an external link. The difference is that Wikivoyage links to entities which can not be at Wikivoyage because they are out of scope, whereas in Wikipedia everything is in scope - if the subject is notable and the article is not there, it should be a redlink.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    There are fields where English Wikipedia accepts content in list form, but not as separate items (e.g. TV episodes). Each episode would have an item at Wikidata (and might supply basic information), but there wont be a full Wikipedia article about it. The same may be the case for some mayors. (To be complete, the list needs to include every one, but an individual one might not be noteworthy enough for an article).
    --- Jura 19:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Now the full RfC started, which will likely result in the full prohibition of having anything from Wikidata transcluded to the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, my two attempts to explain what Wikidata actually is ended catastrophically. People somehow assume that we are a service project which must deliver data to the English Wikipedia exactly in the format they want, and anything else results in personal attacks. I do not think I will try further. We probably need to ignore this and future similar discussions. If they do not need data, let them not have data.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: A useful fact in such circumstances can be to remind them that over the last month WDQS has been answering 3 to 4 million queries per day [2], a number that in recent months has sometimes gone as high as 10 million queries a day. (A number which is also quite distinct from serving up interwiki links or template values, neither of which use WDQS). So yes, Wikipedias are certainly an important group of customers for Wikidata, but Wikidata serves a lot more than just Wikipedias. Jheald (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I actually mentioned that they are likely not the biggest user, but the most vocal opponents obviously only care about themselves. Anyway, I had my portion of shit, I am not going to do it anymore. I am personally not using Wikidata in what I am doing on Wikipedia, and I am not going to do such things out of principle. If people are short-sighted and refuse to order glasses, I can not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to make sure: which RfC do you talk about? I see one being drafted, and a rather odd one regarding linking to Wikidata from main namespace. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The second one (which is also linked from the first message of the thread). Whereas it was indeed supposed to be a technical issue (and IMO a pretty useless one) most of the voters commented no on the technical issue, but on Wikidata in general.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #295Edit

Two elements on the same concept have different links to Wikipedia in ArabicEdit

Evidently Category:Botanical taxa by author (Q24900376) and no label (Q16743146) deal with the same concept, but there is a conflict with the element in Arabic. I do not understand anything Arabic, can someone help me solve the conflict? --Metrónomo (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

These two do not deal with the same concept: one deals with "botanical taxa", the other with "species". There is some overlap, but not all that much. - Brya (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That is not the difference (at least it is not in the Arabic Wikipedia). ar:أوفتية (genus Oftia) is categorized in ar:تصنيف:نباتات وصفها ميشال أدانسون (Plants described by Michel Adanson), which is categorized in ar:تصنيف:نباتات حسب الواصف (no label (Q16743146)). Besides there they also categorize botanists (why?). ar:تصنيف:أصنوفات علم النبات حسب الواضع (Category:Botanical taxa by author (Q24900376)) is categorized in ar:تصنيف:أصنوفات حسب الواضع ("animals by author"), which it is linked in Category:Taxa by author (Q4155659)! ar.wikipedia have a very exotic classification system, or very disorganized. I see that there is no difference between what they categorize in both categories (species + other taxa + botanist), but I do not know Arabic and I can not affirm it with complete certainty. I'm confused. --Metrónomo (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There are two separate issues:
  • Should these two items be merged? No, they deal with different topics.
  • Are the arwiki sitelinks correctly placed? I have no idea, since I don't understand what arwiki is doing.
Brya (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Aliases of Pieter Brueghel the Elder (Q43270)Edit

