Wikidata:Project chat

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

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

On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/09.


Occupation=slaveholderEdit

See for example James K. Polk (Q11891) where Occupation=slaveholder, which gives an error flag because it isn't really an occupation. Is there a better way standardize it? Or should we make slaveholder an occupation? We want a single way to model so a query will pick them all up. RAN (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

position held (P39) springs to mind but it’s not really suitable. The most generic property would probably be subject has role (P2868), absent a more specific property this might be a good idea. --Emu (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably worth trying to model land owner (Q1483709) and slaveholder (Q10076267) along the same lines as eachother; there may be other role/occupation edge cases to consider. Ping @DrThneed: who was, iirc, one of the more active adders of slaveholder, based on the Legacies of British Slave-ownership person ID (P3023) source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Tagishsimon. It isn't an area I've worked in for a couple of years - I added slaveholder as occupation as it seemed the most obvious way to model it at the time. I was working my way through people with an LBS identifier, trying to pick out those who held slaves (as not everyone in the database did) and then link them to all the things they owned, statues or paintings of them, buildings they commissioned, that sort of thing. My thoughts at the time were that while slaveholder isn't really an occupation it fits well there as it is a source of income that benefits the slaveholder. I was also anxious to stick relatively close to the way the data was modelled in the source - if the LBS calls someone a slaveholder or a slavetrader then I was comfortable modelling the data the same way in Wikidata. But as I say I haven't worked on this sort of data in a while, and it would be good for there to be a discussion and an agreed way of modelling it. Pinging @MassiveEartha: who has worked I believe much more in this area and might have some good suggestions. DrThneed (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I thought social classification (P3716) was more appropriate than occupation (P106) for this item. I hope I don't sound like a slavery apologist, but owning something (be it a person or a house or a vehicle or a tool) seems rarely considered an occupation or profession in itself, but generally a means to a occupation or task (be it farming, construction, waging war, etc.): slave trader (Q17769800) is an occupation; slaveowner is not; homemaker (Q1934684) is an occupation, owner-occupier (Q4993251) is not; racing automobile driver (Q10349745) or auto mechanic (Q706835) are occupations, car-haver is not; farmer (Q131512) is an occupation, tractor owner is not. And on the flipside: enslaved person (Q12773225) is not classified as an occupation (rightly I think), but it might be a social class or a role in conjunction with occupations (involuntary though they may be) like laborer (Q19862215) or warrior (Q1250916) or whatever. I believe, especially in the US politics arena, many instances of Q10076267 were semi-bot added based on this Washington Post database (some editors also rather clumsily mass-appended "and slaveowner" to hundreds of descriptions, without regard for the prominence of the ownership). Perhaps there could be automated or periodic moves of Q10076267 from P106 to P3716, in a fashion similar to how certain described at URL (P973) strings get converted into their corresponding External identifier property. -Animalparty (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
My preference has always been for P106. It's easier to deal with from a logistical standpoint, and it is quite appropriate as slave ownership consists of both commercial and managerial actions and thus is well within the realm of occupation. Gamaliel (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
P106 is arguaby simpler, but is misleading for many of the LBS entries I recall reading; folk who had ownership interests in plantations, but were very far removed from any commercial or management activities, beyond cashing dividend cheques; often the widows or family of men who had gone to and died in far flung places. social classification (P3716) does look appropriate; not least, two of its three examples are 'enslaved person' and 'freedman', which is to say at the other end of the social spectrum from the slave-owner. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@DrThneed: and @Tagishsimon: thanks for drawing my attention to this. The most appropriate property WD currently has to model a person who is an enslaver is social classification (P3716). It's a similar to the controlled vocabularies used by Wikibase-built project enslaved.org, which uses 'Person Status' (p. 7) to express legal or social standing and 'Relationship' (p. 6) to express a legal connection such as "ownership" of the 'body, labour or reproductive rights' of another person. I'll add, having a Legacies of British Slave-ownership person ID (P3023) doesn't mean that person is an enslaver, the database includes a significant number of enslaved people and people who may have familial or other relationships to enslavers. And finally, owned by (P127) is highly inappropriate to demonstrate a legal relationship between an enslaved person and their enslaver, also it further encodes the dehumanisation and "thingification" of tens of millions of victims. MassiveEartha (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Info I believe that consensus has been reached for the use of social classification (P3716) slaveholder (Q10076267). I have changed occupation (P106) accordingly. If you disagree, please feel free to undo my edits. --Emu (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sitelinks to Redirects are now available for testing on test.wikidata.orgEdit

Hi everyone,

The community has long requested the ability to allow Wikidata to use Redirects and the target article as independent sitelinks, so that Wikidata and Wikipedia can be matched more appropriately in complicated cases.

As you may know, you can include sitelinks (also known as interwiki links or interlanguage links) on Wikidata Items that link to Wikipedia pages. Many Wikipedia pages cover more than one subject, so a Redirect may be created to a particular point on the target page, like a section header or an anchor. There is a workaround to do this: You can link to a Redirect page on Wikidata if the page was not a Redirect at the time the link was created. However, you cannot create links to pages that are currently Redirects. Our goal was to provide an official way to solve this. Implementing a solution has unfortunately taken us way longer than we hoped for, mostly because we struggled with the complexity of this topic and a fear of ripple effects.

