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.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.
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 2017/09.

Commons categories should link to wikipedia articles, not categoriesEdit

 
model of Wikidata-Commons links

Hello, I'm new here on Wikidata. I've opened a topic about this here, which I feel is important to discuss: Wikidata talk:Wikimedia Commons#Commons categories should link to wikipedia articles, not categories. I'm not sure if that page is much followed, as the last edits seem to be from more than 6 months ago, so I'm informing about it here as well. Please excuse me if it's not appropriate. Thank you, --DarwIn (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussions here and on Commons on how to deal with Wikidata/Commons sitelinks. We have consensus of what should link where if we have both Category and gallery on Commons and category and article item on Wikidata, See image on the right. The situation is less clear when Wikidata has only article item then it seems like the sitelink is to either category or gallery on Commons. The sitelinks are so unpredictable that are mostly unused by tools and we mostly rely on Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935) properties. So as long as properties are set correctly, the sitelinks do not matter. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I really do not understand why you placed Wikipedia categories in the same space as Commons categories. They share the same name on the domain, but that's all. The main working space in Wikipedia is "main", in Commons is "category" - that's what it, it has ever been like that, at least that I know of. The "main" in Commons corresponds to the galleries, which have a very residual utilization, and serve a very specific (and secondary) purpose. Linking Commons categories to articles is useful. Linking Commons categories to Wikipedia categories is pointless and doesn't serve any purpose that I can think of.--DarwIn (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DarwIn here. The site links to articles from commons categories are quite important - they are pretty much the only way you can find the corresponding Wikipedia articles (aside from going through each image in the category to see where it is used). The way things are at the moment, with missing sitelinks, data duplication with P373 where sitelinks exist, and an absence of many interwiki links from Commons just seems weird, particularly when we already have the tools to fix this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: That then becomes a very Wikipedia-centric approach. Many of these categories exist on the sisters so often the category to category links are important among the sisters. Tying an article to a commons category can exclude the sisters from that linking, especially if there can be only one wikilink. The hierarchical approach works more maturely for the variances that can exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There was very long RfC, that was closed in favor to item-gallery approach, but there was no consensus in fact. Both item-gallery and item-category approaches are used now on wikidata on mass scale.--Jklamo (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It can still be corrected to article-category, as it should have been from the start. I really don't know why it was organized that way, in Commons, the old interwikis generally let to wikipedia articles, not categories. And the concept of galleries really have nothing to do with articles. An article of a museum can have a set of galleries dedicated to the exhibitions, and not a single one dedicated to the museum itself. Anyway, as far as I know, those galleries have very little use in Commons, and even less maintenance. The few that exist should never have been linked to articles in Wikidata (at least I can't see the point of doing that).--DarwIn (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@DarwIn: Let's step back here. What you want is that Commons:Category:Haarlem links to en:Haarlem instead of to en:Category:Haarlem, right? That's a valid point. This is where it goes wrong. You assume the only way to achieve this is to move the sitelink for Commons from Category:Haarlem (Q7427769) to Haarlem (Q9920) (and messing up the data model in the process).
It should be too hard to make a (LUA) template on Commons to put on categories which generates a nice intro and also adds the interwiki links to the Wkipedia articles. No need to change anything here.
Part of the code is already available in Commons:Module:Interwiki and I added an example. In the example only missing links are added, in this case it would probably just add the links anyway. Multichill (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: I really do not understand the technicalities of that thing, what I see that happened is that the useful interwikis which were once in the Commons categories leading to the articles have been replaced in 2013 by useless and pointless interwikis to the wikipedia categories by Wikidata. And me, and many others, have been manually changing them to what they used to be before over those 4 years. That's how it was before Wikidata came there, and that's what apparently it should be, as the link to the wikipedia category is - again, it's never too much to repeat it - useless and pointless, as opposed to the link to the article. If the Data model has not predicted that, maybe the problem is with the model. I really do not see the point of changing the way we used to work in Commons to a new model which does not fit anyone's need, removed the useful interwikis we used to have there, and to top it added a lot of useless clutter to the right side bar. Even a link to the "commons category" is now there, as if we were not in that Commons category itself. It can't be right the way it is now.--DarwIn (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@DarwIn: you really need to drop the attitude. The consensus has been explained to you so edits like you did on Category:Boituva (Q9558773) will just end up being reverted. I'm offering you help, but not if you continue to act like this. Multichill (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 
Screenshot of Commons category Boituva after revert

@Multichill: Really, I was expecting a more constructive attitude from you than plainly reverting me. On the right, you can see what you achieved with that - Removed the useful interwikis to more than 20 wikipedia articles about Boituva in as many different languages I was working in, illustrating them while organizing the category, and replaced them with a lot of useless and pointless clutter. Reaching those articles is now much more difficult, and I'll not continue that work there - will shift for something else, as I can't easily reach them and placing the images anymore. I was hoping you were open to dialog, but I feel this is a wall here, and it's going nowhere. I think I'll just forget the whole issue. Maybe in the future I'll open a topic about this in Commons for discussion, but for now I'll just try to forget Wikidata exists, despite all the useless clutter it brings to my side bar, and the feeling that we are worst than we were before it appeared, now that we can't use the old interwikis to jump to the articles anymore. Thanks, anyway.--DarwIn (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Multichill (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, TL;DR: I agree with Darwin. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with Darwins arguments. In addition to that I also want to point out that I have a very positive understanding on Wikidata and the people who contribute here. --Zaccarias (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In Maarten's defense, it is in Wikidata's best interest to keep gallery (mainspace) pages linked to articles and category pages linked to category pages. We already have Commons category (P373), category's main topic (P301), and topic's main category (P910), following whom appropriate sitelinks may be found, and because gallery pages as a whole are not nearly as developed or as full as category pages on Commons, some tinkering on Commons' end is neeeded to substitute the pointless links on category pages DarwIn complains about with the appropriate mainspace links he so craves. Mahir256 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Multichill: do I understand you correctly by assuming that I just need to add {{#invoke:Interwiki|interwiki}} to a Commons categories, to add the interwiki links to wp articles that were previously manually generated ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: It seems to work, but looks like a patch to something broken. We'll have to add it to every existent and new category in Commons which is linked to Wikidata, in order to fix what should not be there in first place. And the pointless link to the Commons category we are already in, and some weird link to an English wikipedia category still appear in "other projects".--DarwIn (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Multichill wrote: "It should be too hard to make a (LUA) template on Commons to put on categories which generates a nice intro and also adds the interwiki links to the Wkipedia articles. " We have template like that called c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata based on c:module:Interwiki (which should not be used directly). The setting of the sitelinks from Wikidata to Commons should be irrelevant as long as properties Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935) are correctly set up. --Jarekt (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The reality of the facts on the ground is that (contra @Multichill:) there is no consensus.

As Jklamo points out, "both item-gallery and item-category approaches are used now on wikidata on mass scale". The latest numbers that I am aware of are from January of this year, when there were 437,882 sitelinks from Commons categories to article-items here, compared to 387,768 sitelinks from Commons categories to category-items here. Four times more Commonscat links to article items compared to Commonscat links to category items were added in the 12 months previous to this, so if that trend has continued I would expect the difference now to be even greater.

In addition to what's been written above, one additional point worth considering is that in a great many cases there will not be a category-type item here to sitelink to; nor would it serve any purpose other than useless clutter to create one. In such cases, where there is no gallery on Commons and no category item here, a sitelink from Commonscat to article-item seems entirely sensible, directly achieving (and maintaining) the interwikis desired in both directions, with minimum fuss or maintenance issues.

Personally I think we should bow to what Commons users have consistently asked for, and make Commonscat to article-item links the norm (automatically giving the sitelinks most desired); with Commonscat to category-item links accepted when there is no article item. But the reality is that I would expect the current mixture to persist for the forseeable future, so software writers will need to code accordingly.

 
Example for Commons c:Category:Leonardo da Vinci

In the meantime, one script that I find consistently useful when looking at Commons categories is wdcat.js, which can be incorporated into one's common.js file on Commons, which displays a link (as shown on the right) whenever a Commons category is the target of a P373 from an article-type Wikidata item. Jheald (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald that in case where there is no category item than article-item -> commons-category sitelinks are fine and preferred over article-item->commons-gallery sitelinks, as majority of commons galleries were not maintained much in last decade and would be a disappointing landing spot. However in case of c:Category:Albert Einstein I prefer sitelink to Category:Albert Einstein (Q7213562) than to Albert Einstein (Q937). And if some sitelink is not to your likeing just use c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata to overwrite the defaults and add interwikis you like. --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Galleries aren't useful because they miss all new content. And for selected images we have mechanisms.
Valued images sometimes miss rare topics, but they are far better than galleries.
Currently c:Category:RenderMan (software) leads to Category:RenderMan (Q8652299) and only then to PhotoRealistic RenderMan (Q855971)
I would prefer to jump between Category:RenderMan (software) and Q855971 directly. d1g (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The existence of galleries is an issue for Commons or to be discussed at Commons. That is not for us to resolve here. If Commons use galleries, then it would seem they are needed to be fitted into place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: The thing is, I don't believe Wikidata should be using Commons galleries at all. They were never designed or thought for a 1-on-1 correspondence as you are doing here.--DarwIn (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That is a different conversation than the one you started, though with the same root cause "the value of galleries at Commons, and their proliferation for limited value." If all the crud galleries were swept away, the guidance expressed the whole way through applies easily. I still think that the solution needs to start at Commons, which then has Wikidata working through how to rank the relative linking, and I again restate that primary or priority linking of Commons category to Wikipedia article with an expression of there only being a direct one to one relationship is problematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: Why is it problematic? What's the problem with it?--DarwIn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
What? Addressed multiple times and you still come back with what is the problem?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (walking away from those not listening)

It looks like @Multichill: is bot-adding the Lua module to the commons categories, which helps in the short term, but I worry about long-term maintenance - solving this here on Wikidata would seem to me to be easier to keep up-to-date in the long run. But perhaps the upcoming Wikibase changes to Commons will render that moot anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated numbersEdit

@DarwIn, Jarekt, Mike Peel, billinghurst: @Multichill, Yann, Zaccarias, Mahir256: @Hsarrazin, D1gggg:

Further to the above, here are some updated numbers; see also pages for the underlying queries and for historical comparisons

Note that numbers on the larger queries can vary by about +/- 15, depending which replication of the query server the query gets sent to. (This is a known problem, I think, that very occasionally a query server can miss an update from an edit here. It's rare, but can happen).

