Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata:Project chat

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018/08.

Contents

Property constraints – music releasesEdit

Should both AllMusic album ID (P1729) and AllMusic song ID (P1730) be allowed on the same item? AllMusic has album identifiers for singles, and currently items about songs released as singles seem to be about both the song (the musical work) and the single (the product/release containing that musical work and maybe another). The alternate way of modelling this would be to treat all singles as albums and prevent songs from being also classified as singles, which would require the creation of a lot of items. Jc86035 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It also seems that AllMusic generates one song ID per track per album (resulting in at least ten duplicate IDs for Thriller (Q380825)). Jc86035 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

AllMusic album ID (P1729) and AllMusic song ID (P1730) should not be allowed on the same item. A single release and the song are also two different things and should get their own items. The current situation with song and single sharing one item seems to me rather provisional. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: Yes, I thought so too. I've been trying to model (and source) Eastside (Q55975144), and so far I've made items for the song itself, its music video, and the single releases on iTunes/Apple Music and Spotify. To me it would be logical to have items for each copy of the video (on YouTube and iTunes), each release of the single (on iTunes, Spotify, ...), the music video, the single and the song. I'm not sure whether the release on YouTube Music counts as a video or an audio track. Jc86035 (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
(I've assumed it makes sense to have separate items for the iTunes and Spotify singles because they have different metadata and the iTunes single is stated to have been released a day later. Same reasoning for the videos; the YouTube video is also slightly longer. The iTunes music video is pending a property proposal.) Jc86035 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I never thought about the modelling of different distributions and at this moment it does not seem necessary to have different items for these, unless there are other differences (sometimes releases differ in the tracks they contain). I think one could just put the release dates on the single item, maybe with qualifiers (as done for most films).
I would rather think about creating items for each recording of a song, as this may be needed to express who performed a song (line-up changes, cover versions) and sometimes one release may contain different recordings of a song. To have an example: The Number of the Beast (Q43883448) has two single releases: The Number of the Beast (Q780895) (1982) and The Number of the Beast (Q3988522) (2005). The Number of the Beast (Q3988522) (2005) contains the original version and additionally a live recording from 2002 with a different line-up. (About this topic there was a discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Music#recording/performance_informations_of_songs).
It could make sense to have an own item for the music video, if one wants to indicate information like choreographer, director, etc. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I considered merging the iTunes and Spotify items, but I think I didn't know how to model "iTunes" and "Spotify" into the qualifiers for date and so on (I had to undo the merge). It does make sense to make additional qualifiers for separate recordings of a song, but how would this be structured? Would the original recording be the canonical version (with modified version of (P5059)), or would the song itself be a separate entity from both versions (with edition or translation of (P629))? I think either approach would make sense depending on when each version is recorded/released; if they're released at the same time then edition or translation of (P629) might make more sense. Jc86035 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I see that publisher (P123) is used on no label (Q55977614) to link this to spotify. So maybe one could use publisher (P123) as a qualifier for differing dates?
If one would create items for recordings of a song one could use recording or performance of (P2550).
With recording or performance of (P2550) one would have the following items/statements for The Number of the Beast (Q43883448):
The same would apply to cover versions. Consider the song Hurt (Q1142043):
One would link to album or single releases like above.
modified version of (P5059) is also an option. The biggest advantage of using modified version of (P5059) would be probably the one that an item for the first recording may be omitted. Following recordings would be own versions of the initial recording-work. (So one would have <The Number of the Beast (2002 recording)> modified version of (P5059) The Number of the Beast (Q43883448) (comprising both the song level and the 1982 recording) and Hurt (Q51448159) (Johnny Cash) modified version of (P5059) Hurt (Q1142043) (Nine Inch Nails). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I think publisher (P123) might not be the best option to indicate this, since Spotify and Apple aren't really publishers of music (and a release on Apple Music can be much later than the release on the iTunes Store). Something like [service] → Apple Music (Q20056642) might be the best option. online service (P2361) seems to be for something else but maybe its scope could be broadened to be more like that of platform (P400). Jc86035 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
According to the examples at the property page online service (P2361) could be fitting. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I've merged the items for the single into one. I don't think there's anything wrong with it right now. Jc86035 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Valentina.Anitnelav, Mahir256: Let's say I want to represent the release history of Popular Song (Q7229734), which currently has one item representing the song (sung by Mika (Q186329) and Priscilla Renea (Q7245622)) and the re-recording (sung by Mika and Ariana Grande (Q151892)), as well as the single (which consists of the latter). I'd also want to model Popular (Q3908430) (the song from the musical Wicked), since it's sampled prominently in "Popular Song".

  1. I'm guessing there should be one item each for "Popular Song", the re-recording, and the single, modelled as described above.
  2. Is the canonical version of "Popular" the composition by Stephen Schwartz (Q542484), or the track sung by Kristin Chenoweth (Q231811) on the cast recording, Wicked (Q7998266)? Are they the same thing?
  3. Is Popular Song (Q7229734) instance of (P31) recording (Q13557414)/music track (Q7302866) (as well as a song)?
  4. Is "Popular Song" based on (P144) "Popular" because of its sample? Is there a better way to explain this?
  5. Is Chenoweth a performer on "Popular Song", or is this assumed because of the indication of the sample?

Jc86035 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Some preliminary thoughts on your questions (numbered for clarity):
  1. Yes; a single release may have B-sides or multiple remixes or edits of a song that themselves may be included in other albums or compilations.
  2. The canonical version should be the composition by Stephen Schwartz, since those who perform Wicked on stage may not necessarily wish to base their stylistic choices on a specific performance of the musical.
  3. If it is uniquely identified by a given International Standard Recording Code (P1243) and MusicBrainz recording ID (P4404), then yes. (We probably should reserve P31 "song" for the composition and not its recordings.)
  4. In this case we may wish to add a "samples" property to make this relationship clear (something especially useful for hip-hop tracks; this also could permit a "whosampled.com ID" for individual songs).
  5. I would defer to what the official credits for a given song say, in an effort to express relationships similar to how, for example, Stan (Q312122) was 'written' in part by Dido despite the relevant portion of that song being ripped from Thank You (Q1635376).
Mahir256 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Treating e.g. "Popular Song" as a composition separate from the original recording (instead of just as a "song") really complicates things, I think, since covers which aren't note-perfect facsimiles would also have to have an item for their arrangement. Is the cover then a work based on the recording or the composition? I think arguably they should be represented as one and the same because the production of a song might not be "recorded" in the literal sense of being based on a real recorded sound. Jc86035 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I'm quite torn between the ideas of collapsing the levels of work and recording for (most) songs in popular music and keeping them distinct. There are definitely advantages concerning cover versions (for some it is quite a stretch to call them just recordings of an existing work, as there might be considerable changes (genre, tonality, etc.) and it is actually hard for most songs in recent popular music to refer to a "work" apart from the recording (the vagueness concerning those features as tonality, rhythm, etc. (if abstracted from a certain recording/performance) and the relevance of improvisation contributes to this)). But there are also disadvantages: We would need to treat classical music (and maybe songs with a traditional songwriter) and popular music differently and we would need to call the recording of a live performance of a band of a song previously recorded by themselves in studio a "modified version". There is also the question of the identification of composer/lyricist: would we want to indicate them at every version - then it might be better to have an own composition item? Or would we just indicate them at the original version, maybe indicating arrangers at the other version via adapted by (P5202)? As to your questions:
  1. I agree with you and Mahir256: There needs to be at least an item for the recording-work ("canonical version"), the rerecording ("different version") and the single (depending if we want a uniform way of modeling classical music and popular music there might be the need of a work/composition-item)
  2. There should be definitely a separate item for the composition by Stephen Schwartz and each recording/performance should be distinct from this item. In most cases a separate item for the performance of a song in a musical might not be needed, as it is sufficient to have an item for the performance of the whole musical with cast information and to indicate the character featured in this song to deduce that a performer performed a song on stage. But if an item for a recording is needed (e.g. to specify that this was sampled in another work or to link it to a release) it should be created.
  3. Popular Song (Q7229734) is currently a single. If one creates an item for the song one could think about collapsing this with the recording.
  4. There is has melody (P1625) that could be used to indicate that Popular Song (Q7229734) (on the composition level) uses a melody from the composition of Stephen Schwartz (but this would be just on the composition level). To indicate that Popular Song (Q7229734) (the recording/performance) uses actual sound from the recording by Kristin Chenoweth (Q231811) another property might be needed (If a new property is created this could also be used to indicate that a certain track is used in a film, when there is no soundtrack album) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I agree with you and Mahir256 on points 2 and 4. For point 3, I would keep all the interwiki links on the item about the original song recorded with Renea, and split the single and the version with Grande off into new items, since in my enwiki experience (from substituting Template:Infobox single (Q8999420) with a bot account) it's very rare for an article to be about the single release rather than the song unless there are two or more A-sides (which is also quite rare outside "single albums").
I think it's interesting to note that "a song by" usually means the songwriter only in enwiki articles for songs up to about 1960, or otherwise for songs where the sheet music isn’t just a partial transcription of the recording and/or was released before any recordings (e.g. Palladio (Q19059210)). There would probably be some edge cases (I think classical pieces published as recordings first would have to be both recording and composition).
If nothing else, recordings of live performances by the original artist could use a specific Wikidata item ("live recording of a song"?) which is classified differently in some way to cover version (Q155171) and live album (Q209939). For performances themselves, I think maybe a new "setlist" property (like tracklist (P658)) could be used to avoid creating new items for performances which weren't commercially released and don't have their own identifiers. Jc86035 (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Moebeus: Would you have any input about this? Jc86035 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Before I begin: Classical music is "it's own thing" and we shouldn't try to model pop songs after how classical music is treated or vice versa. There are obviously some gliding, overlapping areas between the two but I think that belongs in a separate discussion (or discussions). I come from the world of popular music, and will try to limit my comments to that field. Musical works, recordings and releases are three well established, well understood, separate things. That WD often conflates song and single I view as a legacy issue stemming from Wikipedia, and something that slowly will disappear over time as we the editors properly split these items up into their proper parts. What I personally would really, really like to see is the inverse of recording or performance of (P2550), something like a "has recordings" property to use with musical works, to properly model both ways of the relationship. Should both AllMusic album ID (P1729) and AllMusic song ID (P1730) be allowed on the same item? The answer is no in my opinion, they clearly represent different things. We should encourage entering data "properly" and strive to correct historical entries. I apologize for not answering everything but I need some more time to parse through this large (but very interesting!) discussion Moebeus (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Inverse propertiesEdit