Based on all the input that we got from you, we have now implemented the following functionality:

  • After testing is complete, you will be able to directly add a sitelink to a Redirect to an Item if you also add a Redirect badge (sitelink to Redirect (Q70893996), intentional sitelink to Redirect (Q70894304)) in the same edit.
  • It is possible to add a Redirect badge to an existing redirect sitelink. But if you try to remove a Redirect badge from a sitelink that points to a redirected page the edit is rejected.
  • Without using a Redirect badge the default behavior stays unchanged: If a Redirect is in place for a sitelink, the default behavior is still to normalize the sitelink (by following the Redirect). If the target of the Redirect is already a sitelink, the sitelink is rejected.

This new functionality is now available for testing on test.wikidata.org. Please let us know if the current functionality is sufficient, or if the feature needs more work before it can be enabled on Wikidata proper. If you encounter any issues or want to provide feedback, feel free to use this Phabricator ticket.

Cheers, Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  •   Support Looks good to me, thanks for finally implementing this! I think the approach used in implementing (i.e. linking with using the badges) is good. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for implementing this. What's the difference between the two redirect badges? Also, I wonder if we can improve the error message you get when trying to link a redirect without the badge (it ought to suggest you add the badge). Still though even as-is it's a big improvement. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects has some background on those two badges. It can probably be polished a bit more now that this is becoming a usable thing… —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    ah ok. I wonder in what scenario someone would add a new redirect but not use the intentional redirect badge. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    There are plenty of scenarios how a sitelink can end up being a "sitelink to redirect", without much intention. Usually this happens after some action on the page in the client wiki, such as page moves or repurposing the page title. I think we will likely operate a bot that does the following on a daily basis or so:
    There is also quite some backlog of hundreds of thousands of sitelinks that already point to redirects. Once this is pretty much in sync all the time, this setup will allow us to (easily) query for redirect sitelinks in WDQS. Sitelinks with sitelink to redirect (Q70893996) should probably usually either be removed (if invalid) or manually upgraded to intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304) (if valid). —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    For reference: we currently have ~536.000 sitelinks to redirects, and ~17.100 sitelinks with a redirect badge. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
(ec) @BrokenSegue: Sitelinks to redirects can be (or have been) created automatically when two articles on a wikipedia get merged, that each have a sitelinked wikidata item: one of those sitelinks will become a sitelink to a redirect. Having the two badges should let us be systematic in going through the current sitelinks to redirects and seeing which ones are actually wanted, compared to those which indicate a merge on wikipedia that ought to be matched by a merge here. HTH, Jheald (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: It would also make sense to finally close the open RfC for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Sitelinks_to_redirects and make it into an actual policy. ChristianKl❫ 09:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we have an RfC to make that page a policy, right? Anyways, I think Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects can and should still be improved, maybe even with experience we gather after the feature was actually rolled out at some point in the future. I am also not sure whether this should have policy status at all since it has pretty much the character of a simple help page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I do think that it's useful to be able to say in discussion about redirect 'we do X because the policy says so'. I created the RfC back in 2020 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_Help:SitelinksToRedirects_as_policy . It has nine people in favor and one against. ChristianKl❫ 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see. Seems my position hasn't changed in two years.
Anyways, the RfC needs an internal backlink to Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects. It is otherwise difficult to find. Likewise, we should link internally to Wikidata:Requests for comment/Adopt Help:SitelinksToRedirects as policy from here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
It would probably make sense to generally adopt the {{proposed}} template to accept a parameter for the link to an RfC where the policy page gets proposed. ChristianKl❫ 21:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Infovarius: See paragraphs immediately above? Jheald (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The paragraphs do explain the difference and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Sitelinks_to_redirects does as well in more detail. On the other hand, it's an issue that currently the naming and description of the badges doesn't make it obvious to users what the difference is.
It's worth thinking about whether we can choose improved labels/descriptions that make it easier for users to understand the system. ChristianKl❫ 09:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "sitelink which is now a redirect" would make the distinction clearer. - Nikki (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #538Edit

Thank you for mentionning the YouTube channel of Wikimédia France. I'm working on it since the beginning of the month. There is a playlist dedicated to Wikidata, but I still not yet have a clear view of what to put inside (as there is also a channel for our MOOC dedicated to Wikidata). Pyb (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Pyb :)
I left a suggestion on Facebook. Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Article with broken labelEdit

If we search M?ssbauer, there are a lot of scholarly articles with broken titles. How we can fix them automatically? ChoKukSuho (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

looks like they were made with quickstatements. In my experience QS doesn't handle unicode well. BrokenSegue (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You are quite welcome to ask for a query to find all the offending labels and produce a QuickStatements search&replace job from it. You will still need to review the changes before you make them however. People are usually quick to answer requests in the "Request a query" forum. Infrastruktur (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