Commons categories
(6,036,464)
Commons galleries
(114,055)
total linked
Wikidata articles
(~ 31,671,059)
1,396,494 101,289 1,426,784
sitelinks:
539,071
P373:
1,300,596
sitelinks:
97,724
P935:
92,182
sitelinks:
636,795
props:
1,325,041
Wikidata categories
(4,043,980)
422,049 921 422,088
sitelinks:
412,231
P373:
366,353
sitelinks:
4
P935:
919
sitelinks:
412,235
props:
366,370
total linked 1,615,192 101,353 1,848,872 items / 1,716,545 pages
sitelinks:
951,302
P373:
1,467,588
sitelinks:
97,728
P935:
92,247
sitelinks:
1,049,030
props:
1,691,441 items / 1,559,835 pages

Some observations, in no particular order:

  • The total number of categories at Commons is up by about 540,000 since January to now over 6 million. This is on trend. (It may be a slight over-estimate, as I haven't removed soft-redirected categories from the count, neither now nor then. The c:Template:Category redirect template currently has 305,207 transclusions).
  • The number of Commonscat <-> article-item sitelinks is up by just over 100,000 in that time; the number of Commonscat <-> category-item sitelinks by just under 25,000.
  • The total number of category-items on Wikidata is up 40% since January, an increase of almost 1.2 million items. No idea whether these are old items now tagged as categories, or genuinely new items. Has anyone here been creating a lot of category items?
  • The issue of Commons galleries seems to me a red herring. All but 16,500 already have sitelinks; many of that remainder may not even have specific items here. There's no great movement in the gallery link numbers, suggesting to me that people seem happy to leave what's there already as it is. If the existing sitelinks are blocking Commonscat <-> article-item sitelinks, the number of Commons categories affected is comparatively small, compared to the overall number of Commons categories. But equally, as almost all galleries that could have sitelinks do have them, the number of potential Commons gallery <-> article-item sitelinks that would be blocked by new Commons category sitelinks to article-items seems very small indeed.
  • A striking number to me is that 663,890 Commons categories (i.e. the difference between 1,615,192 and 951,302) have no sitelink to any Wikidata item at all, even though we know which item they correspond to. While User:Multichill's new c:Template:Interwiki from Wikidata is a very welcome for Commons categories linked to category-items here, when those category items also have a category's main topic (P301), it leaves a huge number of Commons categories without any sitelink here. Which is difficult not just for sitelinks, but also for any other information we might want to draw from statements on items here. So it seems to me it would be a good thing to start creating sitelinks for currently unlinked Commons categories that we can identify to unique items here.
  • We have about 100,000 Commons categories with sitelinks to articles here but no P373s. There's already Wikidata:Bot_requests#Commonswiki_link_and_P373 a request at Wikidata:Bot requests to add these, which should be relatively uncontroversial, and would be very useful. User:Pasleim has raised the issue of whether category items should also have a P373 added if they haven't already got one, suggesting they shouldn't. On the latter I don't have that strong a feeling either way. P373 is more efficient for the query engine than sitelinks; on the other hand it would be another thing to keep up to date; but it would mean we still hand the P373 link if somebody moved where the sitelink pointed to.

Thoughts on any or all of the above? Jheald (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updated numbers. Inspired me to Wikidata:Bot requests#Commonswiki link and P935.--Jklamo (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: My view is that there's no harm to adding sitelinks where P935/P373 currently exist, as well as vice versa. Worst case, it's duplicated information, best case Commons interwiki links become a lot more usable. It doesn't seem like that huge a job given the numbers in the table, although it would be good if two additional columns could be added for '# of cases where property and site links are the same' and '# where they are not'. I have some half-written code that adds sitelinks where P373 exists, maybe I should turn that into a bot proposal at some point... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Checking the P373 value is the same as the sitelink is surprisingly challenging in SPARQL, (see eg tinyurl.com/y7wvv7zh for an incomplete attempt). The difficulty is that the sitelink URLs escape accented characters but not brackets and punctuation; whereas the P373 is just held as an unescaped string. It seems hard to replicate the escape behaviour other than through a nest of REPLACE() functions.
Other considerations are that some items may have more than one P373 value (though they shouldn't); and either the P373 or the sitelink may point to a commonscat that has since been soft-redirected to another value. However, it should be possible to work round all of this. Jheald (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ReliquariesEdit

 
Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506). I have used this item as a test case with the statement: "has part -> John the Baptist -> applies to part -> tooth" but I am not convinced this is a correct way to structure this info.

I was wondering what the best way to structure statements about instances of "reliquary (Q722604)". These are, by definition "containers" of religious items - usually bone(s) or of saints, pieces of hair, splinters of wood or nails... We currently have 1900 Wikidata items responding to the query of "instance of -> reliquary" with the vast majority of those being bot-imported items from the French database of movable cultural heritage with a Palissy ID (P481). For example, this reliquaire de crâne de saint Victurnien is Q29247401.
A few dozen of these items have Wikipedia articles in some languages, however as far as I can see (though I admit I have not looked at ALL of them) none has any statements pertaining to their "contents". That is: how should a Wikidata item about a reliquary state what is inside it?
has part (P527) and material used (P186) both are suggested properties for the word "contains" but neither is appropriate in my opinion. Equally, I feel applies to part (P518) (or some equivalent?) must be used in some manner in order to indicate specificity - e.g. not the whole saint, but just a finger bone etc. I have used "has part" with a qualifier of "has part" in the test-case item described in the image to the right.
Does anyone have any suggestions? The solution needs to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate individual specific bones and/or mummified pieces of specific people; entire mummified bodies or skeletons (e.g. Karlsschrein (Q1551658); non-human objects (such as 'piece of wood' or 'nail' from the True Cross (Q380356)).
One of the interesting potential use-cases of this kind of work would be to "discover" a saint with >10 fingers, or to map the native habitat of the various types of wood claimed to be pieces of the true cross... Wittylama (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Crazy idea, I love it!  
And good question: I agree that material used (P186) clearly doesn't seems appropriate (if the reliquary is made of gold, the origin of the gold is often unknown and doesn't matter but for the relic itself, it matter greatly where it come from) ; has part (P527) is a little better but I'm not sure... For it to work, we would need an item about the relic itself (eg. 'tooth of John the Baptist'), don't we?
PS: I can't wait to see how many tons of relic of the True Cross (Q380356) there is in the world!  
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
VIGNERON (talkcontribslogs) "Baldrick, you stand amazed ..." [1]. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
VIGNERON (talkcontribslogs) - you don't need a wikidata item for the individual part being described (e.g. "tooth of john the baptist") IF you use the "applies to part" qualifier - see the example in the caption of the image above. That at least solves the need to have a wikidata item for every bone of every saint but I don't think it solves the overarching question. Wittylama (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
An alternative to "has part -> John the Baptist -> applies to part -> tooth" might be "has part -> tooth -> of -> John the Baptist" --Pharos (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes great idea and I also think "has part <the person in question>" and then "applies to part <the part in question>" is an elegant approach. Jane023 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
One concern I have is that the "applies to part" qualifier usually indicates which part of the subject of the statement it is that the statement applies to -- so <painting> "made of": "wood" has the qualifier "applies to part": "frame".
Part of the cleanup planned for the qualifier as (P794) is to separate usages which qualify the subject of the statement from usages which qualify the object, and to use different properties for each. It would be a shame, just as this is being dealt with, to create a similar muddle with "applies to part". Jheald (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Jheald you mean to say that in my example Use-case, by using the "applies to part" qualifier the "tooth" is technically being implied to be a part of the Reliquary/container not the saint?
Do you have a solution? I feel like there must be one :-) Surely there must be other circumstances where we need to structure the concept of "X is 'inside of' Y"? I am loath to suggest "a new bespoke property" just for religious containers! Wittylama (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In principle it should be easy enough to create a property that would be parallel to applies to part (P518), but would indicate a part of the value of the statement, rather than a part of the subject. I am sure that reliquaries can't be the only case where that could be useful! The real challenge is to think up a good name for it, that would be natural but distinguish it from P518. "Applies to part (of value):" might do as a first stab; but it might be a bit opaque and mysterious to somebody coming across it for the first time in a statement on a page. Jheald (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this sense of "contains" should be different from P527 and P186
We also had physically interacts with (P129) and designed to carry (P3349)
But not a property for "used as container for" "contains"
Container item is here: container (Q987767) d1g (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
passive carrier (Q29478647) (like distribution (P437), host (P2975), has natural reservoir (P1605))? --Fractaler (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Used as a container for" would have many other applications as well.--Pharos (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Another property useful for reliquaries may be commemorates (P547), which could unambiguously state who the reliquary is dedicated to, without that being a definitive statement about the historical provenance of the contents (which would often be a qualified statement).--Pharos (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There is enclosure (P3158), but that's more intended for bigger structures (e.g. telescope domes). Maybe a copy of that as "container" would work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If we go for 'has part' → 'tooth' ('of' → 'John'), then the correct property is has parts of the class (P2670), not has part (P527). We should use the latter only if it would point to an individual item actually about 'John's tooth'. Thierry Caro (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of has parts of the class (P2670). P2670 should only be used on statements where the subject-item is a class; it should not be used where the subject item is an instance, eg a particular reliquary. P527 is entirely appropriate -- its value can either be a specific thing, or a more generic class of things. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're the one mistaken because of the conversation you had on the property talk page. It was intended to work the way I've just specified. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: the clue is in the name of the property: "has parts [plural] of the class" X. If there is only one tooth, then P2670 is not applicable.
The most common use is to make statements about classes A, so if ( A has parts of the class (P2670) X ) then ( a member a of class A may have has part (P527) a value x which is an instance of class X ).
So, from the examples on the property pages of P527 and P2670,
Solar System (Q544) has part (P527) { Mercury (Q308), Venus (Q313), Earth (Q2), Sun (Q525), ... }
<--> planetary system (Q206717) has parts of the class (P2670) { planet (Q634), star (Q523) }
similarly,
triathlon (Q10980) has part (P527) { running (Q105674), road bicycle racing (Q3609), swimming (Q31920) }
<--> multisport race (Q31645) has parts of the class (P2670) type of sport (Q31629)
As a secondary use, one can also use has parts of the class (P2670) for an object that contains so many sub-parts, that it makes sense to talk about whole classes of those sub-parts, so
Universe (Q1) has parts of the class (P2670) astronomical object (Q6999)
But for a single reliquary containing a single tooth, one should use has part (P527) -- there is no value-type constraint on the value of P527, it can be either a specific thing or a generic member of a class of things; so:
reliquary (Q722604) has parts of the class (P2670) relic (Q187616)
but Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) has part (P527) tooth (Q553) (of: John the Baptist)
Jheald (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So - to summarise the consensus - here are four new examples I've just edited in the manner I believe is what is described. Please confirm this is the agreed method:

  1. Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) -> has part (P527) -> tooth (Q553) -> of (P642) -> John the Baptist (Q40662)
  2. Holy Thorn Reliquary (Q3932379) -> has part (P527) -> spine (Q201851) -> of (P642) -> crown of thorns (Q1127583) (and I have added the further qualifier quantity (P1114) -> 2 spine[s]) diff).
  3. Karlsschrein (Q1551658) -> has part (P527) -> human skeleton (Q9621) -> of (P642) -> Charlemagne (Q3044) (diff)
  4. Záviš Cross (Q36513) -> has part (P527) -> splinter (Q2510520) -> of (P642) -> True Cross (Q380356) (with the further qualifier material used (P186)-> cedar wood (Q5056949)) (diff)

Are all these correct?
And, if that is indeed the agreed way to do this - where can we document this fact so someone in the future doesn't have to ask again? Wittylama (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My gut feeling, on reflection, is that has part is wrong for these. The description is fine, but since this is the devotional object of the thing, it should not be listed as a mere part of the thing. So other parts like the gold this or that or the gems studded in it, should be parts of it, but the devotional object, the relic itself, should have a more specific property, like "Main subject" or something like that. Thanks for your examples! Jane023 (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Aye, I don't really like the use of has part (P527) for this (since the contents of the reliquary are not a part of the reliquary), but I can't think of a better way to represent this short of a new "contains item" sort of property. Lankiveil (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC).
There was a long RFC on "part of" long ago, and the consensus seemed that it was too generic and that more specific properties were needed. There are some good proposals on the RFC, it is just a matter of starting a property proposal.--Micru (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if User:Pharos's suggestion above of using P547 might be a good one, with P527 as a qualifier; so:
  1. Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) -> commemorates (P547) -> John the Baptist (Q40662) -> has part (P527) -> tooth (Q553)
  2. Karlsschrein (Q1551658) -> commemorates (P547) -> Charlemagne (Q3044) -> has part (P527) -> human skeleton (Q9621)
  3. Holy Thorn Reliquary (Q3932379) -> commemorates (P547) -> crown of thorns (Q1127583) -> has part (P527) -> spine (Q201851), quantity (P1114) -> 2
This seems to put the horse before the cart better. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes "commemorates" is definitely better. Interesting approach indeed to indicate the part of the thing that it commemorates. Still not quite satisfied with this from a devotional perspective. A commemoration is often a new design, and not the thing itself (which of course may have doubtful provenance, yada yada). So do we have anything else, religion-wise? Jane023 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think "commemorates" is most often used for monuments and holidays, but I also think it can apply to churches, other houses of worship that are dedicated to a religious figure, and also shrines that are supposed to have an (often unproven) historical connection to a religious figure.--Pharos (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Churches tend to use named after (P138) I think -- potentially important to standardise because there are a huge number of "Churches named for <X> in place <Y>" categories on Commons, that it would be nice to be able to parallel with a query here. Jheald (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently 5447 using P138 tinyurl.com/y87shyoq, 3 using P547 tinyurl.com/yby2x4r2 -- though potential for many more. Jheald (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a nice query on the talk page for the classes P547 is currently applied to: tinyurl.com/ybrcyqw2 Jheald (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added "commemorates" to a non-religious item that is in some ways comparable to a shrine - Plymouth Rock (Q1072391), where the object certainly predates the thing it is commemorating, and where the actual historical connection is unproven.--Pharos (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Churches etc. I believe use "Dedicated" - we have St. Stephen's Cathedral (Q5943) -> dedicated to (P825) -> Stephen (Q161775) for example.
I understand the reaction to "has part" (expressed by User:Jane023 & User:Lankiveil) - the piece of saint/cross in the reliquary is "more" than merely a part of it - it is the reason for the container's existence. However, despite User:Jheald's use of User:Pharos's idea "commemorates (P547)" I'm not sure that's correct either for this structured statement. "Commemorates", I think, would be a good/appropriate standalone statement without qualifiers, for example:
Karlsschrein (Q1551658) -> commemorates (P547) -> Charlemagne (Q3044) fullstop. This is the same idea as the church item I described at the beginning of this comment.
A Q-item does not need to have a "piece of" the saint inside it in order to commemorate that saint, so I reckon it's a worthwhile statement in its own right. Nonetheless, "commemorates" is not sufficient, in my humble opinion, to indicate the idea that there-is-a-physical-piece-of-something-inside-this-object that is worthy of note. Wittylama (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
4641 churches using P825 tinyurl.com/y9m3wra8, so that's probably something that needs a closer look. (Possible further complication: is it possible for a church to be named for one item, but dedicated to another?)
On further thought I think you're right that the P547 should be there and express the commemoration full stop. One technical problem with has part (P527) as a qualifier is it makes the further qualifier quantity (P1114) awkward. Is the reliquary dedicated to two crowns of thorns? So P1114 probably does need to be qualifying a separate statement, if we want it to be possible to use.
I'm a lot happier with the has part (P527) statement now, knowing that a commemorates (P547) statement will be there as well, carrying the weight of the reliquary's dedication. I'm open to the creation of a new, more specialist property "contains", to be a sub-property of P527; but I think P527 is good enough that I'd be happy if people wanted to go with that for the moment, with the option of swapping it for a more specialist "contains" property in due course. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think that the "has part" bit should only be about parts of the reliquary, and not the relic. I think we do need a separate property for these reelics and devotional things in general, perhaps "devotional object"? I understand that it would be convenient to lump them together with all of the national treasures (like Plymouth Rock) or sports treasures (like winner's shoes or bicycles), but religious objects being so widespread I feel they need their own property. That said, these should probably also be their own item, in which case they can be used for more than one vessel or church (as was often the case). Churches change faiths and names and reliquaries with and without contents get passed around and often end up in museums (both with and without original contents). Jane023 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think "has part" is a sufficient, but perhaps not satisfactory solution - it will do if we we're not adding any new properties and seems to have the reasonable consensus of this discussion thread (if used in association with a separate "commemorates" statement).
However, IF we want to make a proposal for a new property that more directly addresses this use-case, what should it be? ""devotional object" sounds like an item, not a property - do you mean "is devotional object of"? Alternatively, could a more generic property "contains" be viable - a property that therefore could be valid for other (non reliquary) use-cases? Perhaps "contains" could also be used for satellites/rockets to indicate their payload?? Whatever the answer I think an important criteria needs to be that it doesn't require the creation of a new Q-item for the relic inside the reliquary (we don't want thousands of items that are instance-of a finger-bone...). Wittylama (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. My problem is that many reliquaries in museums are now empty, but it would still be nice to indicate what the reliquary was designed to hold. Therefore, an item for the relic is handiest when you want to indicate the specific relic (or group of relics, such as the relics of St. Donatianus that were removed from the St. Donatian Cathedral in Bruges before it was deconstructed by the French). When the relic or group of relics is lost or unknown, it would be nice to be able to indicate this (like the way we use "anonymous' for unknown painters). Before you get people up in arms about reliquaries that may or may not be still containing devotional objects, it would be nice to be able to give some sort of relic-status indication, whether or not it is based on some religious event or inspection. Jane023 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Digression: @Wittylama, Jane023, Pharos, Jheald: good to see that the discussion is still ongoing (seeing the length, maybe we should create a project page?). Here a strange case for you (maybe it can help, I hope so): Vincent de Paul (Q244413). His whole body is in a reliquary (a reliquary chest (Q2967773) more precisely) in the chapelle Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Paris (Q2957025). And here is the catch : his whole body *except* the heart and a forearm. Apparently, none of the suggestions I've seen so far take that scenario into account (which is not that unusual I can think of several other similar cases). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Qualifiers excluding (P1011) or does not have part (P3113) look possible.
So eg has part (P527) cadaver (Q48422) -> of (P642) Vincent de Paul (Q244413) , excluding (P1011) heart (Q1072), excluding (P1011) forearm (Q228537) Jheald (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Ew. That just sounds so morbid. Is using "cadaver" really the only way to do it? Jane023 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
But relics are morbid. :-) We could agree to use body (Q170494) -- or mummy (Q43616), depending how much of Vincent is left.
Or do we need an item "preserved body" to deal with cases like Lenin's Mausoleum (Q191414) ? Jheald (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's funny - this made me think of Lenin too. I like mummy, which of course is probably the oldest version of venerated remains, though we also talk about mummified creatures that just get dried out on their own. I think we need a property for "contains" with an item as target, in the sense that the thing is "purpose built" to contain the target, whether it is mummified remains or pieces of shoe. So e.g. on St. Vincent, there is the chapel which is purpose-built to contain that shrine and then there is a whole church in the same city dedicated to him which doesn't contain any bits of him. So if we had a new item "venerated remains" (unspecified body part or parts) then this could be the anonymous version of the item for this new "contains" property, but in the case of the chapel, it contains the specific mummified remains of St. Vincent (minus arm etc). The advantage to having an item in this case is that there may at some point be an article for the mummy (there isn't yet) but you can at least cram the main info into the description. Jane023 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
now that we're getting in to more and more obscure edge cases I'm quite confused as to the status of how we should handle the 'normal cases'... Over on the wikidata + glam Facebook group discipussion about this there is a few interesting use-cases (behind reliquaries) for the usefulness of a "contains" property. Can/could/should we propose that officially? Wittylama (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this conversation has gone as far as it can go... I’ve now made a formal proposal for Property:CONTAINS. Please comment there: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#Contains. Wittylama (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Difference between hamlet and villageEdit