On the whole thing about using explicit inverse properties: can someone explain to me why there is so much of this in Wikidata? Is it just that it would be so computationally intensive to find the incoming references to an item? If so, couldn't we still only explicitly maintain one side of such a relationship and have a notion of certain properties having an inverse, so that when the property is added, modified, or deleted the inverse is automatically maintained, rather than someone needing to do so explicitly? (An approach like that would also guarantee consistency.) - Jmabel (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I have no idea. has part (P527) was created without consensus, for what it's worth.
I think it could be just part of a broader norm/tendency to add as much data as possible to prettify items. For example, at time of writing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Q55223040) has somewhat unnecessary qualifiers for place of birth (P19), since in its existence the Bronx has always been part of both New York and the US.
As another example, MusicBrainz recording ID (P4404) was originally supposed to be used as a qualifier for tracklist (P658) (and I have done so as well), even though this shouldn't actually be necessary since each song/track item should have at most one (barring MusicBrainz errors), or at worst zero (which makes its use as a disambiguating qualifier sort of useless); similarly for series ordinal (P1545) on part of (P361) qualifiers for songs/recordings, which duplicate tracklist (P658) qualifiers on albums, singles and their versions. Jc86035 (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

More modelling thingsEdit

@Mahir256, Valentina.Anitnelav: Let's say I want to model the song Make You Feel My Love (Q1886329) (by Bob Dylan), along with its three covers that were released as singles (by Billy Joel, Garth Brooks and Adele). So far, these items exist:

Let's also assume that I'm not going to bother doing any more tracklist (P658) things because it takes too long and MusicBrainz doesn't even have identifiers for all four of Adele's single releases.

  1. Wikipedia says the Joel single was actually the first release, as Joel's album was released on 19 August 1997 (no single date given), before Dylan's album was released on 30 September 1997 (single was apparently released in 2010). Is the song still a Dylan song?
  2. How is "Make You Feel My Love" (Live At Hotel Cafe) classified? Is it more than a version (Q3331189)? Do we need to create an item for tracks which were recorded live and are versions of another song (i.e. tracks on a live album (Q209939))?
  3. If "Make You Feel My Love" (Live At Hotel Cafe) and the studio version were released at the same time, is the studio version automatically the canonical version by virtue of not having a parenthetical disambiguator on its track name?
  4. Does Wikidata need to record track names like "Make You Feel My Love (Live At Hotel Cafe)", or should they only be in named as (P1810) qualifiers to references while the actual name stays in title (P1476)?
  5. There are no credits on Adele's music video (at YouTube, at least) that say that it uses the live recording. I had to figure it out based on the differences between the tracks. If I can't find a source for this, will it eventually have to be removed?
  6. Is a gramophone record (Q178588) automatically assumed to have a certain diameter and rotational speed? There is an item for the 12-inch single (Q918887), but not for any other sort of record. Should this information be in qualifiers for distribution (P437) statements, or should separate items be created?
  7. If a single has more than two tracks, is it automatically a maxi single (Q3046922) or a "single album", or do we ignore that terminology in classifying singles?

Jc86035 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I will only refer to questions 1-4:
  1. If one takes the definition of a cover version (too) literally one might get the idea of Joel's version being the original and Bob Dylan's the cover, but I actually don't find anybody claiming this and this seems rather counter-intuitive to me (he wrote the song as a singer-songwriter with intending to perform it himself), but this is still an interesting case.
  2. version (Q3331189) is a possibility, one could also think about using music track (Q7302866) (which rather puts stress on the recording aspect) or musical performance (Q6942562) (which rather puts stress on the performance aspect). To use Make You Feel My Love (Q56085861) (live recording) recording or performance of (P2550): Make You Feel My Love (Q56085788) (studio version) might be conceptually rather odd if we think of Make You Feel My Love (Q56085788) as a recording-work (because then we would have a recording of a recording). There is revival or touring version of (P5328), intended for performance works, maybe this could be an option for linking the live performance/recording to the studio version, but I'm not sure (@Beat Estermann: as he proposed this property}}). In this situation a model distinguishing between work/arrangement and recording(s) is at advantage, but maybe we can just ignore this oddity.
  3. There might be some special cases but normally (also in this case, as it seems to me) the studio version should be the canonical version as this was developed under controlled circumstances, best representing the artists/composers/producers conception of the song.
  4. It might be better to name Make You Feel My Love (Q56085861) "Make You Feel My Love (Live At Hotel Cafe)", as it might get quite confusing with all those "Make You Feel My Love"-items and this makes it easier to disambiguate. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav:
  • For #2, I think it is best to distinguish an arrangement from a recording: the two Adele recordings (the "cover" and the "live version") are much more similar to each other than they are to the Dylan recording (intro, key, melody, singer's timbre, tempo, instrumentation, ...), so the "live at hotel café" version should probably be stated to be a recording of the cover.
  • For #4, adding the parenthetical doesn't really help because there would still be at least thirteen items related to the song titled "Make You Feel My Love" (the song itself, three covers, four singles, the four distinct versions of the Adele single, and one music video). The parentheticals can also vary across services (e.g., on Spotify the track on the single is named "Make You Feel My Love (album)"), so there would have to be multiple entries for differing bits of titles which should really be in a separate metadata field.
Jc86035 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Fetch only specific "instance of" content from WikidataEdit