New users not allowed to connect items in Wikidata?Edit

Hello! I'm an admin in SqWiki. A new user in that project is trying to connect a new article in Wikidata (through the Wikipedia form) with the English homologue (and subsequently with the other languages) however the said user says it is not allowed to do so by the system. I tried it myself as an anonymous user and it appears to allow me (the procedure goes fine overall, didn't try to save). What could be going on? Any help would be appreciated. - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia form do you mean? ChristianKl❫ 09:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Some item may be (semi-)protected and can only be edited by (auto)confirmed users. GZWDer (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@GZWDer, the page the said user wanted to link to is item Q477089. Is it protected somehow? I actually see it is now connected. I wonder who exactly did it.
@ChristianKl, the classical way on Wikipedia where you connect an article with its homologues in other languages. - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Klein Muçi yeah, in the top right of the item's page you can see it has a lock icon, meaning it's protected. Nicereddy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicereddy, oh, yes, right. Well, that explains it then. I had never encountered protected items before. Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

please undelete work of new contributorEdit

Hi! Is it possible to undelete work of new contributor, who was in the start of Wikidata training but before first review all of their edits were already deleted and invisible. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special%3ADeletedContributions%2FMmargherita97

Thank you very much! --Zblace (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean with "start of Wikidata training". Who trained them? ChristianKl❫ 09:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChristianKl - there was nothing problematic with content types for sure, just cultural info that needed to be better connected and referenced. They are not trained, but were just starting with @Tajkula as a content mentor and me for tech. I was to help but was busy with travel until yesterday, then I see it was all gone. --Zblace (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The deletion rationale of Ymblanter was “Some kind of Croatian workshops, projects, concerts. Probably fails WD:Notability.” At first glance I would agree, nothing to restore here. Note however a (somewhat) related discussion here: Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#RfD_Wikidata_talks. --Emu (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I must be patrolling Request for Deletion and was convinced by the rationale. If someone things the item is notable just undelete it. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zblace please give some evidence(s) that these Croatian workshops, projects, concerts meet WD:Notability Estopedist1 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 I honestly can not understand why this attitude... It is 10 years of Wikidata, we should be celebrating and welcoming new users, especially those who fill in content gaps and instead you choose to delete without any feedback to the person who obviously just started contributing. Now you ask me to present evidence of notability without even making the effort to temporary undelete so I can see what has been deleted. This feels super alienating and bordering bot-like behavior. I kindly ask you once more to undelete items so I can check what was deleted and argue for their notability or not depending on what has been done and how. I might agree with you fully and partially but my priority is checking if anything is useful and worth saving, not to burn one new user who had good intentions of learning and contributing. Please assume good faith. --Zblace (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done @Zblace special request fulfilled, items can be seen here Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/09/13#Bulk_deletion_request Estopedist1 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Now that they're undeleted, I've googled a couple of them and they seem eminently notable. References aside, they are well formed items. Given this, “Some kind of Croatian workshops, projects, concerts. Probably fails WD:Notability” (my emphasis) is very poor and somewhat abusive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon I beg your pardon? Once again, please watch your language. Calling legitimate RfD “somewhat abusive” is unacceptable. --Emu (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It was not legitimate. It was abusive. These items appear to be notable. WD should not be deleting notable items based on a "probably". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Abuse is a serious allegation. Please provide evidence beyond your gut feeling or retract your allegation. Your current reasoning seems flawed, to put it mildly. WD:RfD is here precisely to determine if items are notable. How can it be “abusive” and “not legitimate” to use this page exactly the way it is supposed to work? --Emu (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
When a quick google search, such as for 'Art za zajednicu 2021' provides multiple hits, and the item is well formed, what, exactly, was your rationale for its deletion? how exactly is this a WD:N fail? Rinse & repeat * 7. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I take your answer as an implicit conformation that there indeed hasn’t been any abuse at all and WD:RFD has been used in a correct way (albeit in a way that you somehow don’t fancy). I’m gonna let this slide. Again. --Emu (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


Thank you @Estopedist1!
I quickly went through them and added few references so that original contributor can follow the pattern.
I agree with @Tagishsimon work done is far from bad and most link to prominent NGOs.
Hope this is enough not to delete them and also not to be as harsh to new contributor in the future...
--Zblace (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zblace I disagree. At the current state of the items, they do not seem notable and should probably be deleted again. Some don’t even follow Help:Description. Please add sources to establish notability beyond doubt. --Emu (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu please feel free to delete if you think that action (probably) advances the goals of Wikidata.org as a Wikimedia project. I have next to zero interest in arguing over what kind of relations and reputation that kind of actions of administrators are being established among new contributors and those working on the content gaps. --Zblace (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zblace I didn’t ask you to argue with me, I asked you to improve the items. You have about 4.000 live edits and have been active since 2020, so you are hardly a newcomer. --Emu (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu not sure how to communicate this better, but here it goes again: My goal is to support new contributors like @Mmargherita97 to get better at this and not to just keep saving content that is casually deleted without notices and care for newbies. --Zblace (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

how to edit categoryEdit

I come up as "unmarried partner" on Peter Lodwicks Wikidatapage. We have been married for 30 years and I dont know how to change this category to "Married" or something. Can someone help with this please? Makro63 (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it. It's now shows as spouse. ChristianKl❫ 10:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh - thank you so much!!:) Makro63 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Help of Farsi speaker neededEdit

Concerning User talk:Arnikprintstand#September_2022 I believe that it wouldn't make a lot of sense if I were to explain the Notability criteria to that user in English again. Can someone explain it to them in their mother tongue? -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Make the "Also known as" column widerEdit

Cheers,

the default percentages of the columns of the standard view are:

15% Language 25% Label 35% Description 25% Also known as

Because it's a hassle to be unable to read the full name of an abbreviated organization or computer standard I would prefer:

5% lang-code 20% Label 35% Description 40% Also known as

with {| class="wikitable" width="75%" – unnessary to waste white space on the right.