We had 160 English aliases of Pieter Brueghel the Elder (Q43270). Some of the 160 are lower and upper letter combinations of the name, some are last name first versions, some are other languages. Strangely Wikidata does not use references for Aliases, so I have no ides where they come from and it is hard to verify if they are real or made up. Any objections to cleaning that up? I have hard time imagining an item with more than 10 valid English aliases (someone will likely prove me wrong here), 160 is crazy. --Jarekt (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Check the edit history. Why should we be missing some names while keeping others?
    --- Jura 05:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • While we don't have references for aliases we do have references for name (P2561) (and subclasses of it). In cases where it's desired to add references those properties can be used and the also specify more information about the name. ChristianKl❫ 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The aliases are bot added - see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/MerlIwBot. I'm uncertain what benefits you foresee in pruning the alias list, unsure what harm you see in the status quo. Your inability to imagine more than 10 valid English aliases and your assertion that 160 aliases is crazy don't seem to have a bearing on the matter one way or another. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The particular aliases for Pieter Brueghel all seem necessary for any solution that would look for mentions of this entity in English text (full-text search, named entity recognition, entity linking tasks), they are informative about spelling variations and various combinations that seem likely to occur in real published mentions of this person. --PeterisP (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The ones in other languages are superfluous no matter how one looks at it. But a lot of the spelling variations are deadwood also, and have no practical effect, beyond confusing the reader. - Brya (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's certainly worth removing those worth only differences of capitalisation. Perhaps a bot could do that, as a regular cleanup job? I recall Jane023 having argued that foreign names of artists are needed, as art institutions vary in which versions they use in catalogues. And of course genuine spelling variants - far from being "dead wood" - are needed for aliases' prime purpose: to aid searchability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem with excessive number of aliases in a given item is that they are being displayed in the item and by the infobox templates. For example, I am working on new version of c:template:Creator that displays aliases from Wikidata. An infobox might be able to display some aliases but not 160, so it will have to either disregard all or pick random few. --Jarekt (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorting out UI issues by throwing away data is somewhat baby out with the bathwater --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Throwing away data is always wrong. And so is mistaking junk for data. Genuine spelling variants should be included, but a lot of the "spelling variations" here are deadwood. - Brya (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Which ones? (I've fixed your broken indenting, again). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Answer came there none... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
When it comees to the infobox, you could just display the top X aliases. ChristianKl❫ 17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, why not use a collapsible list of aliases? See the infobox in Constituição brasileira de 1946 (ptwiki) for example. There's a lot of information from Wikidata in just one field, so we have collapsed them. Ederporto (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I agree that simple changes in capitalization could be removed. We see this on multiple artist pages with "Xxx Yyy Zzz the elder" vs "Xxx Yyy Zzz the Elder". The others are needed. Jane023 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If things are working even remotely like they should be, it is nonsensical to include a German, French, etc name among the English aliases, since they will be included already among the German, French, etc aliases. - Brya (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
German and French aliases are used in English, just as my name, which is English, is used in German and French texts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The search algorithm makes no distinction between English aliases and the German, French, etc aliases. Having the same alias as an English alias and as a German, French, etc alias is pure redundancy. - Brya (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Which algorithm, at what date and which interface?
--- Jura 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The search algorithm that runs in Wikidata, any time in the past month, or so. - Brya (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I object to that. Dutch has changed quite a bit since most of these people lived, variations are very common, translating it is very common and on top of that we have load of English speakers who tend to misspell names (if I would get an Euro for every time my name gets misspelled....). So yes, we end up with a lot of different aliases. Deal with it in the interface. Multichill (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Automatically copied labels to other languagesEdit

I've encountered many items that have wrong/inappropriate LV labels, because they have been automatically copied from EN labels.

For example Andrey Kravchanka (Q27913439) Andrey Kravchanka (should be Andrejs Kravčanka most likely), Wolfgang Pepper (Q104816) Wolfgang Pepper (should be Volfgangs Pepers) and many, many others. History shows that these labels have been created by different users with Widar, copying the EN label to all languages using latin script. This doesn't seem appropriate - there are many other languages as well that (unlike English) transform/transcribe names to their own language instead of using the original transcription. It certainly would be much better if the labels would be missing (so that any users or tools see that they're missing) instead of filled with incorrect data; and at least in LV case copying the EN label is almost certain to be incorrect.

Eyeballing the data it seems that about half of all LV labels for person names are broken in this manner. What would be the proper action in this case?