Hello. In the context of improving a wikidata-supported infobox on enwiki, is it possible to fetch the "instance of" parameter from Wikidata, but to only display it if the field contains specific content... For example, lets say I want to add a wikidata infobox for Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330) on Wikipedia. In that infobox, I want to show that Nesjavellir is one of three types of geothermal power stations (i.e. Dry Steam, Flash Steam, or Binary Cycle). But as you can see in Nesjavellir's wikidata item, further types of "instance of" could be loaded for various reasons. How do I filter those out? Thanks in advance! Rehman 04:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Use lua code to filter the data extracted from WD, or create a dedicated property in WD with constraints to be sure that only a limited set of value is used for one characteristic of the item. Instance of will be the less reliable value in WD as there is no unique way to classify an item. Snipre (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Snipre. If you are willing, may I ask for your help to do that at this sandbox please? Or maybe show an existing example? I need to update | data13 so that it:
  1. Filters from Wikidata to "only show one of the three geothermal power plant types"
  2. Use the local value, if a local value is added
If I can see an example of how that's done (particularly #1), I can work out how to implement the same in other areas as well... Rehman 10:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A non-Lua way to do it is {{#ifeq:<search string>|{{replace|<search string>|<search text>|}}||<display text>}} - where <search string> is the info from P31, <search text> is the text you are looking for, and <display text> is what you show in the infobox if it's found. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I've added it at en:Template:Infobox power station/sandbox; it seems to work for Flash Steam and Dry Steam, but oddly not for the third type Binary Cycle. I've tested it on the Wikipedia articles of Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330) and Hellisheiði Power Station (Q2508514). If it's not too much trouble, could you help me fix the error(s) in the sandbox on label13 please? Separately, I'm also trying to get header12 work when label13 is in use; it works without the wikidata support so far. :( Rehman 10:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyone? Rehman 09:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

located at street address (P969) concernEdit

For several years, I'm still wondering that why this is a pure string property, instead of a monolingual text property? Why someone says that the value of that should only be in one language (or even English only), even used in Switzerland related items, where Switzerland is clearly one of multilingual countries? Can we please create a new monolingual text property with same translations of this, and replace it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that as I statemented here, I   humbly veto any qualifier (e.g.language of work or name (P407)) suggestions, as they really give nothing helpful, and, as of now, not all wikis support that way. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I agree that this property should be monolingual text. Quite a few countries and territories don't monolithically use one language or even one writing system. Jc86035 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Head up: Mix'n'match syncEdit

Mix'n'match sync to Wikidata seems to have been inactive for a while/some catalogs. It's now starting up again, so we might see a large (10-100K) influx of statements under the User:Reinheitsgebot account. Each catalog sync gets its own batch ID, you can revert the entire batch at EditGroups if necessary. Please let me know about any major problems, however, please keep in mind that the occasional erroneous edit is not something I can scale to fix. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly does a sync do? I thought doing a match on Mix'n'match added the ID to Wikidata immediately. Is this going to re-add all the bad matches we already removed? - Nikki (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske, Nikki: Yes, I saw a number of errors I had made and then reverted reintroduced just because I hadn't made the fix on Mix'n'Match too (which I would eventually get to by checking the reports and synching. I'm afraid I don't see the purpose of this task - IMO if MnM and wd differ long after MnM was used to assign a value, a human should evaluate. --99of9 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh great. I've spent hours and hours removing IDs added to the wrong items (which usually come from Mix'n'match, since it seems to be full of absurd suggestions which people accept anyway) and now they're going to be re-added? What a complete and utter waste of my time... - Nikki (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Awards refused or returnedEdit

Is there a way to express whether a person has refused a certain award, or returned it after initially accepting it?

Examples:

ReturnedEdit

If it was accepted and returned, are start time (P580) and end time (P582) sufficient? Could the reason for the return be stored in some way?

RefusedEdit

I wouldn't like the awards to be removed from entities who refused, because the institutions giving them out deemed the recipient most worthy, so that's something which should be recorded in any way. But I think the refusal to accept should be noted as well. Ideally, the reason for the refusal could be stored.

Not Present at Award CeremonyEdit

In addition, is there a way to record whether a person did not show up to accept the award in person? With a reason why? For the more prestigious ones, that might be of interest, e.g. Nobel Peace Prize laureates sitting in prison.

--109.91.21.82 09:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Speech given by someone elseEdit

Example Bob Dylan (Q392) received Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) and 2016 dylan speech was given by Azita Raji (Q20932627) - Salgo60 (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For "not present at ceremony", or anything else like it (eg "awarded posthumously"), I'd recommend a "significant event" qualifier on the award. I wouldn't worry about recording "speech given by someone else" but if you really want to, then you could use the same approach. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether somebody is present at a ceremony or not doesn't sound particularly significant. If they are in prison, that can be recorded in another way. As for refused or returned awards, I'd say it would depend on whether the issuer of the award still considers it awarded to that person. The receiver doesn't have any control, beyond refusing to take a prize, even dead people can receive awards. Ghouston (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there have also been instances where awards were withdrawn by the issuer. E.g., see the disclaimer at the end of [1]. In that case, I suppose the award would have a start and end date. Ghouston (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
An example is Rolf Harris (Q1975172) being stripped of awards: they are currently still listed on the item, without end dates. Ghouston (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
has quality (P1552) may be a good qualifier for details like "award refused by recipient" (but perhaps still considered valid by the issuer), if an item was created for that. Ghouston (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
On the point of refusing awards, there are various "awards" that people may not want to receive, like Pigasus Award (Q1669430), but they get awarded with them anyway. Ghouston (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In german wikipedia there is the de:Kategorie:Bundesverdienstkreuz abgelehnt for people who did not accept the highest german civil award. Steak (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PracticallyEdit

I add many, many awards and typically it is from lists where details like these are not given. These lists ae revisited occaisionally and therefore additng qualifiers are fine. Removing awards is not practical without changing the sources. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #325Edit


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Instance of ....?Edit

What would you say The Beatles in the United States (Q5412372) is an <instance of>? - PKM (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What about tour (Q14957229)? --Larske (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say heyday (Q47468023).--Micru (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't. It is correctly marked up, as "facet of the Beatles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bodies of water connected by watercourse not notable in itselfEdit

If there are two lakes, for example, connected by a river that shows up on maps as a blue streak, but that is not shown on any map with a name or any other form of identification, how would one indicate that the two lakes are connected by a river?

I note that point three of the notability guidelines states that items can be created to fulfill a structural need, so creating an item for this river is an obvious solution, but is it the preferred solution? Is there some property that could be used instead?

If creating a new item is the preferred solution, I imagine the label of the item should follow a regular pattern and be something like "river connecting lake A and lake B", and that some coordinates should be added to the item in order to give it a more firm identification.

This question was also brought up at Property talk:P201#What if the outflow of a lake doesn´t satisfy the notability guidelines?, but does not appear to have been resolved. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I would think you can add an item with description & properties but no label. - Jmabel (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You can, yes, but should you? Probably not. Titles are important. The pattern "river connecting lake A and lake B" reflects common usage, as recommended by Help:Label. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
What to do is precisely the question. connects with (P2789) seems relevant, though via (P2825) is for journeys, and is presumably not relevant here. --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Use drainage basin (P4614). Thierry Caro (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

So when the the drainage basin is not notable in itself, I create an item for that instead of for the river(s)? That has the advantage of requiring fewer items for terrain features not notable by themselves, but it does not provide the information about which water bodies are directly linked, nor about whether a water body is upstream or downstream of another. The latter is also a disadvantage of using connects with (P2789), unless there is a qualifier that can provide this information (e.g. using upstream (Q2440529) and downstream (Q15873020)). --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Modeling "History of [Country]"Edit

We seem to have two approaches to modeling items like Scotland in the Middle Ages (Q7435678) or history of Ireland from 1801 to 1923 (Q1516442). The two models could be characterized as "facets and parts" (see history of Sweden (Q201350) for an excellent example) and "class tree" (see history of the Netherlands (Q238533) and its many subclasses). Most of these are <instance of> history of a country or state (Q17544377) but some are also <instance of> aspect of history (Q17524420).

Do we have a best practice in this area? - PKM (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also historical period (Q11514315) as used on Taiwan in the 1940s (Q10915219). Ghouston (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
On Taiwan in the 1940s (Q10915219), I've also added the start and end times as qualifiers. The requirements seem to be a) identify the item as representing a period in the history of something else b) link to the "parent" item c) describe the time period. In b) is it better to link to an item like history of Taiwan (Q378008), or to Taiwan (Q865) directly? Maybe the latter, because for some entities like organizations, there may be no equivalent to history of Taiwan (Q378008). Ghouston (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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


  Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology

  • How do our other ontologists feel? Should "history of Europe" be a <subclass of> "history of the world", or <part of> "history of the world"? There are enough items built both ways that harmonizing them will be a big effort assuming anyone thinks we should do so. I am leaning toward <part of> myself, but I could change my mind. - PKM (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I lean the other way, because wdt:P31/wdt:P279* tends to be the first tool I reach for when wanting to report across items having different P31s (for me, recently, mostly films and airports); and also because there's no expectation that a reciprocal has part (P527) is required. That said, films & airports are not part of a divisible whole in the way that Hof Europe is assuredly part of the HofWorld. That being the case, has part (P527) aside, I don't have a great problem in having a redundant part of (P361). --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
"Part of" seems more natural to me, there's only one "history of the world" or "history of humanity", and I'm not sure what a subclass (or instance) would be. The history of Europe is a part of the history of the world, but it's not a history of the world in its own right. Ghouston (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
But you can say that about any subclass: a part of the definition of any subclass is that it does not contain all of the class. Aviation example: 747-200 is a sublass of 747, but does not contain any of the other 747 place types. Or from the subclass of (P279) definition: "this item is a class (subset) of that item." The History of Europe is a subset of the History of the world. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not really, since a particular plane of type 747-200 is also a 747: the instances of 747-200 are a subset of the instances of 747. The history of the world doesn't have instances like that, the history of Europe isn't the history of the world. An alternative would be to make it an instance of something like "history of a region", like history of Africa (Q149813) is an instance of regional history (Q1802210). Ghouston (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Related question: What's the relationship between things like History of electroconvulsive therapy in the United States (Q28455591) and history of the United States (Q131110)? Or history of the Poles in the United States (Q16843880)? Other complications with history items have been discussed at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2012/12#Art_history_vs_History_of_art, Talk:Q309. I'm leaning slightly towards using "part of", but it seems kind of inadequate...
Anyone want to consider starting a dedicated Wikiproject for these issues? It might be worth it. --Yair rand (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

merge Q55617997 to Q1053441Edit

"Error: The two items cannot be merged because one of them links to the other using the properties: P1441, P674." I don't know how to deal with that. —— FireFeather (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@FireFeather: If you want to merge them, you'll have to first reconcile Q1053441 being a character present in Q55617997 (and conversely Q55617997 having Q1053441 as a character). Maybe @Valentina.Anitnelav: could help with that... Mahir256 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Links so this is not entirely cryptic: Urashima Tarō (Q55617997), Urashima Tarō (Q1053441), present in work (P1441), characters (P674) - Jmabel (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Why would we want to merge a legend with its principle character? Sounds wrong to me. - Jmabel (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the character and the story should be separate items. I spend a lot of time separating these. See Huon of Bordeaux (Q46951799). - PKM (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
In zhwiki, the article content includes both the story and character, and it seems that no language separates these two into different articles. That why I want to merge them. —— FireFeather (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sitelink zhwiki to the story, which is presumably the more general topic. But just because we don't have a wikipedia article about something doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth a Q-code. - Jmabel (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging zhwiki article contributors @Iokseng, Ws227, Nivekin, Solomon203, Quest for Truth:@Stenvenhe, 林佩錡, Wongpong, Kolyma, 淺藍雪:@Hierro, Isnow, Sdf, Lssrn, Timeandspace:@Mouse.shih, RalfX, 野菜汁酢, Shakiestone, 攻殼機動隊員:@Chiefwei, Kerolf666, 七月鴨, Cbls1911: for clarification. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As already mentioned by others they should not be merged. If this is an issue concerning interwikilinks I see two possibilities at the moment: You could set a link to a redirect (described at Help:Handling_sitelinks_overlapping_multiple_items#Interwikis) or you could add the link(s) locally at the wikipedia page(s). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a rather frequent question. If the article needs data from two or more items, you need to set the QIDs explicitly.
    --- Jura 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ltd., Inc. in labels for companiesEdit

When adding items for companies I have been using the name given in whatever source I am primarily referencing as the label. Sometimes this source has Ltd. (for British companies) or Inc. (for American companies), and other similar suffixes for other countries at the end of the name; sometimes there is no suffix. If the item for the company already exists but the label has the suffix and the source does not or vice versa, I have been adding the source version as an alias. Is this the correct approach? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rampagingcarrot: Yes, any region-specific suffixes (such as S.A., AG, plc, etc.) should be moved to aliases, though of course there are some notable exceptions like Apple (Q312). Mahir256 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thank you, I will put names with suffixes as aliases. Do you happen to know what the proper procedure is for "official name" in regards to region-specific suffixes? Or should I ask as a new topic? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256, Rampagingcarrot: Doesn't enwiki just add "Inc." to disambiguate the article title? I think Apple (Q312)'s English label should be just "Apple", since this is the common name of the company. Jc86035 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate property proposalsEdit

Can someone explain why we have Wikidata:Property proposal/Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic as a duplicate of Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species (description: "endangerment status of species in the national Red List of the Czech Republic"; and which was, when I commented on it, specific to the Czech Republic? User:Succu, who apparently advised this new proposal, did not explain, when they posted support there. I trust that this is not an effort to bypass the objections and other discussion posted on the former proposal.

@Vojtěch Dostál, Tom.Reding, Faendalimas, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Mr. Fulano, Jura1: from the original discussion. Likewise:

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology
99of9
Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Vojtěch Dostál said in the second proposal "abandoning original request at Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species" Thank you --David (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I saw that. It does not explain why the first proposal - with all its discussion - has been withdrawn, and a second, duplicate proposal launched (other than "as advised by Succu"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The first proposal started more or less as a RfC. After some discussion we have now a clear proposal to vote on. Thats the whole story. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
"The first proposal started more or less as a RfC." No, it was posted as a property proposal, like many before and since. We don't "vote" on proposals, we discuss them. Note that the standard heading used is "Discussion" ({{int:Talk}}). It appears that your explanation is far from the "whole story". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we vote on property proposals. Preferable voting with remarks and comments which are leadinge sometimes to longer discussions. --Succu (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding aliases from ULANEdit

The previous discussion on this subject got bogged down in discussions of user interface and search recall and ended without any definite conclusion. I thought I would have another go at resolving it, focussing on two specific points here.

The Union List of Artist Names (ULAN) is a useful source, but the "additional names" have a number of problems:

  • They are not tagged with any language;
  • Most are not common names for the entity in any language;
  • Many of them are common misspellings or variations in word order;
  • Many of them actually identify related entities instead; and
  • Some of them are marked as being of unknown provenance.

One of the tasks that BotMultichillT (talkcontribslogs) performs is to add all of these additional names from ULAN as English aliases. It does not seem to me that this meets the criteria for aliases.

The bot operator has indicated that the bot will re-add these aliases if other users remove them and that that this is intended behaviour. It's not clear to me that we want bots to always override user decisions or to get into edit wars.

What do others think? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you might want to ping users who work on or with artist items for this discussion. Project chat is not always followed by everybody. That said, I think it is important to note that users are free to add aliases and the bot will not remove any aliases that are added. It just updates the item with missing aliases from ULAN. So it is not true that user decisions are always overidden by the bot. Next the reasons for the bot are clear, namely to improve search for artists and reduce the creation of duplicate items for artists. It is still not clear to me however what your specific objection is besides wanting to ban certain information coming from the ULAN. I guess I don't see the point of your argument. Jane023 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging as requested:

Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Sascha
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
ToJack
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
ajayi adeniyi
Moebeus
  Notified participants of WikiProject Names User:Zolo
Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Vincent Steenberg
User:Kippelboy
User:Shonagon
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Martingggg
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
User:7samurais
User:mrtngrsbch
  Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts

I take your point that the bot override is one-way. It allows addition of aliases, but not removals. Nevertheless, it could still lead to edit wars with users trying to follow policy.
My objection here is we have a fairly clear policy on aliases that is not being followed for ULAN import. I agree that making the Wikidata search engine useful is important, not least to avoid duplicates, but it is not the only (or even an explicit) goal of aliases. Importing ULAN additional names into English aliases results in many alias claims that are false according to policy. This is not a purely theoretical concern as this reduces the practical utility of aliases for many purposes, such as building a lexicon to match Wikidata items in text.
So, a specific proposal:
  1. Create a new property for ULAN additional names that allows qualification to reflect the attributes defined in ULAN.
  2. Switch the bot to populating that property instead of aliases.
  3. Augment search to drawn on that property in addition.
  4. Gradually tidy up the errant alias entries.
Bovlb (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As Help:Alias isn't much help in terms of being descriptive of current practice, it would be good to revise it.
    --- Jura 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    Do you have a specific proposal for changing it? If aliases are just to support search then we could throw in anything that might increase recall and let the search ranking deal with precision, but I think I've explained above how I think aliases have other uses beyond search where the current policy is more helpful. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think it would help if the help page would describe current practice. Writing it down would be sufficient. The main point that worries me from what you mention is "Many of them actually identify related entities instead". Do we have samples from Multichill's bot additions for that? Oddly, your proposal doesn't address this.
    --- Jura 07:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    Most aliasses imported from ULAN are okay but there are some outliers which can exasperate people [2]. I already suggested few months ago, it would be pleasant if the bot could keep track of its own edit and therby not undo edits of humans. Adding a small fraction of bad data once is much less problematic than adding it over and over again. --Pasleim (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If BotMultichill[T] is going to add ULAN aliases that are removed from the list of English aliases back to items, it would do well to not just check that they were removed from the English alias list, but also check that those aliases have been moved to the list of aliases for another language—before deciding to add them back to the English alias list—so that those aliases which better fit in the German/French/Italian/etc. alias lists remain in those alias lists only. Mahir256 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The future of bibliographic data in Wikidata: 4 possible federation scenariosEdit