I'm looking for guidance on when to use the term "hamlet" and when to use "village" when giving an "instance of/P31" to a small human settlement. Apologies if this is obvious or guidance is listed somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything definitive. The term village is widely used in preference to hamlet, in many cases for settlements that are very small. In addition can either of those terms be used as a "located in the administrative territorial entity/P131" for associating a building/monument etc to a location. I ask because I associated a listed building with a small village, using "located in the administrative territorial entity" only to have to removed by another user. Perhaps there is a more appropriate way of associating a building to a location that is more specific? Many thanks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerryL2017 (talk • contribs) at 10:52, 16 September 2017‎ (UTC).

@JerryL2017:. Good question.
Taking the point about located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) first, technically P131 should point to an entity that has some administrative status -- so for example in England a civil parish. One advantage of limiting P131 in this way is that we can quality control items at the civil parish level, making sure that they all have Commons categories, official identifiers, etc; and P131 statements set in turn, to make it possible to hierarchically extract all the items in that tree eg in a particular county. The 'administrative' territory is also the level that will have some kind of body with some kind of formal responsibility (or at least consultation input) over the item, so this is a useful thing to identify.
For more precise relations to things that are not administrative units, the property location (P276) is recommended instead -- this could be appropriate for smaller villages. In addition the property located at street address (P969) is available for the full postal address, given separately.
As to the village/hamlet question, I've been recently coming across this a bit myself. I've going through the last few civil parishes not yet identified as such (113 currently to go), merging any doppelgangers, giving them a instance of (P31) = civil parish (Q1115575), making sure that they have a GSS code (2011) (P836), Commons category (P373), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) etc.
Part of what I've been doing is asking myself should they also be tagged instance of (P31) = village (Q532), or perhaps instance of (P31) = hamlet (Q5084), or instance of (P31) = human settlement (Q486972) (which is sometimes what has been imported from Dutch or Polish wikis).
I don't have a bright-line answer for this. I think there are probably a lot of things at present that aren't tagged village (Q532) that maybe should be; also some that are that probably shouldn't be. For myself, if en-wiki or Commons say that it is a "village and civil parish" then I tend to go with that; also if Googling for "<place-name> village" produces some sensible-looking hits using the word village with the place-name (as oppose to pages that are just auto-generated search engine fodder), then I go with that. Otherwise if there are coordinates I click through to an Ordnance Survey map, and see whether it looks like it has many houses.
Ultimately what we need is a reliable external source on how to classify it. I am not sure whether (for the UK) the census or the ONS has this. I think the Ordnance Survey identifies hamlets in its database (sometimes linked through a TOID (P3120) property, with an ID-number starting with "4"); but I am not sure that we can legally harvest and re-use that on a systematic basis.
At some point this is something that does need to be checked over systematically. But for the moment I've just been doing my best on an item-by-item basis. Jheald (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata does not seem to have properties to support the distinction between an incorporated village, found in the northeastern United States, and a "village" in ordinary speech, which might or might not have any government organization associated with it. In the northeastern US people often call a certain area, such as Hydeville, Vermont (Q30624489), a "village" in casual conversation, but a "hamlet" when discussing government matters such as elections, because Hydeville has no government of any kind associated with it. In that area, several states issue charters to incorporated villages which do exercise government functions. I can say that because I'm a member of the Board of Civil Authority of the containing town, Castleton (Q1049714). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
A good approach here is to create specific item types for local concepts like this - eg village municipality (Q27676420) for a specific class of village in Quebec, or city of the United States (Q1093829) for US "cities" (in the administrative sense, not the common one), with liberal uses of subclasses to tie everything together. Of course, creating enough items for all the admin types can get very time-consuming... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for some interesting input. On the village/hamlet question, given that there doesn't seem to be a globally applicable definition of the difference and no systematic way of reviewing those that are in the system (my COUNT of village shows 293000+ instances of village (Q532)) it seems an acceptable approach is to classify any settlement smaller than a town as a village, even if it may only have a few houses. But I'm happy to be corrected here? Thanks again. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerryL2017 (talk • contribs) at 08:10, 17 September 2017‎‎ (UTC).
There is an old definition of hamlet in the UK that it is any small settlement that does not have a church, or more broadly, any services, such as a shop, public house, or post office. Typically in the UK, when ecclesiastical parishes were effectively the lowest level of administration, this would mean that the settlement in a parish that had the church would be the village, and all other settlements would be regarded as hamlets, regardless of size of population etc. However, this definition doesn't really take into account changes in demographics and the move towards the use of civil parishes as the administrative area, most of which were based on the older ecclesiastical parishes, but sometimes later merged into bigger civil parishes.
As JHeald stated the Ordnance Survey (OS) classifies any Named Place (TOID (P3120) property, with an ID-number starting with "4") with a field called "Populated Places" which can be city, town, village, or hamlet. Unfortunately, the links to the ontology of the data don't work so we can't see what their definition of the terms are... There do seem to be contradictions with the older definition. For example, Lansallos (Q1762721), a village and former civil parish, is identified by the OS a hamlet. You could argue that it should be marked as a village until some some unknown point in the past, when it came to be regarded as a hamlet...
Interesting point from Jheald on using OS data. Most of it is from OS OpenData which is free to use, but you should should acknowledge the source with "Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (year)". Does this mean that every statement of coordinates, area, adjoining areas etc that we use from the OS should be acknowledged? If so, how? Robevans123 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

OGL licence for dataEdit

Even though the data is there in the OS Open Data website, and there are several civil parishes we don't have co-ordinates for, I have been cautious about extracting it from the OS, because I am not sure what the answers are to the above licensing questions. (So eg instead I have averaged coordinates for items located in the parish, or looked the place up on Streetmap.co.uk which has quite a nice facility for reading off GPS coordinates for a point on the map). But I think these are questions we need to think about, and perhaps sooner than later. In particular:

  • Is the Open Government License viral -- if somebody in turn reuses the coordinates from Wikidata, would they too need to say that their report "Contains OS Data" ? Reading the OGL the question doesn't seem to be spelt out. But if there was such a passed-on requirement, that would be not be compatible with our headline CC0 licence for Wikidata.
  • If we can use OGL data, how do we implement the credit line. Do we need a new item-valued property "credit line for data" ? Since they are specifically requiring a credit line, simply referencing the source of the data is presumably not enough.
  • If we do use such data, does Wikidata need to have a project-level page with the credit line on it (and any other similar credit lines), presumably prominently linked to, perhaps also giving a count of the number of statements with the credit line & a query to list them.
  • Even if that were legally possible (ie OGL not viral), is it something we would actually want to do? Jheald (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Jdforrester (WMF): to see whether he has any input on this. Jheald (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: Hey there. I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask with regard to this (I'm not a lawyer after all), and this is mostly asking me in my personal capacity as something I used to work on before I was at the Wikimedia Foundation, but my initial thought would be that yes, the OGL requirement to "acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence"[OGL 1] would be incompatible with CC0, sorry. You should seek better-informed advice than mine, however.
    Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks very much @Jdforrester (WMF): for taking the time out to give your thought on this.
    It is certainly clear that we would need to provide that attribution statement, per the license. But it's not quite so clear (at least not to me), whether any obligation is placed on us to similarly require such attribution by anyone who obtains and uses that information point from us. Maybe I'm missing something, but the licence doesn't seem to impose that obligation. And if there was no downstream obligation on people reusing the data from us, then it would be compatible with CC0. On the other hand, I've felt sufficient discomfort about the question that I haven't used any OS data so far (apart from providing links to them, which I think is fair game).
    But you're probably right, we probably need to ask the lawyers. And maybe whoever owns the OGL, if we can put together a case for why requiring induced attribution on further downstream use would be counterproductive. Jheald (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    I've spent some time reading about the OGL and am know pretty sure that:
    • there is no requirement to impose the license conditions on re-users of the data - so using the data within Wikidata is compatible with our own CC0 license.
    • there is a requirement to acknowledge the source - this can be done on a single page or file somewhere reasonably accessible. If multiple OGL data sets are used it is possible to merge the acknowledgements into one statement, such as "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0".
    There are some further restrictions (no personal data, government logos, military insignia, individual's copyright etc..), and also you must not make any claim that you are endorsed by the government or that your data is current when it is not etc.
    I think the rationale behind the OGL is basically that the OGL data is out there for anyone to use with as little restriction as possible, but if you use it, people should be able to see when and where you got it from and ideally be able to access the original, or up-to-date, information easily.
    So yes, I agree with Jheald that Wikidata does need "a project-level page with the credit line on it (and any other similar credit lines)". I think a page labelled "Credits" at the same level as the links to "Privacy policy", "About Wikidata", "Disclaimers" etc are shown at the bottom of the main page.
    The OGL also suggests that it is good practice "maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another file or location, if it is not practical to include these prominently within your product". I think this would be a good idea anyway to record details of databases that have been incorporated into Wikidata. For example, we have a lot of data on scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the UK that was imported from English Heritage (Q936287)/Historic England (Q19604421) (there was an operational split in 2015) in 2014 and expanded in 2016. Since their database is regularly updated it is useful to know what was added and when, so we can occasionally look for updates.
    Finally, I read somewhere that although a database may be copyright, the individual items in the database are not. SO I think it is possible to occasionally add civil parish coordinates from Ordnance Survey (Q548721) and such use would be regarded as insubstantial. If someone took a copy of the OS OpenData data set and extracted all the civil parish coordinates and added them to Wikidata we would certainly need to include an OGL acknowldegement.
    Disclaimer - I am not a legal expert - all the above is based on reading of available information. We really should get legal advice from the Foundation on this matter...Robevans123 (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    Here's a forum post about coordinate conversion. It isn't clear from the discussion in this sub-thread what kind of coordinates are being obtained from OS Open Data. Wikidata uses WGS84. I don't know about the UK, but in the US, copyright does not apply to facts, it applies to how facts are expressed. If the way the facts were expressed were different, because they are in a different coordinate system, would that avoid the OS copyright? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    According to the EU en:Database Directive, "a person infringes a database right if they extract or re-utilise all or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database without the consent of the owner." The key word here is probably "re-utilise". For what it's worth, the UK Ordnance Survey provides latitudes and longitudes based on WGS84 as well as UK national grid coordinates based on OSGB 36. Extraction of the OSGB coordinates in the first place would count as extraction. Even though there seems to be no explicit use of the phrase "derivative work" in the directive, conversion to WGS84 would I fear nevertheless count as "re-utilisation".
    And -- contra what I wrote above -- I think the phrase "re-utilisation" probably does sink us on the third-party re-use question as well. Yes, there seem to be no explicit licensing conditions the OGL tells us we have to impose on re-users of our data. But if those re-users are re-utilising information ultimately derived from an OGL database, I think they too are caught by the "re-utilisation" phrase of the database directive, and therefore they too can only legitimately re-use the information if they comply with the terms of the OGL. And therefore we cannot say honestly, as CC0 would require, that the information is freely re-usable, no strings attached.
    The OGL doesn't oblige us to impose downstream re-use conditions; but it does oblige us to advertise that our data contains OGL data, to make anyone reusing a substantial part of it reasonably aware that there was database right claimed in some of the data, and they would need to comply with the OGL if they in turn were to reuse a substantial part of the OGL originated material.
    So sadly I don't think I can legitimately import land-area information from the ONS db file for all 12,000+ entities we have GSS code (2011) (P836) for. Instead, I think we do have to follow the summary section of WMF Legal's page on database rights over at Meta, to keep "extraction and use of data" from such sources to a minimum.
    But I will drop a note on the talk page there, to see if someone from there can look over this discussion and tell us whether they agree. Jheald (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, CC0 just waives the rights of the owners/contributors (the affirmers) of the work (Wikidata) to be recognised and acknowledged. But the affirmer also disclaims any responsibility for clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the Work (section 4c of the full (legal code) text of the CC0). Effectively, third party users are responsible for their own actions - if we've acknowledged that geo-spatial information in Wikidata includes information from Ordnance Survey and has been licensed under an OGL, then someone takes all of that OS data and re-uses it in a product without adding an OGL acknowledgment - that is their problem (and also would not be a good business choice since they could get guaranteed up-to-date info from the OS for free anyway). So although Wikidata is freely available, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a "do what you want with it, no strings attached" resource.
    I do believe that WMF Legal's advice to keep "extraction and use of data" is valid for databases that people want to protect, but I don't think it fully recognises that at least some UK government departments really want you to use their data! Robevans123 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Hi, I co-wrote the Wikilegal piece quoted above, and I'd be happy to help here. I understand that the question was raised whether the OGL (a license I was unfamiliar with) is viral (which I think it is not) and whether the OGL allows us to incorporate licensed data into Wikidata (which I think it does). But I need to re-think this, and it's quite late now, so maybe bug me again tomorrow :-) --Gnom (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Gnom: Anymore thoughts? How should we acknowledge the data source? With a credits page? Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    Definition of percentage of one of many ingredients in a mixtureEdit

    How I can define e.g. "90% acetic acid" as one ingredient of other materials in a mixture, whose amounts are defined by percentages of the whole receipe altogether? In this example liquid cold glue from Brunner (Q37473980) I describe that 2 % of the total amount of the mixture of the material used (P186) is DL-lactic acid (Q161249). But how can I say, that the DL-lactic acid (Q161249) itself is a 2% solution, beside other solutions of different percentages of which the material is consisting of? --Scoid d (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

    proportion (P1107)? - Brya (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but the difference between proportion (P1107) (e.g. used in steel (Q11427)) and quantity (P1114) is not clear to me and doubt, that it might solve my explanations for ingredients in a recipe. --Scoid d
    The value for proportion (P1107) should be a fraction between 0 and 1
    The value of quantity (P1114) is most usually an integer. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think you can use proportion (P1107) to specify the concentration, because if you have a statement like
    material used (P186) or has part (P527) -> DL-lactic acid (Q161249) ; proportion (P1107) -> 0.02
    to specify the amount that goes into the mixture, then you can't also use P1107 to specify the strength of the DL-lactic acid (Q161249).
    We might need a new additional property here like "concentration", maybe also "molarity".
    An alternative would be to create a new item for "90% acetic acid", as itself a mixture; but that wouldn't extend well beyond the most very common concentrations of reagents. Jheald (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    (ec) A further possibility, I suppose, would be to 'extract out' the water, so instead of saying 2% of a 2% solution, say 0.04% of the chemical plus 0.196% water. But that seems to me to be not great. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    Best solution does seem to me to be a new qualifier property "reagent concentration", with units -- eg g/L or M; or v/v for volumetric proportion. Jheald (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    Quantity = number of instances (an integer), proportion = relative amount. Curiously "percentage" is allowed with quantity, instead of with proportion. But indeed it is not possible to have qualifiers to qualifiers (2nd degree qualifiers). - Brya (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

    Is somebody willing to formulate an appropriate proposal? I am eager to see more concise data flowing in, but without a new property this stops me feeding more data. --Scoid d (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    Questions from a beginnerEdit

    Greetings,

    I just started contributing to Wikidata, and it is wonderful. As I move on, I have a couple of questions to ask.

    • Is there any Manual of Style for Wikidata, like on en Wikipedia. For example, or order to be followed for a particular category of items, order of qualifiers while adding references etc.
    • Is there any provision to add a reference name? In the sense, again like on en Wiki, you give a ref name to one citation, you can pull in that citation as many times you as required by just using the ref name, instead of the whole citation again.

    --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    Welcome to Wikidata!
    • For references we have Help:Sources with a “Manual of Style” character, but there isn’t a real overview for direct properties or qualifiers. There are plenty of Wikidata:WikiProjects and they often give advice how to organize certain types of items, but you need to find this by yourself. Another possibility would be to use the Wikidata Query Service and query which properties are used in similar items as the one you would like to improve.
    • You can’t add a reference name, but there is a gadget called “DuplicateReferences” at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Once you have a complete reference, you can simply c&p it within an item to other claims. However, it creates hard copies.
    MisterSynergy (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: Greetings MS, I see that very useful. Coming to my second question, it is good to have a tool to duplicate the reference. But is there any way from here to proceed to develop a new feature to add a reference name, because this will not only helps the contributors but also reduce the load on servers. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    The statements in items are meant to be fully independent of each other, thus there are intentionally hard copies of references for each individual statement, and a naming functionality as in Wikipedia is not going to be developed. The gadget just makes it comfortable to use the same source for multiple statements without much click-work. Also: don’t worry about server load  ; WMF has plenty of money, they should invest in case the capacities are not sufficient any longer. Wikidata outshines all other Wikimedia projects in terms of server load anyway (in a couple of measures). —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I guess a rough equivalent of Wikipedia's reference names would be the use of standalone items to store citation metadata. For instance, A novel family of mammalian taste receptors (Q22253877) represents an article that is used in many references (see the incoming links). There can still be variation in the references themselves (for instance, the page numbers can vary.) If you are interested in this topic, feel free to join WikiProject Source Metadata. − Pintoch (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    It seems to fit to this proposal. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - There is the m:WikiCite project, which is "a proposal to build a bibliographic database in Wikidata to serve all Wikimedia projects," so references may not always be hand-done and replicated. Also, welcome to the project, and I'd encourage you to look at Wikidata:WikiProject Books as a well-filled out project that shows what properties are typically used, and how the taxonomy is laid out. -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    Smarter suggestions filling the boxesEdit

    Hi. I'd like to know something more about the way wikidata suggests possible options to the generic editor who is manually improving an item.

    I don't expect everything to be smooth like in the google bar, I understand we have limited means sometimes. However, this example is very common, so I "show" it to you.