I'm considering a script that removes the LV label in all cases where it matches the EN label and was created by Widar instead of manually; but it leaves open the question about how to prevent such wrong data in future, and how to identify other languages where such a fix would be necessary. --PeterisP (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Should they not be moved to aliases, rather than removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
*Should* they be moved to aliases? I don't know what exactly is the policy about aliases in wikidata, would that really be appropriate? They are a valid translation in another language, but that's already reflected in the source data; but they are not valid alternative names in written Latvian (for example, they don't even conform to Latvian alphabet that does not use 'y' or 'w', but that's not the only issue). --PeterisP (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Are those names used by Latvian people, and in Latvian texts? The last time we discussed a similar case, that turned out to be so. Also, note that, for example, the Wikipedia page lv:Džons_Lenons includes "John Winston Ono Lennon" as an alias, and gives one of his works as "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Can conversion of "English" to Latvian labels be automated?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, it's a non-trivial issue, I believe it can't be fully automated in the general case. We could get an approximation that's works for most cases, but getting correctly translated names often requires human expert involvement (I myself am not sure in some cases, there are published guidelines but they're quite large and complex) and extra contextual information such as the origin of the name and how it is in the original language. For example, the EN label for Andrei Volokitin (Q276885) is Andrei (based on the Russian transliteration), but the LV label is Andrijs, according to the original Ukrainian Андрій, so a correct conversion needs to know and take into account that *this* Andrey comes from Ukraine. --PeterisP (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Labdien, Pēteri. Jā, zināma problēma. Ir manā bezgalīgajā to-do listē. Daļa šo nepareizo nosaukumu rodas, jo daži dalībnieki ielikuši latviešu valodu to valodu sarakstā, uz kurām var kopēt nosaukumus no citas (parasti angļu) valodas. Un "aproksimācija" nederēs. Pats noteikti zināt, cik sarežģīti dažkārt veidojas vārdi. For others: yeah, they probably should get moved to aliases. And no - no automation. Each language has own complex rules, how names are written in Latvian. Problem also comes from nameGuzzler (or whatever it was called), where people have "marked" Latvian as good language, to which labels can be copied. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, unfortunately not all users know that different languages use different names. In Finnish we have different rules for cyrillic names. Why would every languages use the English transliteration which "Andrey Kravchanka" seem to be. Stryn (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree for actual transcriptions (from Cyrillic alphabets), but certainly not for the example where a German person name without any connection to Latvian should be "translated". That can only done for monarchs, popes and historic figures of that kind, certainly not for a normal mayor of a German city like in the example. If there is any indication that such a "translated" name has been used anywhere outside Wikidata/Wikimedia, go ahead and add an alias, and if it's indeed the mostly used name in the Latvian press, you may change the label, but translating names of virtually unknown people seems a really bad idea. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how you do things in Latvian. In Latvian, in media and other places you generally won't hear the original version of name (as main one). In media, you probably will hear the wrong version, but that's another story. And note, that we transliterate (maybe it's not the precise verb, but you got the idea), not translate names (very big difference). And this isn't some thing that we Latvian Wikimedians have come up with. It's written in law, that you do transliterate names, but don't leave original version. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
In written Latvian language *every* usage of people names will be transformed. That's a core rule of grammar, partly to ensure that reading is possible (i.e. when you pronounce the written text according to Latvian rules, you hear something comparable to the original name; if any text in Latvian would contain "John" then it must be read/pronounced similarly to German word Johann, and if you want to pronounce it similarly as English John, then you must write the appropriate form Džons) and also to ensure that the words can be properly inflected to be used in sentences. The word endings carry significant syntactic and semantic meaning, so if we want to speak about John in Latvian, we need the whole range of systematic inflections Džons-Džonam-Džonu-Džona. The same applies for some other languages, at least Lithuanian. It absolutely applies to every single random German person with no connection to Latvia - if we want to talk about that person in Latvian language, if we use that name in a Latvian sentence, then the name will be, must be transformed. The LV label reflects that usage - the label should contain the spelling that will be used if that person is mentioned in LV texts. In some contexts, the original spelling might be shown as a footnote or once in parenthesis as a clarification. For example, "Volfgangs Pepers (Wolfgang Pepper) bija Augsburgas mērs." is a valid sentence describing that he was the mayor of Augsburg, but simply using Wolfgang Pepper would not be grammatically correct. This is not about press, it's about all written language. --PeterisP (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
"In written Latvian language *every* usage of people names will be transformed" Really? So you would change "Wolfgang Pepper" when translating the test "The painting was signed "Wolfgang Pepper"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, in common usage (e.g. if a literary work would contain the exact sentence you used) it usually would be expected to be translated. However, if necessary (e.g. when the translator expects that the exact original spelling is important to the reader) it might be preserved in this case as it is a literal quotation and not proper nouns within a sentence - "The painting had the signature of Wolfgang Pepper" must be translated, "The inscription under the painting said "Wolfgang Pepper"" would be permissible though would be rarely used (if there's a real need) and feel a bit weird, it's not the default choice. It's analogous to other literal inclusions/quotes of untranslated material in another language; as a rule of thumb, the original form of "Wolfgang Pepper" could be used in those (and only those) contexts where you could/would use the original form of Лев Толстой or 毛泽东 without attempting to transliterate them.
  • I can only support PeterisP. I think almost every language has its own transliteration and transcription rules. Adding English names automatically or semi-automatically by users that do not know transliteration/transcription rules in specific language is a huge mistake (I had to delete this Andrey Kravchanka Polish label, because in Polish it would be something like Andriej Krawczanka, but even I, as a Polish language speaker, do not know these rules good enough to be able to write this name 100% correctly; BTW this 'Andrey Kravchanka' shouldn't be kept even as a Polish alias, because it's just not correct in this language). Such edits (adding names based on English label) should be stopped and forbidden. Wostr (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
We could certainly add a “best practices” note in our help topics that names in English (or any other language using the Roman alphabet) should not be automatically copied to Polish. However, I don’t see any way to “forbid” an editor from making such an edit. I’m sure most of the copies are done in good faith. - PKM (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not about Polish only, I think it's about most languages. And I know that most (all?) such edits are done in good faith. But good faith is not an argument (cf. en:Wikipedia:Competence is required) and no information is better than wrong information. In most wikis adding such name would require a source; unfortunately, it's not possible in WD to add a source to label, description or alias (BTW that's one of several reasons, why Wikipedia communities reject WD being connected to infoboxes etc.; that is a reason in right now, because in a few attempts to connect infobox to WD, there were too many such 'good faith' labels and users simply do not want to correct this and reject WD as a possible source of data in infoboxes, as it's much easier to maintain such data in local wiki). Wostr (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Gadget for Scholia?Edit