Mattsenate (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
KHammerstein (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mitar (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pharos (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
HLHJ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Lawsonstu (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Micru (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Abecker (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Kopiersperre (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Dugan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hfordsa (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete F (talk)
econterms (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sj (talk)
author  TomT0m / talk page
guillom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
·addshore· talk to me! 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ainali (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Shani Evenstein (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión   15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Harshrathod50
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Books 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) Mahdimoqri (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Nomen ad hoc Pete F (talk) 99of9   Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals

We had a productive “strategy meetup” at Wikimania with a group of about 20 people, to talk about the future of WikiCite and a roadmap for source metadata in Wikidata more generally. The motivation for this meetup was a set of concerns around scalability and “growing pains” around bibliographic and citation data in Wikidata, as well as the need (that many in the community have expressed) for a clearer goal, value proposition, and scope for WikiCite.
The result is a series of notes fleshing out 4 possible scenarios for the future of bibliographic data as structured data—from a centralized scenario to a fully federated one—discussing their possible risks and benefits at the technical, social, and governance level.
The question these notes try to address is whether Wikimedia should aim to build its “bibliographic commons”, and if so, what it would look like, and where it should live. This document is not a formal proposal or an RfC open for a vote, but a conversation starter to evaluate what type of future makes most sense for this data and the communities and stakeholders that will benefit from it. A shared understanding on what we’re building towards is also going to help us inform the program of the upcoming WikiCite 2018 conference in November (the application process will open in a few days).
If you wish to share your thoughts on these four scenarios, please chime in on this page.--Dario (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

LinkedIn personal profile URLEdit

It appears that country-specific URL values for LinkedIn personal profile URL (P2035) now redirect to a more standard form; for example:

https://lu.linkedin.com/in/jerome-lulling-75a9811b

redirects to:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerome-lulling-75a9811b/

and

https://fr.linkedin.com/in/brigittelonguet

redirects to:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brigittelonguet

We could therefore (in the absence of any contrary examples) remodel P2035 as an external ID, with the formatter URL being:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/$1

How can this be achieved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Just add the url to the property as value and it will take care of itself.
    --- Jura 11:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The above response does not answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

script for url formatEdit

Can somebody help us here. Middleware for external URL and display the sources does not work anymore... Regards, Conny (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

Hi - if I understand the problem, I've done this for some other properties via a toolserver script - https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-externalid-url/ - could you clarify exactly what needs to be fixed about the formats though? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

adopted child / adoptive parent : various practices, clarification neededEdit

Hello all

I'm trying to figure the current state of affairs regarding adopted children and adoptive parents.

adopted child and adoptive parent are instances of kinship, and therefore should be used as values of qualifier type of kinship on the property relative.

Those qualifiers are not used much (yet) but the use often does not respect this rule. The qualifier adopted child is sometimes found on child, and the qualifier adoptive parent on properties father or mother, which somehow makes sense, but may lead to a break of unicity constraint for P22 or P25, in the case where both biological and adoptive father or mother are present in the data. There are even cases where a parent is linked twice, once by father and once as relative/adopted parent.

This figures that the use of those qualifiers need clarification, and maybe the properties father, mother and child themselves. Their current definition don't explicitly restrict their use to biological parenthood, but they don't explicitly include adoption. This point should be clarified, my view being as follows:

  • If only one mother (or father) is asserted, the data are generally agnostic about the fact that she/he is a biological/legal/adoptive parent, and no qualifier should be used generally, although many legal parents are not biological parents, even outside the case of adoption. But the qualifier adopted child/father/mother should be allowed on the properties child/father/mother.
  • If more than one mother (or father) is documented, a qualifier should be used to make distinct the biological and adoptive parent. The biological parent should use the direct property (P22 or P25), the adopted parent being linked as relative with qualifier.

Bvatant (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[edited] : The unicity constraint on P22 and P25 is in fact problematic in case of e.g., homosexual parents. This would need another thread? Bvatant (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your second bullet; there's no good reason why a legal but non-biological parent should be shunted off to relative (P1038) just because a biological parent happens to exist in P22/P25 statements. That said, for better or worse, we do have stepparent (P3448) pointing to stepparent (Q19822352) for its definition, in EN: "non-biological parent or guardian". P3448 is gender-neutral, predicated on the observation that gender can be discovered from their item; spouse (P26) and child (P40) are also not gendered. P22 & P25 are gendered. And it is unclear where a gestational-parent would be fitted in - biological parent does not distinguish between gamete-parent and a surrogate mother.
I agree this is an area that should be improved, possibly in part by redesign or redefinition, and certainly by documentation, but I fear that wikidata torpor will inevitably run us into sand. To start: do we know if there is a documented model anywhere on wikidata from which we can work? Do we know of any ontologies outside of wikidata that might be useful? We surely cannot be the only group working with family relationships in RDF. Can we?--Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree myself completely with my second bullet :-) An alternative is to relax the unicity constraint on P22 and P25, but in case they have more than one value, should be made distinct by qualifiers. In this option, allow "type of kinship" on P22, P25 and P40, with allowed values in subclasses of kinship such as "child type" and "parent type" with values "biological", "legal", "adopted", "gamete-parent", "surrogate" ... and whatever might be invented by genetics wizzards.
Regarding stepparent (P3448) and stepparent (Q19822352), I don't find this definition "non-biological parent or guardian"? This is a more extensive definition than "spouse of parent" (which is the definition I read). Both are different from adoptive parent, who is often BTW another family member (uncle, aunt, grand-parent). Agreement with Jura's below comment.
Regarding other genealogy ontologies in RDF, unfortunately there is not much available. Searching e.g., https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/terms?q=mother&type=property does not yield much. Either very general models such as Proton, or too convoluted ones such as CIDOC-CRM, using extra nodes such as Birth etc.
As for the torpor, well ... the bright side of it is that the use of qualifiers such as type of kinship are still rare in WD, so if a clarification is made now, they all could be curated manually quite quickly. Bvatant (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think P22/P25 is generally used for that, at least for countries were adoptions are considered equivalent. P3448 is for something different (spouse of parent).
    --- Jura 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

An interesting query to figure the use of qualifier type of kinship (P1039) on child (P40)

SELECT DISTINCT ?parent ?type
WHERE {?parent p:P40 [ ps:P40 ?child ; pq:P1039 ?type ].}
ORDER BY ?type

Yields 213 results, with 17 distinct values of ?type. Some are clearly errors to be corrected (I will), such as "grandson" or "mother-in-law" (sic). Other are borderline such as "stepdaughter". "son", "daughter", "adopted child", "illegitimate child" are the most frequent and seem OK to me, although "son" and "daughter" can be derived from the child gender.
Replacing P40 by P25 or P22 yields less than 100 results, which I can look at and curate as necessary. Bvatant (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Bug in Q2130136?Edit

Per [3], it's confirmed that this station is to be opened its service at 23 Sep, but after changing the date of official opening (P1619) value, it says that The value for $1 ($2) should be in the past, but not before $3., means that there probably have bug that treats that that date as "was in Gregorian 80"?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Liuxinyu970226, it would be *really* useful if you would stop using {{Q}} in subject headers on this page. It is not possible to navigate from the watchlist nor from the page history to the header, since the watchlist & history URLs are https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Bug_in_{{Q|2130136}}? whilst the actual URL is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Bug_in_West_Kowloon_railway_station_(Q2130136)? (or, presumably, whatever the item label is in other languages). It makes it a right pain in the arse to find your threads. Better by far to put the {{Q}} in the body of the posting and, if you can think of no other wording, a plain Q2130136 in the header. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
In answer to your question, if you look at Property:P1619#P2302 you'll see it is not a bug but a feature, which is noted on Property talk:P1619 - "Range from “+0080-00-00T00:00:00Z” to “now”: values should be in the range from “+0080-00-00T00:00:00Z” to “now”. Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist." Meanwhile date of official opening (P1619) is about the date something opened ... past tense. It is not, strictly, for making predictions about future events. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
And, finally, if you delve into the property constraint used, eventually you find Help:Property_constraints_portal/Range#Parameters and Help:Property_constraints_portal/Range#Example_2 which specify and illustrate by example that range constraint (Q21510860) applied in date of official opening (P1619) is designed to enforce a maximum date of 'now' by virtue of its qualifier maximum date (property constraint) (P2311) having a <no value> setting. - i.e. not in the future. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