Can this be achieved through Special:Mypage/common.js?

@SilentSpike: Ping to the expert.

Thanks in advance.--I take the Fifth (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment I prefer having sitelinks on the right. But it depends on font size and screen width. --Infovarius (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I prefer the status quo as well, but I think it's likely that you can get this through adding your own css. ChristianKl❫ 10:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I would also like to customize my UI. Are there somewhere example from other users?--雅人本田 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
My own css is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:ChristianKl/vector.css ChristianKl❫ 14:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Thank you very much for your CSS, I've borrowed it! It is possible override the widths

.wikibase-entitytermsforlanguagelistview .wikibase-entitytermsforlanguagelistview-header .wikibase-entitytermsforlanguagelistview-header-row .wikibase-entitytermsforlanguagelistview-aliases {

   width: 25%;

} with .wikibase-entitytermsforlanguagelistview-aliases {

   width: 30% !important;

}

Sorry for bothering you, but is it possible to string-replace e.g. English with en by using a user-js?--雅人本田 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@雅人本田: This should work:
function replace_termbox_language_names() {
	$(".wikibase-entitytermsforlanguageview").each(function() {
		var m = this.className.match(/wikibase-entitytermsforlanguageview-([^ ]+)/);
		if (m)
			this.querySelector(".wikibase-entitytermsforlanguageview-language").textContent = m[1];
	});
}
mw.hook("wikibase.entityPage.entityView.rendered").add(replace_termbox_language_names);
$(".wikibase-entitytermsforlanguagelistview-more a").click(replace_termbox_language_names);

- Nikki (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The other sideEdit

I've been wondering why so many people think that creating a wikidata item about themselves (again and again and again) is the key to fame and fortune. In my researches, I found the following articles. Some of the advice is good, and some is not (at least, from our perspective).

  • WikiData - How and Why to Set Up a WikiData Page for Your Brand: "All of this may sound like a lot to set up and maintain, and it certainly takes a bit of time. A partnership with a digital services company can help take a lot of this work off your plate. From the opening stages of finding out if you’re eligible for a Wikipedia page to the granular work of making sure your WikiData entry is optimized, uniting with a digitally savvy SEO company is a good way to ensure your Wiki content is up to snuff."
  • How to Create a Wikidata Page and Why it Matters for SEO: "As a member of a collaborative, anonymous, worldwide project, you're going to need to be social -- and that includes playing politics a bit, embracing the medium, and even working with a few jerks along the way. ... Marketers and SEO's are particularly unwelcome on Wikimedia Commons, whether our intentions are good or not. Things are a bit more lax on Wikidata than they are on Wikipedia, but I rarely make an change without a different editor checking in on my work. They are watching closely. ... Ease yourself into Wikidata; the editors take note of new, extremely active users, and also when radical changes are happening to entries. Build trust and credibility in the community before drawing too much attention to yourself. ... Create at least one backup account. This way, if your core account is banned or goes under scrutiny, you have a backup to fall back to. However, be aware that multiple accounts, if detected, will be deemed sockpuppets, in violation of Wikimedia's guidelines, and likely removed."
  • Why and How to Create a Wikidata Page for Your Company: "In order to fit into Wikidata’s culture, it will be necessary to interact with the community. Many are suspicious of newcomers and especially know-it-all’s that add too much information right away. So ease into it. Explore areas that interest you and contribute to things you are absolutely certain are correct. ... It’s best to gain trust and credibility by adding value not directly related to your company first."

Bovlb (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • That is not new, such blog articles are available for years now.
  • There have also been talks on "SEO and Wikidata" on several SEO-related conferences, followed by hands-on practice sessions to make new items about the participants. They sometimes even train to engage in undeletion discussions on conferences because they anticipate this step.
  • Marketers and SEO folks are usually not really interested in the Wikidata item itself; however, there is the idea out there that a Wikidata item directly feeds their Google Knowlegde Graph entry and boosts their search ranking generally (I am not sure how much both of that actually is the case).
  • In my opinion, seeking active engagement with creators of obviously out-of-scope content such as self-promotion (here unrelated, but also: vandalism) is not the best option. If the content is clearly unfit for Wikidata, delete it without further comment and only talk back to them if they show up by themselves. We otherwise raise false hopes and encourage them to try again.
MisterSynergy (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if we should only entertain undeletion requests from established users. Bovlb (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
If there is a request, we should respond. But we do not need to feel bad for removing clearly out-of-scope, unfit data from this project in order to protect its integrity. This also means that in many situations we do not need to apologize, or help and encourage users who got their content deleted. On the opposite side of the spectrum, potentially permanent new users deserve a welcoming interaction if something goes wrong with their new items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
"Entertain undeletion requests from established users" is a really bad idea. Since community is seldom involved in deletion of items, at least a chance for community to review them is required. GZWDer (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@GZWDer: I'm afraid I don't really understand your reply and how it relates to my comment, but I should explain that I was only being half-serious with my comment above. I entirely agree that our processes need to be transparent and open.
I was reacting to the fact that I see a lot of item creations, item recreations, and undeletion requests from new users whose only apparent purpose here is to create an item for a specific entity, and who do not exhibit any respect for the project, its goals, rules, and norms. I put a lot of effort into welcoming and mentoring new users, but when I encounter a string of people who have no interest in working with us, I find that very discouraging.
It was in that spirit of personal discouragement that I made my remark. I apologise for not anticipating how poorly my flippancy would come across in writing. Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Can reverting a quickstatements batch damage pre-existing informationEdit