Scholia (Q45340488)

We have a gadget to add a sidebar link to an items Reasonator equivalent. Could someone do the same for Scholia, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Best practice - list and not-listsEdit

figure skating jump (Q1889337) is an example of an item tagged as a Wikimedia list article where at least one of the linked Wikipedia articles is a list (FR wiki) but many are not. I have created jump (Q47451002) but if I move the not-list wiki articles and the not-list statements to this item, I'll break the interwiki links. What would you do? - PKM (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would remove all instance of (P31) Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) statements and replace them with statements relevant to the concept being described on those wikipedia pages - that's what Wikidata should be about, right? In this case I think adding figure skating jump (Q1889337) subclass of (P279) jumping (Q1151752) (or element (Q47450979) or both) would be fine. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It happens frequently that a Wikipedia has both a regular article about a concept and a list article, removing the concept of a list article isn't a good idea. ChristianKl❫ 11:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, political information is full of a nasty mix of "Finance Minister of [some country]" vs "List of Finance Ministers of [some place]" type articles, with some Wikipedias having both, and others having only one or the other. I've done a lot of work teasing apart versions that are mis-combined or mis-joined. (It's also worth noting that these should generally also be connected via, e.g., , and is a list of (P360) back again.) --Oravrattas (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Creating a new item to separate it, seems curently the agreed upon way. Once the RfC fro redirect is closed, additionally it would be good to create redirects when doing that. ChristianKl❫ 11:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lua request for formEdit

Hi all

I can't find a place for a Lua request like on Wikipedia so I'm hoping someone can help me out, I want to create a very easy to use form for the Wikidata Data Import Hub for people to record new datasets. Currently there is a prefilled template which uses Source Editor which many non Wikimedian's find confusing and hard to fill out (one of the key demographics I'm trying to reach). All I want is a when you click a button you get a pop up box with a few fields with a short desciption next to them. I would really love something similar to when you click this link, chose any section and then click add new resource, I understand this is all done in Lua. The fields I would like are (with guidance after the colon):

  • Name: The name of the dataset you want to import
  • Source: The source of the dataset e.g the organisation who created it or published it
  • Link: A URL link to the dataset
  • Description: A short (less than 20 word) description of the dataset outlining the contents e.g A list of protected areas in Pakistan

These fields then then populate a new section on the main Wikidata Import Hub page like so:


Description of dataset Create and import data into spreadsheet Structure of data within Wikidata Format the data to be imported Match the data to existing data Importing data into Wikidata Date import complete and notes


Link: [LINK here]

Description: DESCRIPTION



To do:



Example item:


To do:


To do:



To do:



To do:


Date complete:


Is this possible/easy for someone to set up?


--John Cummings (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(The discussion on enwiki has determined that the page does not actually use Lua to generate the pop-up form, but probably uses JavaScript. Jc86035 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC))

Gary Auerbach (Q5524624) - Gary Auerbach (Q3098512) a probable messEdit

ValterVB Josve05a LydiaPintscher Ermanon Cbrown1023 Discoveranjali Mushroom Queryzo Danrok Rogi Escudero Mbch331 Jura Jobu0101 Jklamo Jon Harald Søby putnik ohmyerica AmaryllisGardener FShbib Tambo Andreasmperu Li Song

  Notified participants of WikiProject Movies


While trying to add IMDb ID (P345), I found Gary Auerbach (Q5524624) which seems to be a mixup of 2 different persons...

the description read "chiropractor and photographer" but enwp says "American television and film writer, director and producer" :( - should it be linked to Gary Auerbach (Q3098512) instead ?

Could someone please try and clean this up ? it seems very akward. --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I rewrote Tambo (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like enwiki first had an article about one [3] then the other.
    --- Jura 07:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This comes up a few times a year. Wikipedia does a switch of the main topic for people with the same name. They swap who gets the name "John Smith" because one is considered more notable than the previous one. They never fix the Wikidata entry. --RAN (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Specify located in time zone (P421) (and similar properties) on every place or just the most expansive place only?Edit

There are many properties for places such as located in time zone (P421) and mains voltage (P2884). Should these be specified for all places? Or just on the largest encompassing place only for which the property is true? For example, the whole of New York (Q1384) state is in the Eastern Time Zone (Q941023). So should we only specify New York (Q1384)located in time zone (P421)  Eastern Time Zone (Q941023) or should all places (cities, towns, villages, counties, islands, highways, buildings, national parks, etc.) inside New York also have located in time zone (P421)? —seav (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If you put located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) New York (Q1384) inside those items (cities, towns, villages, counties, islands, highways, buildings, national parks, etc.) wouldn't be enough? It's a suggestion, of course, based on your example. Ederporto (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ederporto: that is my preferred method as well. Data consumers would just need to traverse up the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) tree to determine the timezone (or another property) that applies to a more local place. —seav (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
In order to think in a cenario of "all" places with located in time zone (P421), I think only capitals of states, states or countries should have. Ederporto (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Structure of compound=structure of molecule?Edit