    I have recently started to create items of scientists, because I want to see how they evolve and show wikidata to friends who are researcher etc etc... so very often in such biographical items I add "P21". Now, P21 has a clear set of values that are statistically more common... I don't expect the system to tell me automatically that if I insert a value that is uncommon, maybe I should think it twice. Nor I expect it to be so smart that simply typing "m" he knows I probably mean "male"... but it is curious to me that after so many years, if I type "male" the options shown by the scroll down menu put the right "male" item (that is the one "to be used with P21") in the third position. Is it just me? Why for this very very very common use, such option is not the first one?

    Is our system designed not to learn anything ay all from the overall experience and activity of its many users?

    Just curious.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    Yes I noticed the same thing - extremely annoying. I also changed a few mistakes that I found with a query on "male organism" + Q5. Jane023 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Mentioned above in #male. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Really? I usually check but I was in a hurry... we pointed out the same problem in less than few days? :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    instance or subclass of (Q30208840) as a type constraint (Q21503250)Edit

    I've been trying to decrease the number of constraint violations on a few properties including Ensembl Protein ID (P705). In this case, the ideal constraint that would not cause so many violations would be: type constraint (Q21503250) -> (relation (P2309)=instance or subclass of (Q30208840)) && (class (P2308)=protein (Q8054)) because many of the items in this database are actual individual proteins, but many are whole families of proteins. Unfortunately according to Help:Property constraints portal/Type, the only allowed values are instance of (Q21503252) or subclass of (Q21514624). Is this likely to change? I have noticed that there are some other constraint reports crashing because those properties are also trying to use this. @Ivan A. Krestinin, KrBot: --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    There is phab:T169858 to support… :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, perfect. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

    Merge neededEdit

    Can someone review Q22938620 and Q30672323 which are actually the same building? Check out the Mérimée listing though it shows the incorrect image of a different building in rue Gambetta called the w:Hôtel de Bernuy whose wikidata is here: Q22938605. Ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

      Done by ValterVB--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    Featured itemsEdit

    Greetings, as I have been observing the list of items listed as "Popular items" on the Main page, I am concerned about the quality of the item. Most of them don't have any references and also don't have all possible properties. It is not recommendable of present such items on the main page (it is like featuring a stub on en Wikipedia's main page). At this juncture, I propose that instead of "Popular items" we must have "Featured items" (say 5 featured items per day), similar to TFA/TFL on en Wikipedia.

    These "Featured items" will be the items that are well developed with required properties and referenced. Adopting this will not only help us to present the best of Wikidata to world but also motivate the editors focus on the quality of a item rather than just creating and adding properties. I would request all of you please discuss this, and so that we can formulate a good policy for the same. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    Do you mean WD:Showcase items? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Popular items are truly popular items, list generated by bot (see Wikidata:Main Page/Popular/Configuration. Showcase items are presented at "Get involved" section (see Wikidata:Main Page/Get involved) by link to showcase item Douglas Adams (Q42). Feel free to propose better (and more dynamic) presentation. But bear in mind that unfortunately Showcase items project is in fact inactive (feel free to revive it).--Jklamo (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Krishna_Chaitanya_Velaga: Hi, actually the practice of "only top notch content" on the front page of English Wikipedia (and many others) is an annoying artifact I'd like to not repeat here on Wikidata. First, Wikidata is at a much different point in evolution vs. Wikipedia, and we should encourage folks to experiment and get involved. There's nothing better to get people working than to present things that need work. The "Discover" box and featured WikiProject would do a better job of showcasing good work. -- Fuzheado (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    Library of Congress LabsEdit

    The Library of Congress (Q131454) has a new department:Labs. On the overview page they say "We hope this list of APIs, bulk downloads, and tutorials will help you begin exploring the many ways the Library of Congress provides machine-readable access to its digital collections." Could be of interest! YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    Food Web DataEdit

    Does Wikidata do food web data? Like what species prey on what others? Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    It does. Property main food source (P1034) can be part of species description. --Scoid d (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Scoid d:Thanks for the reply. What if it consumes a wide variety of prey items, none of which being "main"? Abyssal (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    You can tell, they are omnivore (Q164509) or define percentages to particular main food source (P1034).--Scoid d (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    how to define religion as LDS?Edit

    Hi, I'm new to Wikidata. I was trying to do some data queries on Latter-day Saints, but I discovered that many prominent Latter-day Saints don't yet have their religion defined. I added "religion - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young's entries, but I'm not sure if that was the right way to say it, because if someone asked me my religion I would say "Latter-day Saint" or "Mormon", not "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." However, I noticed that Pope Francis's religion is "Catholic Church". Is this the correct way to add the religion statement? Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    @Rachel Helps (BYU): yes that looks fine, that is the right way to use that property. Please note religion for living people should be only added with a supporting reference. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    Project conflictEdit

    Can an administrator please revert this action. People over here can explain Wikidata rules better than I can, might it enter into an edit war. Someone on Dutch Wikipedia feels this is a private opinion, on Dutch Wikinews reviews can be written (this is a procedural option of "original news"). Ymnes (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    They shouldn't be connected with a movie, though. There can be multiple reviews or other articles about a subject, so they should be seperate entities. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    The addressed link is a link to personal review of the movie. Personal reviews contain personal opinions and such shouldn't be in a project Wikinews in the first place, but since there original editor is somewhat the only editor and admin on the Dutch Wikinews, there is no chance of having the review being removed from that project. The second, suboptimal solution is to remove links to that project and that is what happened. Please follow this link for the discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. Thanks, Brimz (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Ymnes: For matters requiring administrator intervention, please use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    dump of gamesEdit

    where can I find the dump of this game. I want list of the suggestionsYamaha5 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    you should try and contact @Magnus Manske: :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    I made you a snapshot of the database. These are all current people candidates that have not been set in the game. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    @Magnus Manske: thanks that is great! I have a bot which adds some claims to human items base on fawiki's article and it works more than 2 years. I will run it on these items and it will add proper claims. also please send the game's items to finish this game which have article at fawiki Yamaha5 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    Use of number of speakers (P1098) for describing a sociolinguistic situationEdit

    Hello! The authors of the index of the Basque language street use has realeades a bunch of data in order to upload to Wikimedia projects. It has the percentage of daily use of a language in different locations. They ask if it would be possible to have it in Wikidata and, if not possible, we could upload this data to the templates in Wikipedia. I was thinking about number of speakers (P1098). Could it be used correctly in this way?

    Ondarroa (Q595283) -> number of speakers (P1098) -> 79,70% |-> of (P642) -> Basque (Q8752)

    Any other solution? -Theklan (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    No, number of speakers (P1098) shows number of speakers of that language in the world. The correct use would be "language spoken in area: basque, proportion (P1107): 79,70%". I can't find whether we have such a property at the moment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Theklan: It's language used (P2936). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    People changing country namesEdit

    The most common type of vandalism I'm currently seeing here (possibly because each edit is repeated many times on my enwp watchlist) is people changing country names. The most recent example is [2], but I've seen it across different countries. It feels like this isn't intentional vandalism - it looks like people might be trying to correct the country that something is in, but I have no idea where/why/how. Has anyone else spotted this / got any theories about where it could be coming from? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

    • Yes, I'm undoing one or two of these almost every day. As you say, only a handful of them look like vandalism — many are these are similar of your example (someone changing the name of a country from, say, Colombia to Venezuela), implying that they think they're trying to correct a country reference on an entirely different page, but end up changing the label of the country instead. --Oravrattas (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    In my opinion it is normal intentional vandalism from mobile device, from the point of vandal it is changing label of adjacent contry to name of "my" country. Quite common. Semi-protection is a way to avoid this.--Jklamo (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Jklamo: Can we semi-protect labels whilst leaving the rest of the entry editable? If so, that might be a good way forward for country names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    acting governorEdit

    I intended to update the governor of Stockholm County (Q104231) to the new one. But I discovered that new hasn't been installed yet. An "Åsa Ryding" will be "acting governor" until November 1. How do I describe this? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    One way would be to use "acting" as a qualifier. This would cut the time in two.. a period with the qualifier and one without. NB in many instances an "acting" period is combined with the period after an inauguration. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, I made a try. head of government (P6):Åsa Ryding (Q40549831) as deputy governor (Q40550232) from 2017-09-01
    A new office holder will be installed as of November 1. Remind me then! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    To also state the unsaid here. "Åsa Ryding" is not the person who will be governor in Nov 1. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    Advice needed for importing Japanese Database of National important cultural propertiesEdit

    Hi all

    I'm helping to import the Japanese Database of National important cultural properties into Wikidata, its the Japanese list of listed buildings. One of the parameters in the list is a classification from 1 - 9, however the definitions for each classification are very broad. It appears to me that it would not be possible to use these classifications as a way of adding data to 'instance of' in the usual way because they are not specific enough. I can think of two options:

    1. Create items for each of the types e.g 'Japanese Database of National important cultural properties type 1' and then include them in the property 'instance of'
    2. A new property for 'Japanese Database of National important cultural properties type'

    Thoughts?