My https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Edit_groups/QSv2T/1663790467872 is full of errors, and I want to revert it, but I just wanted to check that if a QuickStatement replicates an existing claim, undoing the batch (which I guess did nothing for the repeat claim) it doesn't do any damage to the existing claim. Vicarage (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vicarage: My understanding is, QS batches use Wikidata:Edit groups, and reverting the batch will indeed revert the edits your batch made, and not the pre-existing statement that your batch might have modified. No damage anticipated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Merging should be intentional but currently happens without users being awareEdit

On Wikidata we don't give users access to the merge gadget by default. It seems that someone at the Wikimedia Foundation decided that it's a good idea to merge Wikidata items in some cases without the user being aware of what they are doing. It's hard to understand what's exactly happening given but I asked one user who did a merge and who didn't seem to be aware that he did anything involving Wikidata.

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T236893 seems to suggest that those edits (tagged with "Sitelink Change from Connected Wiki") are made by something called "Wikibase Client linkitem (the jQuery UI thing)" but in my search I didn't found the phabricator ticket where it got discussed that deciding to merge Wikidata item without the user being aware is a good idea. ChristianKl❫ 13:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding a sitelink (which is what happened at bony labyrinth (Q262489)) is not merging ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, if you add sitelink from a connected wiki, you will do a merge of items if the pages you are linking from and to both previous had connected items. I think it been that way since the start of Wikidata. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I first saw "Sitelink Change from Connected Wiki" in cases where there actually was a merge, so I mistakenly assumed that it happened here as well. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q25698031&oldid=828633164 and metropolis (Q200250) is the better example.
I started looking into this after reading https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Bot_requests#Request_to_mass-merge_items_(2022-07-03) where this tool produced a lot of failed merges and there was a request to complete those failed merges.
Even if we believe that those merges are valid and should happen, the fact that they do happen should likely be document on help:merge. ChristianKl❫ 10:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah well, in that case I didn't know that either! But I don't see a problem with it, as it is definitely an intentional action by a human editor — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's a decision by an author that two Wikipedia pages are about the same topic. There are plenty of cases where we have two Wikidata items that exist separately and should not be merged even if Wikipedia editors want the sitelinks. One controversy we had a while ago was Wikidata distinction between pages that are about a fruit like "apple" and the species that produces them "apple tree". The only way to understand that the two shouldn't be merged is to look at the actual Wikidata items. We don't give new users access to the merge-gadget because we don't want people who don't really understand Wikidata to just merge items in cases like that. If Wikipedia allow the automatic creation of merges without the user having checked the Wikidata items to see if they actually deserve to be merged that's problematic. ChristianKl❫ 10:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that allowing Wikipedia users to effectively merge items, without checking the items first, is a hazard. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

P31 Instance of use of Q5119 Captial seems to be causing an issueEdit

instance of (P31) use of capital (Q5119) seems to be causing an issue with violation of none-of constraint (Q52558054). Noted problem at Dublin (Q1761). However seems to occur for London (Q84), and Paris (Q90) as well so problem seems more widespread. How to fix this? Thankyou. -- Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga(a)talk 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

WD represents that a place is a Capital by use of the property capital (P36) (i.e. the subject is the capital of the object). WD does not use the formulation subject instance of capital. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't really understand these seemingly arbitrary rules. Yes we should encourage use of capital (P36) but using instance of (P31) capital (Q5119) is not incorrect and gives slightly more information than instance of (P31) city (Q515) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It gives more information in the P31 domain, but if P36 is used, then overall no additional information has been provided; P31=capital is redundant. If P31=capital is used, then it begs the question, what is it the capital of & what qualifier do we use to answer the question: capital (P36)? of (P642)? (And for the avoidance of doubt, city and capital should not be conflated; they're distinct concepts.) Right now:
So, if those represent a trend you want to buck, you probably have to convince us that the modelling decision is for some reason flawed, and your proposed solution an improvement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we merge Joseph Powell (Q48977543) and Joseph Powell (Q18759351)Edit

I think these items should either be merged together or linked somehow, as they refer to the same artist who is called "John" and "Joseph" in different sources. Can anyone please help?