While it makes sense to forbid dates in the future to avoid data rot - how can be add the fact that a project under construction is set to be finished/opened at a given time? Would we need a new property to make sure that the item gets updated when it is really opened? Which leads to further question - at what step such items becomes an instance of "railway station". When its officially opened? While under construction? When project officially announced? And what about projects which were abandoned before opened, what to use as instance of (P31) for them? Or just using start time (P580) as qualifier set to "no value"? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Download lexeme dataEdit

How can I download the available Lexeme data (i.e. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L7111)? I have been lately working with wikidata json dumps (i.e. latest-all.json.bz2 from https://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki/entities/) but the lexemes seem not to be included there. Thanks! --Motagirl2 (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Motagirl2: You can download the entity data for individual lexemes at Special:EntityData/L7111.json, just as for items and properties. Not sure about the dumps though. --Galaktos (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Galaktos: I am interested in the dumps :) --Motagirl2 (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of many statementsEdit

It seems the API prevents to remove more than 50 statements of the same property in an item within a single edit. Can this somehow be circumvented? Steak (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you were using wbremoveclaims, did you try wbeditentity? There is a how-to. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

MergingEdit

At some (to me random) pages, like Q*s about asteroids, I get a symbol with 2 arrows left of the "Read" button asking me to merge with the chess player Q55229637. There seems to be an unsolved merge request. How can I get rid of that? --Gereon K. (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gereon K.: I don't suppose you have a link to the offending page? (Must be in your browser's history?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: It doesn't appear every time, only twice until now, so it's not in my browser history. A blue round button left of the "Read" button. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gereon K.: Mystery. Hope someone else knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a feature of the Merge gadget. You have probably hit the Postpone button. I have never figured out how to use it properly. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It's also when you choose the "select for merging" option and then go to another item, the little icon appears to select the other item for the merge. Hovering over it, the tooltip says "process the postponed merge". --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Areas of Cyprus Republic (de jure)/Areas of Northern Cyprus (de facto)Edit

Hello. First of all I want to say that I am a Greek Cypriots (Q245794). But I believe that I have Neutral point of view. Sorry about using words like "occupied", "free" etc. It's easier to explain that way.

Some areas in the island of Cyprus are belong to Cyprus (Q229) de jure (Q132555) and also are belong to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) de facto (Q712144).

There is no problem having items for the villages and municipalities of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). We can do the same as any other village or municipality in the planet. They claim that they are a country (even though not recognized), they have their own administrative territorial entity.

For districts we already have separated items. (Please see district of Cyprus (Q59136) and district of Northern Cyprus (Q2603776)).

There are six districts in Cyprus (Q229). Of them:

The parts of that districts that is in north Cyprus, are consisting Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) is divided to 5 districts.

As you can see, these districts do not identify with the "occupied" districts of Cyprus, perhaps with the sole exception of the province of Kyrenia (Girne), without being absolutely sure ... We have a separate item for each district of Cyprus (Q229) and for every district of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681).

At this point, I would like to mention that Cyprus (Q229), although it does not control these areas, continues to have administrations for them. For example, District Administration of Kyrenia. For districts, I have identified only one problem: population (P1082). In Girne District (Q939711) we can write the population as recorded by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). In Kyrenia District (Q59146) we cannot write the population according to Cyprus (Q229) because the census cannot apply to "occupied" areas. And we cannot write the population recorded by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) because the two districts are not the same. Especially in other districts there is certainly no match. For example, in Famagusta District (Q59148), Cyprus (Q229) recorded only the "free" areas. For 2011 census that population was 46629. The population of that district (the way Cyprus (Q229) defined it) include people that lives it the area of the district under control of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). But they don’t count them. And we cannot easily counted them because the "relative" Gazimağusa District (Q554671) has not the same area as Famagusta District (Q59148).

The main problem is about municipalities and communities (villages). Cyprus (Q229) elects mayors, municipal councils, community councils for all "occupied" municipalities, has Geographical codes of the Republic of Cyprus (Q55963047) for all of these areas, etc. With always the footnote that concern areas belonging to Cyprus (Q229) but not are controlled by Cyprus (Q229) because of the presence of the Turkish army. Of course, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) also elects mayors, has their own codes etc.

Problems:

And more other problems like:

And more other problems with other properties...

I have asked before how to use de jure and de facto. Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/01#Cyprus places at the north part. No solution found. We can just add two websites in an item without explain what each one is about? We can have two different values for areas? Etc.

I am not sure about any solution. The only I have though:

  • Kyrenia (Q206760): item only about the city. Not informations about municipalities. That way there is no problem, because city history continues regardless of who are living to the city and who are managing. The city has no statutory (legal basis) limits, area, emblem, website, quarters. The municipalities have. The municipalities do not identify with the city, as Limassol (Q185632) is no longer identified with Limassol Municipality (Q28870916). The only problems here are that it is necessary to clarify in which district the city is located (different for Cyprus (Q229) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681)). Perhaps there are others problems that I did not think.
  • Keryneia municipality: item about Keryneia municipality from its foundation at 1878 as today. It will be the item for the municipality that continues to exist as an entity but with the administration and the residents outside the municipality (considering that for Cyprus (Q229) refugees from Kyrenia and their descendants have electoral rights in that municipality. They are considered voters of the municipality and citizens of the municipality in general, according to Cyprus (Q229)).
  • Girne Municipality: an item for the municipality that undertook the administration of the area in 1974 and which in 1983 became the municipality of the newly established Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681)). It will essentially be the item for the municipality with a year of foundation in 1974.

However, that solution did not solve the problem of the villages. Are we going to have 2 items for each village? It that useful? Again, however, it is not certain that each village is terribly identified as Cyprus (Q229) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681) mean it, even though they have the same name (translated between to Greek and Turkish). I cannot find a solution.

And the problem is even more complicated for semi-"occupied" municipalities with population in both Cyprus (Q229) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681). An example is Nicosia Municipality (Q56037497) (according to Cyprus (Q229)). Part of it is in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Q23681).

Xaris333 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem you describe is not unique. The solution is in essence simple. When you talk about "Territorial and administrative entities", they exist in relation to each other. Actual human settlements are part of either structure. Officials have their office in the entities. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And your solution is...? Xaris333 (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Xaris333 (talkcontribslogs) I don't have any answers, but thank you for laying this out so thoroughly and (as far as I can tell) neutrally. - Jmabel (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The solution is that there are two distinct and separate structures in place. A Greek and a Turkish structure with only overlap where the structures indicate physical objects like human settlements are in both. Thanks, GerardM (talk)
So I must create two items for each place? Xaris333 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Not for the settlements but for all the "administrative and territorial units", they are "per country". The lowest level links to the human settlements Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you give me an example? Xaris333 (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Gangwon (Q41067), Kangwon Province (Q41416), Gangwon Province (Q41071), Hwanghae Province (Q2949547), North Hwanghae Province (Q109342), South Hwanghae Province (Q626052), Hwanghae (Q698214), Taiwan Province (Q32081), Taiwan (Q57251), Fujian Province (Q63698), Fujian (Q41705), Lianjiang County (Q204827), Lienchiang County (Q249872) are some examples of administrative entities being created by multiple governing body over same area. In Korean examples, historical information before split are all grouped into a separate entity, and then there are separate entity for area defined by North Korea and area defined by South Korea. In China/Taiwan examples, most information about those adminitrative area are recorded into the entity that represent the one with effective control over the area, with information on the other entity being dedicated to describe what is created by that government over that area. However these are only for administrative area but not for individual cities and such. For data of individual cities seems like in general only the actual government ruling the city are recorded into wikipedia infobox/wikidata. Fuzhou (Q68481) is a city mainly controlled by the government at Beijing but government at Taipei control some islands that are administratively belongs to the city, and those islands are generally ignored in the city's entity. Otherwise you can also split it like East Jerusalem (Q212938) and West Jerusalem (Q2213440) for Jerusalem (Q1218) (although both are now de facto rule by same government). C933103 (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem with the Twitch game ID identifierEdit