    Thanks

    --John Cummings (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    Creating a new property is possible, see for instance Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (P2643) which is used like this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q49108#P2643 . However, I'm not sure how useful this format is − you really need to know about that particular property to use the data. But messing up with the ontology is not particularly appealing either. − Pintoch (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    Nationality automatic statementsEdit

    I have seen it more than a couple of times, so I'm putting a note here. en:Jus soli is not the case for most of the countries. So, automatic creation of a P27 statement based on the place of birth can be wrong in many cases. A person born in Athens would be Ottoman if born 300 years ago, or even Japanese if they were born during their parents vacation in Greece... :-) -Geraki (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    I agree. Also country of citizenship (P27) in many cases are not related to "Nationality". For example Albrecht Dürer is usually described as "German" in wikipedia articles and external sources, but there is no way to look up his nationality on Wikidata. Albrecht Dürer (Q5580)instance of (P31)   is Duchy of Bavaria (Q47261) (hypothesis (Q41719)), I do not know how to write a template (or even a query) to convert that to German nationality. That is why I proposed to create "nationality" property. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'd support a property for "nationality". - PKM (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    PKM, than vote (and maybe explain why) at Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality. --Jarekt (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    Dates with Gregorian and Julian DatesEdit

    I find many aspects of our current model of storing dates in different calendars very messy. Just to name a few:

    1. There are many items that save the same date using both Gregorian and Julian Calendar. For example Eugene Felitsyn (Q22687867) has date of birth (P569) set to "" and to " (Julian)"; However that is just two notations of the same date equivalent of storing the same elevation above sea level (P2044) in meters, kilometers and feet because all 3 units are allowed. Maybe it would be simpler to keep a single value in most appropriate calendar (Julian before 1584 and Gregorian afterwards) and use software to convert dates to desired ones if needed. For example {{#invoke:Calendar|Julian2Gregorian|1848-03-05}} gives "1848-03-17", so there is no need for both.
    2. Julian vs. Gregorian calendars make little sense for dates with century, decade or even year precision. For example S Potter (Q2204465) has date of birth (P569) set to "5. century BCE" one in Julian and one in Gregorian Calendar. Both statements are true but Gregorian "5. century BCE" date makes very little sense. I think it would make sense to change dates with century, decade or year precision to the appropriate calendar (Julian before 1584 and Gregorian afterwards).

    There is phabricator:T105100 task related to this, although I did not read the whole discussion yet. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    If there is more than one source, it's probably best to give the version of the date that's contained in the source, to make it easier for people who verify the date in the source but don't know how to do calendar conversions.
    If it's clear what calendar should apply to the event, the calendar field should reflect that.
    It's just not true that dates in or after 1584 are necessarily Gregorian. Large parts of Europe, nearby areas, and colonies continued to use Julian; Greece didn't convert until 1923.
    I think the most widespread cause of false dates is the claim in the data model documentation that we pay attention to time zones (although w:Universal Time is the only zone we can use) when in reality nearly all sources state time in local time, and our editors and bots nearly always copy dates from sources to Wikidata with no attempt to allow for time zone. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    Last week, I was implementing calendar conversion to cswiki modules. Having looked for testcases, I found many items with dates in Julian calendar, which had already been converted to Gregorian. These are probably relicts from older software that managed time values inconsistently.
    The calendar should follow the same pattern like quantity values with units, ie. should be based on the original source. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    I know that many countries used Julian dates after 1584, the same way US is still using feet and gallons instead of metric units, but that does not mean we need to store same information using all available units. For example this query
    SELECT ?item ?julianDate ?gregorianDate
    {
      ?item p:P569 ?date1 .
      ?item p:P569 ?date2 FILTER( ?date2 != ?date1 ) . # more than one statement
      ?date1 psv:P569 [ wikibase:timeValue ?julianDate;    wikibase:timeCalendarModel wd:Q1985786; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer; ] .
      ?date2 psv:P569 [ wikibase:timeValue ?gregorianDate; wikibase:timeCalendarModel wd:Q1985727; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer; ] .
      FILTER( ?julianDate = ?gregorianDate )      .
    }       
    LIMIT 100
    

    Try it!

    finds cases where we have 2 statements with the same date one in Gregorian and one in Julian calendar. I do not think we need both, as those statements are identical. If we want to keep both we could have a qualifier like "date in calendar used by the source" to store the date in easier to verify format. But we should not keep the same date in two different statements using the same units. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    Actually maybe the qualifier should be named "date in other calendar" so items like Vladimir Steklov (Q559188) can have 2 references for the same statement. --Jarekt (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    batch-add statements to items from a Wikipedia category?Edit

    Is there a way to automatically add properties to certain items that are in the same Wikipedia category? For example, I'd like to add occupation>prophet to all the people in the Wikipedia Category:Presidents of the Church (LDS Church). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

    I could get the members of the category in a spreadsheet with the Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets, for use in quickstatements... but I'm not sure if there's a way to get WikiData identifiers from the Tools for Google Spreadsheets. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    You can use PetScan. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    I got it to work with the Google spreadsheets. Quickstatements can convert from enwiki article titles (I found out). This is like magic! Anyone can use quickstatements? I'm kind of scared that I might mess up, but I'm also excited to add data! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Rachel Helps (BYU): - Welcome! Yes, anyone can use Quickstatements. I pretty much do what you did - use Petscan to generate a list of articles in a category, and then export that as CSV. I then import that into Google Sheets, and then use the Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets to grab Wikidata Q numbers, and then generate triples using forumlas to feed to Quickstatements. I also have a script that invokes ORES, so that you can see the article rating of the corresponding Wikipedia articles, and creates a summary of the overall quality of the set. Ping me if you want the code or you want to play with it. -- Fuzheado (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Fuzheado: I am interested in your script for article ratings! It seems like it would be good for finding stubs to work on in a certain category. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    ISNI - data donation 2017-09-22 - 1000 itemsEdit

    For your consideration, 1000 ISNI that are missing.

    Large amount of raw data not suitable for Project chat page; still available at [3]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    With section link: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=563497464#ISNI_-_data_donation_2017-09-22_-_1000_items 92.231.173.171 13:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    85.182.0.43 03:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    Suggested personal projectEdit

    Hello.I want to work on this idea.Do you think it is useful and should be implemented?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    • No, I don't think it's useful. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I can barely understand what that page is about but no, inverse properties are what we try to avoid. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You don’t have to ask for a “personal” project. However, if you want other editors to join a project, use of English would be useful. I barely understand what your plans are. Nevertheless I support the view of others in this section that inverse properties should be rare exceptional cases and, if somehow possible, avoided. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    ISNI - data donation 2017-09-22 - 10000 itemsEdit

    For your consideration, 10000 ISNI that are missing.

    Large amount of raw data not suitable for Project chat page; still available at [4]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    With section link https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=563720499#ISNI_-_data_donation_2017-09-22_-_10000_items 92.231.173.171 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    92.231.173.171 12:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    Hello, random Berliner that we at Wikidata hope isn't Tobias! You are welcome to add those ISNIs yourself, with ISNIs represented as four blocks of four digits, by changing every line in your dataset to one of the form Q$1<tab>P213<tab>$2 (where $1 is the QID, $2 is the appropriate ISNI, and <tab> represents an actual horizontal tab), at QuickStatements (this will require you to log in). Mahir256 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    problem with a page move on WikipediaEdit

    Hey can someone with more page move experience tell me what happened here? The user claims good faith, see User talk:Zawl. I discovered this when I noticed the enwiki page had no item associated with it and the links on Wikidata were all going to an enwiki list article. Is this some sort of new vandalism that takes advantage of unsuspecting Wikipedia page movers? Thx. Jane023 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    [5] offers the explanation. One of those moves was skipped because it involved "Draft" namespace, which is not permitted here. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks! I saw that but couldn't understand what happened (also because of the redlinks). So does this mean that potentially all recent page moves using that gadget since the draft namespace was started has broken Wikidata sitelinks? If so, then someone should 1) change that thing and 2) do a bot run and cleanup. Jane023 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    yeah, maybe we need to throttle wikidata deletions of moves to draft space or worklists, since it thrashes multiple wikidata item creations. the edit warring over article names, should not lose an item; the "move to draft" rather than deletion, should not be rewarded here. Slowking4 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    The issue here is the silly "round robin" system on pagemoves on enwiki, because RfA there is too broken to elect enough new admins so they need to let non-admins do this. Not sure how to fix this on our end. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    i seem to recall moves to draft, not being deleted here, before the notability "improvement". maybe wikidata should go back to that practice. since that is more likely than english becoming unbroken. Slowking4 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    Well first steps should be to somehow determine impact. I don't actually know when the draft namespace was invented or on which wikis it is actually used, but I guess there must be a way to check for Wikidata sitelink changes based on draft namespace moves and then try to figure out how many such events have occurred. If it is a low number, then maybe just leave it up to page watchers who notice? This item had lots of sitelinks, but presumably there are way more out there that have local wiki pagename-wars with much fewer interwikilinks. This situation only lasted I guess for about 3 hours, which isn't too bad. I do get that such Wikipedia local gadgets can't be corrected on the basis of what happens here, but this is a really weird one that completely confounded me. Jane023 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    Q4755253Edit

    This has links to the en-wiki Andrea Robinson page and the commons File:Andrea Robinson.jpg. They are not the same person - see https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-robinson-6262084/ and OTRS 2017091410022554. I've removed the image link on en-wiki, not sure if anything needs to be done here. Ronhjones (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

    ISNI - data donation 2017-09-23 - 6504 items (all starting with "8")Edit

    [6]  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.226.163.169 (talk • contribs) at 08:20, 23 September 2017‎ (UTC).

    This is still not an import hub, so I moved the raw data to the version history again. @all: please mind that the anon user is globally banned (User:Tamawashi), and meanwhile this IP was blocked here as well, thus the data set should be used with extreme caution. The same applies to the other two data sets from yesterday. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    Author namesEdit

    I'm coming to the conclusion that we need to vastly increase the use of stated as (P1932) qualifiers on author (P50), on items about works, and to encourage colleagues to copy vales from author name string (P2093), rather than discarding them when a P50 is added. Please see the discussion on this, at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData#Author names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    +1 on this. - PKM (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    Properties for magazinesEdit

    Hello. I need some help with properties about a magazine (based on w:en:Template:Infobox magazine). I know we are not always have to have properties for every parameter of a template. I am just asking to find is we already have appropriate properties for each parameter.