Is this statement correct: "structure of compound is the same as structure of molecule"? Argumentation: "in the most popular definition of compound, it is substance composed of one kind of molecules, and the terms 'structure of compound' and 'structure of molecule' are used interchangeably" --Fractaler (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they are generally used interchangeably. Wikipedia suggests that H2 for example isn't a compound. ChristianKl❫ 11:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree: compound (substance) consists of (identical) molecules. Molecule consists of atomes/groups of atoms. Thus, we have two different objects. And they can not be united by any fractal structure. --Fractaler (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: As I tried to explain it in WikiProject Chemistry, these two statemantes means the same in most cases. And the problem is not based on title statement, as Fractaler is trying to suggest, but it is strictly connected to chemical classes: we have chemical class pyridines (Q47317020)
  1. pyridines are a class of compounds containing pyridine ring in their structure (here 'chemical compound' means 'chemical substance = portion of matter consisting of identical molecules')
  2. pyridines are a class of compounds containing pyridine ring in their structure (here 'chemical compound' means 'molecule', i.e. 'molecular entity')
Both statements are correct, as both are describing molecular structure (on the same level microscopically), but with two different (both correct) definitions of chemical compound. That's all from me, because from the previous discussions I came to the conclusion that further discussion is pointless. Wostr (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Newly created items are not available.Edit

Hoi, I created "Governor of the Territory of Alaska". I cannot add it to the office holders.. What is going on? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It took some time, now it is available.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I reported this earlier as T185079, but then it solved itself… Then I had the same problem again a bit later. So it seems there is just an unusually long delay in some cases – maybe related to T183053? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Using data on software versions from Wikidata in Repology projectEdit

Just wanted to report that I'm using Wikidata in my Repology project (a service which aggregates data on software packages from a lot of package repositories and other sources, compares software versions etc.) and it was quite pleasant experience as the data is nicely structured and rather fresh (the most useful data for the project is fresh software versions, and about 85% of projects (see statistics) I get from wikidata have actual versions listed). Thanks to all Wikidata editors.

Repology can be used to improve Wikidata too, for example here's the list of software which may need version data updated in Wikidata. I've also shared some other thoughs on how Wikidata could be improved.

While here, maybe someone could review the SPARQL request I use to aggregate all data I need per software project. It turned out to be quite heavy because I need to gather all software versions and their properties. AMDmi3 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That looks very nice. Thanks for sharing! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

HTML formatting (italics, superscript and subscript) in labelsEdit

Hello, I just started a new subject on Help talk:Label#HTML formatting for labels. I report that the impossibility of HTML formatting for labels poses serious problems for Wikidata-based citations in sister projects such as Wikipedia (an exemple is en:Template:Cite Q). I would like to know who cares about it (we have millions of Wikidata items for scientific articles, it could be great to use it rather than filling bibliography templates by hand), and how to ask developpers to consider implementing a solution. Totodu74 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • HTML tags aren't essential. What might be essential is formatting. If we introduce formatting we have to choose between the different semantics. In addition to HTML there's also Wikitext and markdown. I personally would prefer markdown. ChristianKl❫ 18:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, any option of formatting would be good, but I saw some phabricator ticket with statement that this won't be possible. But this has more uses than citations, e.g. chemical nomenclature requires formatting for some prefixes (italics, small script) etc. Wostr (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC) phab:T139573 Wostr (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a workaround? A qualifier property "italics" that could be added to any statement and that includes the regex necessary to identify the parts that have to be italicized? Same for superscript and subscript? If it's added to the item itself, it would adhere to the label, with qualifiers for language. However, it probably wouldn't help directly for Wikipedia citations (unless Lua is able to process stuff like that, which I don't know). --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Or maybe just a qualifier with string-datatype that includes text and html-markup.
    --- Jura 11:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds much easier. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: while I like Markdown as well (specifically CommonMark (Q18019138)), I don’t think it’s a good fit for this use case, since it doesn’t support super- or subscript.
I also just realized that we already have one markup format with software support in Wikibase: LaTeX. For example:
\text{Evidence suggesting that }\textit{Homo neanderthalensis}\text{ contributed the H2 }\textit{MAPT}\text{ haplotype to }\textit{Homo sapiens} →  
[\mathrm N_2 \mathrm H_5]^+_2 [\mathrm N_4 \mathrm C - \mathrm N = \mathrm N - \mathrm C \mathrm N_4]^{2-}\text{: A New High-Nitrogen High-Energetic Material} →  
It might even kind of make sense to use LaTeX here because there’s a good chance the original article, including the title, was set in LaTeX as well. (However, we still face some difficulties – we’re in math mode, not in text mode, and we also lack some packages. For instance, the second example above should probably use mhchem’s \bond{} command.)
What do you think? —Galaktos (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Also known as ... symbolEdit