As stated in its talk page, Twitch game ID (P4467) is broken as the "[s]paces in [the] game ID need to be escaped to %20 instead of +". If anyone with the permission would be able to correct this, it would be most grateful. Jeluang Terluang (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jeluang Terluang: I think this would require a software change; it looks like the URL formatter is hardcoded to do this because (a) most websites don't include spaces in their URLs, and (b) outside Wikidata items, you can't include a space in a URL because it breaks the wikitext formatting, so it's assumed by the software that you would encode any spaces in URLs as %20. Jc86035 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Ah, but there's the problem. Instead of encoding it with %20, it instead encodes it as + which does not work. The current situation is any space in the field will be converted to + instead of the correct %20. Jeluang Terluang (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeluang Terluang: I think the best solution for now would be to have a bot convert all spaces in that property to %20 (@Pasleim: does DeltaBot do this already?). You should file a bug on Phabricator about the issue if one does not already exist. Jc86035 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pagesEdit

Is it true that disambiguation pages and proper article pages should not be linked to the same wikidata item? If that is true, Annam (Q564450) should be split into two. For example, entries on German, Japanese and Russian WP's are articles, but English and Chinese ones are disambiguation pages.--Roy17 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Roy17: Yes that is correct. Do the German, Japanese and Russian correspond to one of the several items linked from that page as properties of different from (P1889)? If so, you can simply delete the sitelink from Annam (Q564450) and move it to the correct item. - Jmabel (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid it has to be split. Annam (Q564450) is a former name of Vietnam, which at some point in history was a protectorate Annam (Q10828323), so some WP's write it as an article explaining the name itself, some write it as the protectorate, and some use it as disambiguation, pointing to the protectorate and other things with the same name Annam. The tricky thing is this problem involves many WP's. I don't know if there is a quick way to split an item (like an inverse function of merging items? :D), otherwise manually assigning them one by one is a little cumbersome.--Roy17 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Roy17, Jmabel:   Mostly done, except eowiki, frwiki, ruwiki and viwiki, all other non-disambiguation pages are moved from Q564450 to Q10828323, and merged Q16766542 (another disambiguation pages item that has jawiki, kowiki and zh-yuewiki links) to Q564450, now I need suggestions on how to handle the rest four. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
pinging all non-bot contributors of rest four to help us on handling:
  1. eowiki eo:Annam: @AndyHM, Salatonbv, DidCORN, RG72:
  2. frwiki fr:Annam: @Med, Jastrow, Orthogaffe, Cdang, Arnaudus:@R, Bob08, Lmaltier, Pylambert, Poleta33:@Tblnow, Takima, Joker-x, Kilom691, EDUCA33E:@Phe, Boeb'is, Heureux qui comme ulysse, Criric, Sixsous:@Patricia.fidi, Bapti, Jef-Infojef, Johannjs, Popolon:@Seneuil, EdS~frwiki, Lolodidon, Kilianours, Sherbrooke:@Elfix, BrightRaven, Bluedenim, Sxilderik, Alphabeta:@Missourinez, Pylambert, Mike Coppolano, Loveless, Badzil:@Zeugma fr, In Arcadia, Treehill, Oxxo, Chaoborus:@Kintaro, Aruspice, Gzen92, Meissen, Givet:@Vlaam, Éduarel, Thierry Caro, Lomita, Wanderer999:@Jean-Jacques Georges, Ange Gabriel, Ptbotgourou, Rene1596, Puff:@Simonzo, Cddlb, Lemra ou pas, Squallgofsc, Speculos:@Romanc19s, Mro, Hoffilux, Jdx:
  3. ruwiki ru:Аннам: @Ivanchay, Ghirlandajo, Schekinov Alexey Victorovich, Hjalmar, Ле Лой:@User7777, Odessey, Petrov-Uralsky, Роман Курносенко, VAP+VYK:@Tavarishch, Nickpo, Slb nsk, WolfDW, LyXX:@Bff:
  4. viwiki vi:An Nam: @Tttrung, VietLong, Avia, Tvdzung, Mekong Bluesman:@Mxn, Ctmt, Doãn Hiệu, Johannjs, Rungbachduong:@Casablanca1911, Nguyễn Thanh Quang, Minhtung91, DHN, Vinhtantran:@Loveless, Bluedenim, Kauffner, Lưu Ly, Sholokhov:@Thái Nhi, Adj, NDS, Trungda, Caominhthang:@Hungda, Nam thuan, Hamhochoilatoi, TuanUt, Greenknight dv:@Rimbo, 鴻雁飛傳奇雜錄, Tuanminh01, 渭水生, Thái Nhi:@Duyệt-phố, Lão Ngoan Đồng, P.T.Đ:

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Thanks a lot! I'd say those remaining pages are examples of articles explaining the name Annam itself, which should be split into a new item. Annam, a historical name of Vietnam....--Roy17 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, vi:An Nam explaining the name Annam itself, which should be corresponding to a new item. Annam, a historical name of Vietnam....-Tttrung (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

For folks interested in Books and CitationsEdit

Since we still can't ping large projects, I'm dropping a note here that I have posted a refined proposal for modeling books (and the like) at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books. The question of a new model for books has been an open issue for years, and there are two different proposals on the table (the other by Snipre), both of which differ from best practices as published today. Comments from interested Wikidatans are welcome. @Snipre: FYI. - PKM (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Drop 'film' suffix from instances of Q201658Edit

ValterVB Josve05a LydiaPintscher Ermanon Cbrown1023 Discoveranjali Mushroom Queryzo Danrok Rogi Escudero Mbch331 Jura Jobu0101 Jklamo Jon Harald Søby putnik ohmyerica AmaryllisGardener FShbib Andreasmperu Li Song Tiot Udi Oron ~ אודי אורון CennoxX Harshrathod50 U+1F350