Joseph Powell (Q48977543)

Joseph Powell (Q18759351) Ficaia (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done by @Arlo Barnes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Migrate Help:Description into translation extensionEdit

Currently, a Template:DescriptionLanguages is placed atop the Help:Description page, with most of the links red. It would be a good idea to integrate the page into the translation workflow and replace the template with the language selector provided by the translation extension. After then we can delete the DescriptionLanguages template, which serves solely for this purpose. U.T. 03:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Why did you try to unify the different guidelines in each language into an English version? For example, the guidelines for Latin characters are not applicable to kanji and kana. Afaz (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This proposal has been rejected many times, For example read Help talk:Description#Change to translatable page? or Help talk:Description#Make translatable. Each language has its own rules and tradition, it's not possible to make rules valid worldwide. --β16 - (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting periodEdit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hi everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

request to link from P8214 to another Wikidata-item, not only external URLEdit

In property P8214 (curriculum vitae) one can currently only link external website URLs, but not link to already existing items. For example: We have the item for person (Q55905242) and the item for the their CV (Q113678766). Now we want to add the statement (P8214) to (Q55905242) and link (Q113678766) as the value. This is not yet possible. MKNetwork (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WD has less than 9 CV items in it - https://w.wiki/5jbx . I question whether Lebenslauf des verwitweten Bruders Friedrich Ludwig Kölbing, Bischofs der evangelischen Brüderkirche und Mitgliedes der Unitäts-Aeltesten-Conferenz, heimgegangen am 13. December 1840 in Berthelsdorf (Q113678766), despite its title, is a CV (as we would know it) or an obituary. In general, CVs fail WD:N and so WD does not anticipate items for them, and so has no property to point from the person to their CV. If CV items are added, they can point to the person using main subject (P921); there is no clear need for a reciprocal link. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
We are planing to create objects for over 1000 CVs from the 19th c. There are a number of history profs who could confirm that they are exactly that. Frankly, I would like to know on what grounds you could possibly question that. Some of these Moravian "Lebensläufe" were even re-published precisely as obituaries.
These texts - there will also be other genres - fulfil WD:N in at least two ways. The Moravians were engaged in worldwide mission and wrote important texts (and created important buildings, social structures) in many languages beyond German - not least crucial studies in langagues decimated by colonialism. Their activites were global and forged in no small way the European understanding of the world. Hence these texts are crucial to a general knowledge base of global history.
I am not wedded to the reciprocal link since the links could be reconstructed as statements attached to the texts, for example. MKNetwork (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@MKNetwork These documents can be interesting for Wikidata (and fulfill WD:N) if they have been published or are part of some collection or are a chapter in book. For instance, Lebenslauf des verwitweten Bruders Friedrich Ludwig Kölbing, Bischofs der evangelischen Brüderkirche und Mitgliedes der Unitäts-Aeltesten-Conferenz, heimgegangen am 13. December 1840 in Berthelsdorf (Q113678766) is correctly labelled as an article forming part (chapter) of a serial publication. I'd suggest using described by source (P1343) if you really think that the link in the other direction is necessary, but I agree with Tagishsimon that one direction is usually enough. Please note that the links can be already recovered from Wikidata in any direction (see eg. https://w.wiki/5jd5) Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the property proposal and current uses, it seems curriculum vitae (P8214) is meant for the kind of C.V. you'd typically see on the webpages of researchers, scientists or businesspeople - showing the persons' education, employers, projects and/or publications. The kind of document you'd include in a job application. While the one you linked is a biographical article or obituary - written by someone else about the person's whole life. While it fits one of the definitions of "Lebenslauf", it's not really the kind of document that this property is intended for. There are many items for all kinds of biographical articles and obituaries already on Wikidata and they usually simply use main subject (P921) to state which person is described in it. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:64D6:DD8B:4F93:E0E2 17:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not possible to have multiple datatypes for one property. What you can do is to use P8214 with <somevalue> and then use statement is subject of (P805) as qualifier. ChristianKl❫ 17:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I take your point and have now created the entity "Biography (text genre)" (Q114237167). This point is, however, immaterial to my proposal. I would simply want to state: "This text (whatever genre - the examples happen to be (auto)biographies) mentions x". P805 actually works pretty well from a person to a text. I want to make a statement on a text to persons, places etc. MKNetwork (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you point me to where in the proposal I should change that and what data type you would recommend? MKNetwork (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Biography (text genre) (Q114237167): Text genre, mainly describing the life of one or more persons looks incorrect and looks like you're using it in instance of (P31) where you should probably use genre (P136) set to biography (Q36279). Multichill (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
You're right, that would work. I changed to two statements Thank you! :) How would I go about removing Q114237167? I seem to be the only one who used it... MKNetwork (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity statements againEdit

Hello, there's a long-standing request at Wikidata:Bot_requests#request_to_depreciated_ethnic_group_only_sourced_with_P143_(2021-10-23) to remove unsourced ethnic group (P172) statements and deprecate those only sourced from Wikimedia projects. Since this could be controversial and pertains to many items, I'm notifying the community here that I'll do the job if there's not any significant opposition. Currently, most users are in favor of this change (see linked request page).