Ukraine Q212 shows a few aliases, including 🇺🇦. A similar symbol is at other items such as Netherlands Q55. What is the idea? Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a flag symbol, or rather emoji. See e. g. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only Unicode. ASCII also: +, -, *, /, etc. For example, Here and here I asked about this. Symbol=group of symbols? "+" and "plus sign" are the same (plus sign (Q6265342))? "🇺🇦" and "Ukraine" are the same (Ukraine (Q212))? email and "@" are the same (email (Q9158))? --Fractaler (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
On one hand, it seems weird, on the other hand, I can certainly imagine use-cases, for example, automated analysis of Twitter content, where you'd want the system to understand that a mention of "🇺🇦" most likely means a reference to Ukraine. --PeterisP (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we re-allow country (P17)-Scotland (Q22)?Edit

As Scottish independence (Q891905) still exists, the Scotland (Q22) is now somewhat like disputed territory (Q15239622), which is also OKay as a P17 value.

Currently we automatically replace this claim to country (P17)  United Kingdom (Q145), but now is it still fair for us? If still yes, then why don't we autoreplace country (P17)  Northern Ireland (Q26) to that?

Please also note that there's at least El Mamut Traçut (Q47456453)country (P17)  Catalonia (Q5705) (even the Catalan independence (Q893331) is simply illegal under any of EU laws) Thria (Q13415595)country (P17)  Classical Athens (Q844930) (which I'm also confused: How was Athens (Q1524) independented?) and others available, so I think it's the time to unfreeze such claim. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It don't make sense for me country (P17)  United Kingdom (Q145) substitute country (P17)  Scotland (Q22), once United Kingdom (Q145) is a sovereign state, and in that case, I think the most specific is the better option.
Unfortunately, I can't give a not biased opinion on Catalonia (Q5705), but in the case of Athens (Q1524) and Classical Athens (Q844930), we are talking about the city (Q515) city of Greece (Q41) since 1832 and Classical Athens (Q844930), which were a city-state (Q133442) that was dissolved in 85 BCE. Ederporto (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
If consensus on P17 is to treat it as "sovereign state", then the status quo for Scotland seems sensible to me. Scottish independence is a political movement that says Scotland should be independent; it does not say that it currently is independent, so generally speaking it's not really "disputed territory" - if and when it becomes independent, we can switch all the items easily enough, but doing that now wouldn't be appropriate.
In the case of Northern Ireland, as there is an autoreplace for England, Wales & Scotland it may just be an oversight that there isn't one for NI. If we look at the list of items using country (P17)  Northern Ireland (Q26), it turns out about 80-90% of them are sporting seasons or sports teams. Only about 20 of the items are physical places like Portstewart (Q2239914). For comparison, there are almost 2000 physical places which are located in Northern Ireland but use country (P17)  United Kingdom (Q145). The sporting ones could presumably be moved to country for sport (P1532) or similar (using whatever method we already have for sports in England or Scotland) and the others changed to UK for consistency. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See also #Country of citizenship is Wales, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P4020 formatEdit

Please can someone take a look at Property talk:P4020: the property should be formatted Roman (upright), not italics. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Units with quickstatementsEdit

Adding unit with quickstatements2 is still unavailable? Xaris333 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See Help:QuickStatements, the pattern is 1U11573 for 1 metre (Q11573). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And anyone knows why, if I am adding for example 34,708, the value in Wikidata is 34,708000000009345? Xaris333 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem that is diffcult to fix: Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/01#Area precision. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It shows 34,708000000009345 because the number is internally converted to a floating point numbers. @Magnus_Manske: hasn't yet good around to fixing the bug. is the bug report and it might be worthwhile for other people who have problems with that to leave comments on the bug report or vote on it to show it's importance. ChristianKl❫ 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

10k 404 URLs for Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art CollectionEdit

The Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection (Q18600731) has changed its website since we added 10,885 of its URLs as described at URL (P973) statements, resulting in HTTP 404 errors.

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?inventory_no ?url  WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 .
  ?item wdt:P973 ?url .
  ?item wdt:P217 ?inventory_no .
  FILTER(CONTAINS(str(?url), "") )
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],nl". }

Try it!