    1. Should we use genre (P136) or main subject (P921)? (parameter category)
      Examples,
    2. Show we use country of origin (P495) or country (P17)?
    3. For editor should I use publisher (P123) ? And what about editor (P98) ?
    4. Any properties for staff writer and photographer?
    5. Any property for frequency?
    6. What about circulation, paid circulation, unpaid circulation, circulation year, total circulation?
    7. Is there a way to show firstdate (other than inception (P571) which I used for "founded"? And for finaldate and finalnumber?
    8. Property for company?

    Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu   Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals Thank you! I was having similar doubts.

    1. genre (P136) when is an instance of magazine genre (Q21114848) or main subject (P921) when is a subject.
    2. I would lean towards country of origin (P495) because a magazine (Q41298) is a creative work (Q17537576); nevertheless, country (P17) would be a better option if magazine is also classed as an organization (Q43229) (point 8).
    3. publisher (P123) when referring to an organisation, and editor (P98) for a person.
    4. I've been using contributor(s) to the subject (P767) with qualifier as (P794) when needed.
    5. For frequency, there is publication interval (P2896).
    6. Only one I could find is number of subscribers (P3744), but it won't cover all.
    7. inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) are the best options, although not fully satisfying. Don't know how to treat magazines that have had closures and reopened on a later date.
    8. Don't undestand this one. But I came up with a problem: founded by (P112) and manager/director (P1037) seem quite useful, but they trigger a constraint violation because they should only by used for organisations; however, magazines are not classed as such. Maybe we need to change that. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    I agree with

    1. genre (P136) when is an instance of magazine genre (Q21114848)
    2. I would prefer country (P17) (rather than country of origin (P495)), but in the end... both are acceptable.
    3. publisher (P123) when referring to an organisation
    4. no opinion
    5. publication interval (P2896) is adequate - no issue here
    6. we have a long way to go for this one - we should probably consult how the movies are handling audience
    7. inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) are the adequate. I agree that we need something different for magazines that have had closures and reopened on a later date.
    8. For company... could it be owned by (P127)?

    --FocalPoint (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    For 2, "country of origin (P495)" is preferable; country (P17) implies that the magazine is not available outside that country. For 7 (especially multiple occurrences mentioned by FocalPoint), consider also described at URL (P973). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    We also have Wikidata:Property proposal/readership going on. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    I'm putting together an information page about reusing Wikidata data on other Wikimedia projects next week, please help/brain dump all your ideasEdit

    Hi all

    I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope this will help people having the same discussions repeatedly and allay and address many of the concerns of users from other projects. I also hope it will convince some of them to contribute to Wikidata :)

    I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from Wikidata on other Wikimedia projects and working my way back from there, please do take a look and add arguments, replies, links and any other information you think is useful. Doesn't need to be perfect, I'll tidy it up.

    User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in_Wikimedia_projects

    Thanks very much

    --John Cummings (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)John

    Language fallback not working with #babel template?Edit

    The #babel template doesn't seem to be working properly for me, at least for the "Label/Description/Also known as" box. I've been using it for about a year and a half, and it would always show all the language I have listed. But I just took two months off, and now that I'm back, only my top two languages show up (as well as Burmese and Shan, which I can't read at all). -- Irn (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC) (Please ping me when responding.)

    Hm, this reminds me of Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/09#Adding labels, so perhaps there was something that broke this. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you, that does seem to be the same problem. -- Irn (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Irn: This should be fixed now, I did a null edit to your user page (clicked "edit" and saved the page without changing anything). Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Hoo man: That seems to have worked! Thank you so much! (Sometimes I really don't understand how these things work...) Cheers, -- irn (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    BNFEdit

    Can someone show me how to link the BNF for Paul Reimers (Q40813535) http://data.bnf.fr/14219714/paul_reimers/  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) at 24. 9. 2017, 00:24‎ (UTC).

    you need to find Paul Reimers (Q40813535)'s BnF ID (P268), which can be done as follow from http://data.bnf.fr/14219714/paul_reimers/ :

    Maxlath (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    @Maxlath: Do we capture the other link anywhere so we get the photograph? http://data.bnf.fr/14219714/paul_reimers/ --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_): no, pictures need to be on Wikimedia Commons (Q565) so that you can add a statement linking to it using the property image (P18). But if the picture is in the public domain, you can import it to Wikimedia Commons (Q565), and then link to it. -- Maxlath (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    CebuanoEdit

    Has anyone else noticed that there are a lot of geographical duplicates in the Cebuano language with English ones? Abano Terme (Q30021869) and Abano Terme (Q34603). I found dozens and merged ones where the Geonames matched exactly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, I believe the Cebuano (ceb) and Swedish (sv) Wikipedias used a bot to auto-generate hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles from Geonames data dumps and other sources. However, because there seems to have been no inclination to link these to existing interlanguage articles, Wikidata items or even Geonames IDs, another bot detects the articles as a distinct concept and creates a new Wikidata item. --Canley (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Just search "Cebuano" or "cebwiki" in Wikidata:Project chat/Archive and see. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Note that one is the municipality seat and the other is the municipality itself. Cebwiki and svwiki describe those seperatly, but most Wikipedia's combine them. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Also note that all the "populated places" who has been created by GeoNames do not exists in reality outside of the GeoNames database. That could include some of these municipality seats. GeoNames has simply copied all names on some maps, and interpreted them as "populated places". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Its not just the duplication due to the "populated place" vs. "administrative subdivision" in Geonames, there are also many hills, rivers and others which already had an item here duplicated with a new item from this geonames import. And to make it worse - 95% of the hills/mountains I merged so far had a totally bogus height value, sometimes more than 100 meter lower than the real value. But all the hills which had nothing to merge still keep the misleading height value. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is Cebearth. We are so respectful of individual Wikipedias here that we let them create an entirely new planet here with our congratulations. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Should a geography expert be doing the merges, or should I merge them when they are obvious? Some take an extraordinary amount of effort to distinguish. I might have spent 30 minutes determining that two cemeteries were the same. It was listed in two different towns with different GPS coordinates. It was the same, just large so was in two towns. Wasn't that "entirely new planet" supposed to collide with Earth and destroy Wikipedia when you wrote that? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Right, Cebuano is a curious case of massive bot creation. Ceb.wp has only 4 admins, 2 very active editors, and 99% of their edits from bots. Today, they have nearly the same number of articles as English Wikipedia, and seem to be generating 10x as many articles per day as en.wp. At this rate, they will overtake English Wikipedia fairly soon. [7] -- Fuzheado (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    The project is currently in the US. Not much left of the alphabet. Thereafter it will probably shrink because of clean up. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    Is it OK to note that somebody is an artist using P31?Edit

    This question was already asked at Property_talk:P31#Usage without an answer, Help:Basic_membership_properties#instance_of_.28P31.29 is not helpful. See User_talk:Sjoerddebruin#why.3F for an initial discussion.

    Is it acceptable to add artist (Q483501) in instance of (P31) to note that somebody is an artist? User:Sjoerddebruin advocates using occupation (P106) and removing instance of (P31) and I am unsure whatever it is preferable. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    Using occupation (P106) is the de facto convention at least: for the same statement, there are 13687 cases using P106 while there are only 6 using P31 (which should probably be corrected). Maxlath (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    If someone is an actor (Q33999) would you add that to instance of (P31) too? In both cases it's an occupation/profession so it belongs in occupation (P106). Mbch331 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    I added note to Property_talk:P31#Usage - maybe there is a better place to describe how property should not be used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't expect much people to look at that talk page. Most people look at other items. You're not the only one though, the label of instance of (P31) might be confusing for some people. If they do that property wrong, they will not get the best suggestions. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Well, at least I checked - so I expect that at least in some rare cases it will be useful (and this is one of the most popular properties) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    How can I remove sitelink?Edit

    Sitelink to commons at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11832547 is wrong. How can I remove it? Using edit in "Other sites" section gives me option to add a new one at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:SetSiteLink/Q11832547 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    This was blocking the attempt to correct Płaszów (Q11832547) to sitelink to c:Category:Płaszów. I have now resolved all of the above. Jheald (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    Soweego: wide-coverage linking of external identifiers. Call for supportEdit

    Pardon me if you have already read this in the Wikidata mailing list.

    Hi everyone,

    Remember the primary sources tool?
    While the StrepHit team is building its next version, I'd like to invite you to have a look at a new project proposal. The main goal is to add a high volume of identifiers to Wikidata, ensuring live maintenance of links.

    Do you think that Wikidata should become the central linking hub of open knowledge?

    If so, I'd be really grateful if you could endorse the soweego project:
    m:Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego

    Of course, any comment is more than welcome on the discussion page.

    Looking forward to your valuable feedback.
    Best,

    --Hjfocs (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    Q41000000Edit

    Where is no label (Q41000000)? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    Probably skipped. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    Wikidata weekly summary #279Edit

    How can I note that object is "dissolved, abolished or demolished" but it is not demolished?Edit

    dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) on Auschwitz concentration camp (Q7341) is correct - but how can I note that buildings remained and are now used as an museum?

    I found replaced by (P1366) but it may be applied also for situations where feature was completely destroyed and new is in the same place.

    Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    @Mateusz Konieczny: Use significant event (P793) instead, with a suitable qualifier; or as a qualifier of P576. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    label list javascriptEdit

    anyone care to take ownership, explain the javascript routine now required to edit labels? how do i turn it off? the load time is so long, i will be suspending editing labels, until it is fixed. Slowking4 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    Warden of Sing SingEdit

    I want to create an instance of a position called "Warden of Sing Sing". Should I use the Template:Q7969149 which describes the Wikipedia entry for the list of wardens, or create something new? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)