Link to queries for statements to be removed/deprecated:

thanks Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

SPARQL looks okay to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want to exclude the 100+ statements which are already deprecated, you can add
{ ?s wikibase:rank wikibase:PreferredRank } UNION { ?s wikibase:rank wikibase:NormalRank }
to the second query. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I support the removal/deprecation from items for humans. Please exclude fictional and mythical entities from the removal/deprecation (see property description - even though better sourcing is very welcome, these statements are not as problematic in the case of a fictional person as in the case of a real person, I think). I spotted some other uses, as in the case of Aduana (Q20117809) (a clan). Wikidata:WikiProject_Ethnicity uses ethnic group (P172) for ethnic diasporas (see Belarusians in Armenia (Q26790703), for example). I think these should be excluded from removal, too. There are also some (1741) village (Q532) with a ethnic group (P172) statement (see for instance Bägäräktamaq (Q4478355)). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav OK! Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about "Frank van der Linden"Edit

Frank Van der Linden (Q64021783) is connected with

He must have been 12 years old when writing about Nixon – I doubt it.--Holly Flax (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Holly Flax Good catch! I disentangled the entries. --Emu (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fork of QuickPresets userscriptEdit

If you use the QuickPresets userscript, you might be interested in my fork of it: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Nicereddy/quickpresets.js

The main improvements are:

  • Adding a link to the config you're using in the header of the fieldset.
  • Moving the confirmation messages below the fieldset so it doesn't jump around and cause misclicks when the confirmation messages appear (previously they appeared above, which moved the links down every time).
  • Slightly better usage of space (changing "Add X" to just "X" to allow more options to render without bleeding into the next line.

These were all pretty simple/minor updates to the script, but if anyone has any small improvements they want to suggest, feel free.

I'll leave a message for the original author, MichaelSchoenitzer, on his talk page to see if he'd like to include these improvements in the main userscript.

Thanks, Nicereddy (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

reopened railway stationsEdit

Hi folks, I noticed we have quite a few railway stations in the Netherlands that are currently open, but have a date of official closure (P3999) set to a date. Take for example Zoetermeer Oost railway station (Q13479616). This station opened in 1870, closed in 1938 and reopened in 1965. How to model this?

  1. Just have date of official opening (P1619) set to 1870 and no date of official closure (P3999). It's just a matter of time before bots or user scripts will add the date of official closure (P3999).
  2. Have date of official opening (P1619) set to 1870 and a deprecated date of official closure (P3999) set to 1938. This prevents the automated processes from adding date of official closure (P3999), but not sure if this is the best approach.
  3. Have a preferred date of official opening (P1619) set to 1870, a date of official opening (P1619) set to 1965, a date of official closure (P3999) set to 1938 & a preferred date of official closure (P3999) set to no value. Most complete, but maybe too complicated?

Any opinions? Multichill (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why can not we just have two values for P1619 and one value for P3999? Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
How can something that is open have a closing date? That seems a bit weird (and also triggers a bunch of constraints). Multichill (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably 1938 closing date, rank normal; <no value> closing date, rank preferred -> truthy answer to 'is it closed' = no. Right now the closing date is deprecated; that's wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I've come across this pb very often (current working stations but with closure dates because bots add closure dates). Just have the closure date as deprecated, so that bot will no longer add ... Bouzinac💬✒️💛 20:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
No. That's a completely wrong use of deprecated; see Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank - "The deprecated rank is used for statements that are known to include errors". Here, it is not erroneous to specify that the station closed in 1938. Rank allows us to specify that although the truthy situation w.r.t. closure is that there is not a closing date, there has been a closing date. I've already set out, above, how that is done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Tagishsimon here. If the station was closed 1938, then that statement should not be deprecated. I like them also prefer Multichill's alternative 3. It will allow for simple searches for currently open stations and still indicate that it closed for a period. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, noted that Multichill 3 suggested this handling for the close date. I'm not sure I'm persuaded by M3's preferred rank for the original opening date, although since all options here seem problematic, and preferred 1870 opening mirrors preferred <no value> closing, it's probably a sensible way forwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Should the closure date NOT to be deprecated, then there should be a splitting...
  • The existed thing from date X to date of closure Y
  • The "new" thing existing from new date Z with a statement follows (P155) = the once existed thing from X to Y dates
I really don't like qualifyers such as applies to part (P518) because you cannot guess when they might happen. And if you query with a   MINUS { ?item wdt:P576|wdt:P3999 ?end_date. } , whilst hoping to find anything currently open, you might get false friends. Bouzinac💬✒️💛 11:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: The point of adding date of official closure (P3999) with value "novalue" and preferred rank is that a query with
   MINUS { ?item wdt:P3999 ?end_date }
will not exclude the station from the query results because the statement for the closing date in 1938 will not be the highest ranked P3999 statement, and because queries with the wdt: prefix will not match statements with a "novalue" snak either. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill, another option is adding the closure and re-opening dates as items of significant event (P793) = closure (Q5135520) and opening (Q15051339) with point in time (P585) as qualifiers. Michgrig (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Multichill: Another way to model it, is as a building. The original brick building was demolished in 1938 and then a cider block and glass replacement was built, as seen in the current photo. You can create two entries, one for each building with appropriate inception and end times. Then only use the new building as the entry for the "railway station" in the various infoboxes and other visual aids we have for active railroads. Use replaces and replaced_by in each entry for the old and new station. We do that for hospitals and churches that occupy the same site, but demolish the old building (or it burns down). You can call the second entry "old Zoetermeer Oost railway station" or "Zoetermeer Oost railway station (1870-1938)". This would not work if the train no longer stopped there, and later restarted without a change to the physical infrastructure --RAN (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Language labels for concepts which don't exist in that languageEdit

double-entry bookkeeping system (Q192803) and Double-entry bookkeeping system (Q10783677) have the same label but apparently a distinction between the two concepts only exists according to the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Assuming that two concepts of double-entry accounting don't exist in English (or else there would be an English-language reference) does it make sense to have an English label for this uniquely Vietnamese concept? Nivekuil (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