A URL which works in /some cases/ can be constructed from the inventory number (P217) ... but in some cases not:

I'm guessing we need to remove the URLs, but thought to bring the issue here for discussion before precipitate action. Beyond the search examples, above, I've not found another URL template to use. cc. @Multichill: whose bot, afaik, added the original data. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Why not deprecate?
    --- Jura 06:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill, Tagishsimon:
I tried to understand this site, which is not easy with only Google translate to understant nl ;)
is it possible to build something with this kind of permalink adress ? (for E735) --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this is the second time they changed their website breaking all urls. I wanted to wait and see what happened
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?inventory_no ?url ?newurl WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 .
  ?item wdt:P195 wd:Q18600731 . 
  ?item wdt:P973 ?url .
  ?item p:P217 ?invstatement .
  ?invstatement ps:P217 ?inventory_no .
  ?invstatement pq:P195 wd:Q18600731 .
  BIND(IRI(CONCAT("", ?inventory_no)) AS ?newurl)  .
  FILTER(CONTAINS(str(?url), "") )
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],nl". }

Try it!

seems to return the right url's. Needs more checking before someone actually replaces it. And of course the references need to be fixed too. Multichill (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
On a tangent, @Multichill: what's with the multiple collection statements on no label (Q28060147)? Where does that data come from? Confused. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Another 16k Bavarian State Painting Collections URLs give 404Edit

Our lookup to the Bavarian State Painting Collections (Q812285) is kaput. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Titus Atilius Rufus is not American Treaty ShoreEdit

But somehow the article on en.wikipedia for this consul (which should be to Q47452755) is now attached to the Wikidata item "American Treaty Shore" (Q4745275). I'm not seeing an easy way fix this. Any suggestions? -- Llywrch (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Purge the wikipedia page (which I've now done). Seems to be fixed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that did it. Guess I should have tried that first. Thanks. -- Llywrch (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hilarri (Q1391249) and no label (Q16678077)Edit

I just stumbled upon this couple of elements related to discoid steles a type of funerary monument, particularly encountered in the Basque culture. Some of the links have local names, whereas others have the Basque name. The two elements should probably be sorted out so that one has the links with the local language terms and the other one has the Basque name. But doing the corresponding changes within Wikidata seems harder than in most cases I've encountered to date, so I wanted to ask the community.

Right now we have this situation:

Hilarri (Q1391249) no label (Q16678077)

My proposal would be to have something like this:

Hilarri (Q1391249)
(local names)
no label (Q16678077)
(Basque name "hilarri")

Alternatively, both could be merged and the two articles in French Wikipedia fr:Stèle discoïdale and fr:Hilarri merged as well. Sabbut (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Be bold to change, why not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbut: I don't think anyone else should have objections to your proposal; go for it! Mahir256 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge helpEdit

Can someone help merge Caesalpinia mimosoides (Q192364) into Hultholia mimosoides (Q42673836) - ie the genus should be Hultholia and not in Caesalpinia. Shyamal (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)   Done I think it's done. Shyamal (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

These are two separate concepts, not to be merged. - Brya (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Research in programming WikidataEdit

FYI, there's an interesting learning project at Wikiversity from w:Petrozavodsk State University about using w:SPARQL and Wikidata called v:Research in programming Wikidata that may be of interest to the community here. --Mu301 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Is there a way to have with start time (P580) the date "at the end of 17th century"? Xaris333 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know you can only say 17th century with century precision with earliest date (P1319) to express it in a structured way. You might add stated as (P1932) to provide the unstructured way it was expressed in the source. ChristianKl❫ 17:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How do you suggest to do it in Ayios Ioannis, Limassol (Q4831288) --> patron saint (P417)? Xaris333 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
refine date (P4241) was created for this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See Help:Dates#Qualifiers. --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: "1800 +-10 years" (adjust "10" to suit your case), qualified with latest date (P1326) = "1800". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Patron saintEdit

patron saint (P417). Why value type constraint (Q21510865) have only human (Q5) and religious festival (Q375011)? Some place have angel (Q235113)s, like Michael (Q45581), who never been a human. Xaris333 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

source website for the property (P1896)Edit

Do we accept Wikimedia projects as a value for this property? See this revert. --Succu (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do since i) that's what was in the property proposal, where there were no objections and ii) that's, er, the source used. BTW, you seem to have accidentally forgotten to notify me that you were discussing my work. Again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not about you and your work. And it's not about what you proposed to be a source for MONA ID (P4758). It's a general question. --Succu (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The diff you cited was an edit I made, to a property I proposed, reverting your (unexplained) removal of a value I included in the property proposal I wrote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The world is not spinning around you, Mr. Mabbett. And you did not answer my general question. So, why do we not add this property to all properties where we import values from Wikimedia projects? --Succu (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Towards aligning Wikidata and Wikipedia infoboxesEdit

We are currently proposing a project (GlobalFactSync) for a Project Grant that intends to synchronize Wikidata statements with the contents of infoboxes of respective Wikipedia articles. The idea is to use DBpedia as a middleware here. Since DBpedia has profound knowledge about the templates used for Wikipedia infoboxes, this allows us to compare the statements contained therein among multiple language versions and with Wikidata. One goal is to transfer missing statements to Wikidata, the second goal is to support Wikipedia editors when creating infoboxes. By doing so, the project targets improving the quality of information in both Wikidata and the Wikipedia universe. An early prototype already demonstrates the differences between language versions. For supplement the data of Wikidata we will enrich the statements with references from the articles and use the Primary Sources Tool to add the statements and primary sources. As Wikidata is heavily involved in the project, we are looking for your feedback. Feel free to discuss here or at the project talk page. You may also endorse the proposal or join the project as a volunteer. --Mgns (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