First, yes, it does make sense for WD to carry an EN label for a concept alien to English speaking countries. You can haggle about exactly what the label is, but not about the need for a label. Second, I'm unconvinced that the two VI articles express different concepts, rather than being duplicate articles that need merging. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
How would such a merge work? I'm not comfortable editing an article in a foreign language and I think Wikidata is one of the only cases where this need may arise. Nivekuil (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It is for someone familiar with the language and concepts in the two articles, to merge them. It's not uncommon for language wikis to have duplicate articles; the need does not arise out of wikidata, particularly, so much as out of the observation that they seem to be about the same subject. Where I don't feel comfortable doing a merge in a language I don't speak, I've found that dropping an English language note on a forum on the language wiki concerned tends to work; at least, the merge happens, or someone explains why the merge should not happen or, (not often) nothing happens. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
question asked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nephila clavata and Trichonephila clavataEdit

Spider species: Nephila clavata (Q136925) was renamed to Trichonephila clavata (Q104386227). Nephila clavata is listed as basionym (P566) for Trichonephila clavata. Do these get merged or should they stay separate? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom: They should not be merged. Each taxon that is or have been used get separate items. You can see more about this at Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy and subpages. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Graph documentation - defaultView:GraphEdit

Do we have any good documentation what is shown in a graph like https://w.wiki/WBU that is generated with the tool EasyQuery:

  • the color of the circle yellow/blue
  • sometimes I feel a line is dashed
  • ...

Salgo60 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Think Wikidata:SPARQL query service/Wikidata Query Help/Result Views#Graph might be the best that's out there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Economic Conditions of Costs or PricesEdit

Hi,

Is it possible to store the economic conditions of a cost (P2130) or a price (P2284) or price (Q160151)? For example the cost of World Trade Center (Q11235) is listed as "900,000,000 United States dollar" but without knowing when that cost was incurred we can't understand the cost in comparison to other costs. 185.13.50.214 10:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Such statements should be qualified with point in time (P585). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
great, thanks for the pointer, is it possible to link a point in time (P585) with another property i.e. price (P2284)
Yes. point in time (P585) is a general property useful as a qualifier for specifying the point in time that anything occurred. So, highly appropriate, and indeed prettymuch required for the reason you suggested, for uses of cost (P2130), price (P2284) or price (Q160151), and much besides. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
brilliant, thanks for the help. 185.13.50.210 11:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #539Edit

@Mohammed Sadat (WMDE): https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T300770 - referred to above in the development section - gives (me) 'Access Denied: Restricted Task - You do not have permission to view this object'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: We totally missed that it was a security task. I'm sorry, but we can't grant you access because it's security-relevant. The ticket will be made public when the issue is resolved. -Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Bang goes my plan for world domination. Oh well. :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Being smarter by using domain specific toolsEdit

Too often do we recommend people basically download tabular data from Wikidata and do whatever they need to do in MS Excel, Libreoffice Calc, or maybe you are one of the cool kids who process CVS through Python?


But rather than operating in the domain of tabular data, you could operate in the domain of triples, and the conversion is not that hard either. In fact if you need an AWK script to do just that, I'm more than happy to supply you. So how does that work flow look like exactly? Well, it means you now get your working set using a CONSTRUCT query and if you need to combine this with a CSV you need to convert it. OpenRefine has an extension for that as I understand it. The rest of the data processing you can then do in SPARQL locally, which is my key point. You don't need to install Apache Jena Fuseki, ARQ does not need installation and is perfectly happy to take a TURTLE formatted file and use it as it's input data. You can then utilize the projection to turn this into say a QuickStatements job.

Question #2: Is this how most people operate? I could write a tutorial for "working smarter" I suppose. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I ended up downloading complete Q pages as json and doing local jq queries on them to produce my own json files for mediawiki's ExternalData to read. I also wrote SPARQL queries for the tabular cross-item data and download that as CSV, convert to my CSV format again for ExternalData to read. sed rather than awk is my friend. I found SPARQL poor for getting lots of different information from a single entity, and ExternalData poor for json arrays, hence my hybrid solution. I didn't look for cleverer solutions before I set out, so I've not heard of the tools you mention. Vicarage (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

associating many "created by" propertiesEdit

There are a lot of properties with the same general flavor of "person/organization responsible for creating", like creator (P170), author (P50), and developer (P178). How can I formally group these properties together? Nivekuil (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If you take a closer look at author (P50) and developer (P178), you'll see that they are already subproperty of (P1647) creator (P170). Silver hr (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There are others like performer (P175) and real estate developer (P6237) and discoverer or inventor (P61) and so on. Nivekuil (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New Medical project - ICDEdit

Hi, I'm a neurosurgeon and App developer, my App was a Big medical Code Dictionary with all medical Codes from Brazil, it's 54 tables and is used per 15000 Health Professionals. I would like to contribute with you to insert and organize an indexing project of the ICD OMS both the newest version and the one currently used. I already have the data both in JSON, SQL or CSV we just have to organise the hierarchy since some items have a level of up to 5 because of the groups created, Tell me that I can enter and relate the data Ericneuro (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I forgot my app is MEDcodigos TUSS SUS CID CBHPM is in PT but I have a database for ICD in 5 languages Ericneuro (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)