One of the big problems at Wikidata is that users keep importing stuff from Wikipedias: often enough this is seriously harmful. - Brya (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
In the proposal we outlined the problem of using Wikipedia as a primary source. Often Wikipedia is the only or the most obvious available source for facts when an item gets redacted by a user. Hence, in Wikidata it is quite common that simply a Wikipedia is given as the reference for a claim. For these statements and those without any reference given, we also seek to find valid primary sources. The risk remains that inappropriate data exists in Wikipedias and gets imported to Wikidata, but as the tool makes the data and its variations visible it can be fixed at multiple points and editors can make better informed decisions. --Mgns (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Petscan questionEdit

I am doing a Petscan search that combines a Sparql query with a template search on en-wiki (stored as a PagePile) to find the pages don't currently have the template, but should.

I can get Petscan to run the SPARQL, and subtract the set of pages with the template -- but it insists on giving me the results as a list of Wikidata items.

From m:PetScan it seems I ought to be able to choose for the results to be a list of wiki pages instead, that I can then save and load into AWB. But everything I try still seems to give me Wikidata items. Is there anything I can do, just to get it to output a list of wiki pages? Jheald (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: at tab "Other sources" choose "From categories" in "Use wiki" field. Helped? --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: Thanks! That's exactly what I needed. I wasn't using the categories tab, so I never thought of that button to choose. But it works a dream. Result! Jheald (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Second question (@Edgars2007: ?).

On Commons, I'd like to use Petscan to give me a list of Commons categories corresponding to query results, that aren't already in a Category:X. I find it's easy enough to get Petscan to find the categories already in Category:X, but is it possible to get it to find the categories that correspond to the query results? When I select "Use wiki" = "From categories", it returns a list that's a mixture of Commons categories and Commons galleries. What I really want is all Commons categories, as given by Commons category (P373) on the items that match the query.

Is there a way to generate such a list with Petscan, perhaps first creating a PagePile? Thanks, Jheald (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Preventing to merge disambiguation items with regular itemsEdit

I've noticed there have been many cases (and regulary there still are) of merging of disambiguation items with "regular" items. This is wrong, since disambiguation items must contain only disambiguation pages (cfr. Wikidata:WikiProject Disambiguation pages and Wikidata:WikiProject Disambiguation pages/guidelines. Is it possible to prevent this kind of merges by a filter which does not allow it, and provides a pop up which explains why this is wrong to the user who is trying to merge the items? Or do you think there are other technical means which are better? (maybe at least a "tag" at the edit, so regularly people can check edits with that "tag" in order to verify if that was correct). --Superchilum(talk to me!) 08:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If an item links to another item in one of the statements (for example with "different from") then they can not be merged. Maybe that helps? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really. In the cases of disambiguation item, it works only when trying to merge, for example, a disambiguation (Q217465) with a surname (Q1158446) because they have different from (P1889), but it does not work when someone tries to merge the disambiguation item with another page. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like us to block merging any item with <instance of> Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) or Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) (or any subclass of Wikimedia internal stuff (Q17442446)) with any item that has any statements other than different from (P1889). These are very difficult to untangle after the fact. - PKM (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
"These are very difficult to untangle after the fact" yes, totally agree. That's why some sort of block is needed IMHO. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 21:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a ticket for taking care of everything around it, but apparently WMFDE isn't interested ("need volunteer"): phabricator:T139912.
--- Jura 04:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Python problemEdit

I'm trying to add (300, so no - I don't want to do that manually) single value exceptions to Olympic athlete ID (P1447) via bot. Basically I have such code. The problem is, that in line 32 the apires structure gets back to state, that it had in line 24, although I see, that in the for loop (line 31) exceptions gets added to apires. Some ideas? Also on making the code less hacky (formatting isn't important). --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Somehow fixed the issue by adapting DeltaBot code. Thanks, Pasleim! --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


In time values, why is the English format for "12th century" 12. century? This is not a standard constructon in English, and I was confused for years as to whether "12. century" means "1200s" or "12th century". 12th century (Q7061) says it's "12th century". - PKM (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've wondered about this for a while - millennia are rendered the same way. Digging around on Phabricator it seems to be a known bug that would require an unexpected amount of effort to fix, which is a bit annoying. We could change it to "12 century" in English (Italian misses out the dot, for example) but not easily turn it into "12th century". Andrew Gray (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources in the average Wikipedia infoboxEdit

One of the arguments againt Wikidata from Wikipedians seems to be that not all data on Wikidata has source. At the same time no Wikipedia has a rule that requires everything do be sourced. Are there any statistics of how many of the claims in the infoboxes of various Wikipedias are sourced? ChristianKl❫ 22:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but there are more than 200K articles lacking sources, some of them tagged as such for more than 10 years. See list here - PKM (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)