  Notified participants of WikiProject Movies

I noticed that almost every instance of film genre (Q201658) has a 'film' suffix. Examples: comedy film (Q157443), heist film (Q496523), science fiction film (Q471839), thriller film (Q2484376), action film (Q188473), adventure film (Q319221). Could we drop the 'film' suffix since it's clear what it is from instance of (P31) as well as the description? I realize that some are prefixed with film like film based on books (Q52207310), but I don't see why that couldn't be dropped as well. Alternatively, we could add the non-prefixed version as an alias, but I"m not sure how I would get the proper, non-prefixed label for any language (when the prefix might be different for each language). :( What I'm trying ot do is get a list of genres for a particular film, but it looks... really bad having 'film' in each one where the context of the query is obvious. U+1F360 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing Help:Label#Disambiguation_information_belongs_in_the_description it looks like that the suffix/prefix should be removed and moved into the description (if it isn't already there). Correct? U+1F360 (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
For some of the labels to make sense, wouldn't you need to add "genre" instead, if you drop "film"?
--- Jura 05:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. For example, I'd venture that no one ever referred to a heist film as a "heist". A "heist" is an actual crime, not a film about one. - Jmabel (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems like it really depends, Like you would never call a Western (Q172980) a "western film" you would just call it a "western". But to be fair, the diseimbiguation is implied (since that's the only usage of western as a noun I can think of). If you were instead listing a list of genres you might say: "science fiction, western, crime, comedy". On the other hand, their are some notable exceptions like silent film (Q226730) and 3D film (Q229390) which should always have the "film" suffix, but in my mind these are more film types than genres. I could go either way on heist film (Q496523) since it would fit either way in a list of genres, but then again, it really depends if you see a genre as a noun or as an adjective. I think as far as Wikidata is concenred, it doesn't matter because of Help:Label#Disambiguation_information_belongs_in_the_description, but like I said, there are probably some exceptions to that rule. U+1F360 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: so to your point, perhaps heist film (Q496523) isn't a film genre (Q201658), perhaps like silent film (Q226730) it's just a subclass of (P279) film (Q11424) and the therefor should have the instance of (P31) removed. U+1F360 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I think this is a problem with English. Some of our genres are nouns (“western”, “comedy”, “science fiction”, “thriller”, “action”, "horror") and some are adjectives (“crime”, “heist”, "teen"). Indeed, on Wikipedia you see these genres get the "film" suffix (in the article body) when they are used as an adjective, but the suffix is dropped when being used as a noun (i.e. "teen film" is a type of "comedy"). For the pruposes of Wikidata, I think the labels should be consistant, even if they don't make a lot of sense in noun form. It also seems that in general, the more traditional genres (that perhaps existed before film did) do not get the "film" suffix, but newer genres (or subgenres) do. However, I am excluding silent film (Q226730) and things like ti because I'm not convinced it's a film genre (Q201658) as it has to do with the technology used on the film (or lack thereof), not the film itself. U+1F360 (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The thing isn't so much that some are adjectives and some are nouns as that some are used as' an adjectives and some as nouns. English, much more than other Western European languages, allows nouns to be used as adjectives; for example, there is a community near where I live called "Lake Forest Park". Or, also, "western" is certainly originally an adjective but has become a noun for a film genre (also for a genre of novels, by the way, though it's not as popular as the film genre). "Science fiction" is already an adjectivized noun ("science") plus a noun ("fiction") and all on its own, without "film", is much more likely to refer to novels or short stories than films.
"Western" usually means a film, so I could see shortening that, but absolutely would not do that with "heist" and would lean against with "science fiction" if we are specifically intersecting it with film. No one says, "I'm going to see a science fiction" the way they'd say "I'm going to see a western". As a genre, it spans literature, film, artwork to some extent, etc. If we are specifically talking about science fiction film, I think pretty much everyone would include the word "film" or "movie". - Jmabel (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Right, but how is "film" not disambiguation information? Regardless of how it might be used in a sentance, as far as I can tell, Wikidata treats them all as nouns (unless it's a "type" of film). U+1F360 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Or perhaps a better question... how would one query for a list of film genres, and get... a properly named list? U+1F360 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's an example of a way in which a list like that might be used. Compare that to imdb's entry which uses "Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi" U+1F360 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If you want to optimize display for some app, it's better to do this on the app side.
    --- Jura 18:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: it's just an example, but how would you propose this done in a multilingual fashon? Of course in english I could just strip out "film" but that's not the same for every language (or even the same structure). And I'm still wondering how "film" is not disambiguation information. Could you please explain how it isn't? U+1F360 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Just Google "heist", if you don't like the explanation given by Jmabel
--- Jura 18:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: that literally proves my point, it's disambiguation. If I Google "Miami" I don't get anything remotely close to Miami (Q2350102). U+1F360 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I suspect it's infinitely debatable whether "film" is a disambiguation term in "comedy film", but the same could be said for "hat" in straw hat (Q204390) or "work" in reference work (Q13136). If we're going to make rules based on grammar, then the rule is probably to allow "loose compounds" (very common in English) and not allow phrases that aren't accepted as loose compounds, but then we have to pick which dictionaries or usage manuals we choose to follow. Being a pragmatic sort, I think we should include "comedy film" and "comedy" as label and alias, and the preferred label usage should be agreed to as a standard by the appropriate Wikidata project where there is one. - PKM (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: Perhaps a solution could be to split these items into one that is a subclass of (P279) film (Q11424) and another that is a instance of (P31) film genre (Q201658)? I think perhaps the confusion is over if this thing is a type of film or if it's a genre. The former would have the suffix, the latter would not. This would be consistant with your examples as well (i.e. "Staw hat" is a type of "hat" and "reference work" is a type of work). Would this be an acceptable compromise? U+1F360 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • wikt:heist#Noun has "heist" as slang for "heist film". Accordingly, it would be a reasonable alias for the concept, but shouldn't be the label. If you need shorter names, you could try adding "short name" statements to the items.
    --- Jura 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well I didn't know about short name (P1813) so perhaps that's the best place for the shortened version. Are we good with adding those to genres in order to remove the "film" suffix? If so, that works for me (I realize that "science fiction" would become "scifi" but I think that's fine). U+1F360 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
My preference would be to merge all the "genres" together. You have things like Game of Thrones (Q23572), Scandal (Q1525645), and Silicon Valley (Q15956708) which use a mix of fiction genres, film genres, and television genres. While there are some, like American television sitcom (Q21188110) that are specific to the medium, most of them are not. But perhaps this is a different discussion and perhaps should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. U+1F360 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding "short name" (P1813) does not mean using the short name as the label. And it is not a good idea to "split these items into one that is a subclass of (P279) film (Q11424) and another that is a instance of (P31) film genre (Q201658)", which can only cause more confusion. Merging all the "genres" together is also a bad idea, which will make such items as "literary genre" (Q223393), "film genre" (Q201658), and "television genre" (Q15961987) useless. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @U+1F360: This looks like an attempt to find a problem where none really exists. There's enough real work to be done around here, without fixating on stuff like this, where there is no problem, and no action either required or desirable. I strongly oppose all of your proposals so far, as either removing information, disrupting valid relationships, or misusing P1813. Nothing to see here, move along. Jheald (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jheald: If this isn't something that's important to you, then that's fine, but being dismissive of what's important to me is rude and hurtful. Regardless, the examples on short name (P1813) give adding "Adair" to "Adair County" (it was even the justification for the original proposal), so based on the examples, it's a perfect use of short name (P1813) and that sounds like the way forward. Thanks everyone for your help! U+1F360 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @U+1F360:No matter whether you will add "short name" (P1813) to film genres, please don't remove "film" from the label. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Neo-Jay: so you're saying "science fiction film" would have to be "scifi film" instead of just "scifi"? Why? U+1F360 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I think with "label" they meant File:Wikidata label field.png, not the text entered as string in that other property.
            --- Jura 13:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
          • @U+1F360: Jura is correct. I'm not discussing how to add "short name" (P1813). It is not my concern whether "scifi" should be added as the "short name" (P1813) of Q471839. What I am saying is that the "label" of Q471839 should be "science fiction film", not "scifi". --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
            • OH! I'm sorry, I totally read that wrong. Yeah that's fine, as long as the shortened version exists somewhere I think that's an acceptable compromise. I just thought of another idea, which is that I could just take the alias that is the shortest (which, should probably be the same as the short name anyways?). Which would you all prefer, having a short name of "hiest" or having "hesit" as an alias? (I don't think you could make an alias shorter than "scifi" so I think that works too). I'm totally cool with either solution. U+1F360 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
              • I personally prefer alias, which is more flexible and searchable than "short name" (P1813). It's totally acceptable to add phrases without "film" as aliases to film-genre items.--Neo-Jay (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Works for me! Thanks everyone! :) U+1F360 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent constraints for father (P22) and mother (P25)Edit

[Copying the message from WikiProject Ontology because I'm not sure it's the best place for discussing that.

I'm currently working on anomalies listed in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P25.

For Nijinsky II (Q26798) and other instances of race horse (Q10855242), the property mother (P25) is flagged as an error because race horse (Q10855242) is not a subclass of any allowed class for subject of this property. Among allowed classes is listed eukaryote (Q19088), which in fact is an instance of taxon (Q16521). I've hard time to figure where this is breaking, and I don't want to meddle in the metaclasses structure.

The problem does not occur with father (P22), which is allowed for animal (Q729), of which race horse (Q10855242) is a subclass. Maybe the solution is to align the constraints of mother (P25) on those of father (P22)?

In fact, eukaryote (Q19088) seems a weird class to allow mother (P25). Fungi and Protozoa are eukaryots, but don't have father and mother, AFAIK. So, the choice of replacing it by animal (Q729) like in father (P22) seems reasonable to me. Which does not solve the metaclass mess around eukaryote (Q19088), but I'll let that point for ontology gurus to settle. I'll do it if there is consensus.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bvatant (talk • contribs) at 13:12, 19 August 2018‎ (UTC).

@Bvatant: This is another manifestation of the issue discussed recently - but not yet resolved - at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/08#What heart rate does your name have?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Indeed. Meanwhile, waiting for clarification on taxons, do you agree with my proposal of using animal (Q729) instead of eukaryote (Q19088) for mother (P25) type constraint, as it is for father (P22)? Bvatant (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Instances (aka individuals) of race horse (Q10855242) have nothing to do with taxa. --Succu (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW: stallion (Q757833) and man (Q8441) do have in common male non-human organism (Q44148) and belonging to the class (Q37517) mammal (Q7377). Why do we differ between male non-human organism (Q44148) and male (Q6581097) at all? --Succu (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

186.105.96.216Edit

186.105.96.216 (talkcontribslogs) has vandalized Kristina Pimenova (Q18697302)

Please block!

--151.49.89.130 13:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism reports are handled on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, and it seems you have restored the item. Esteban16 (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

une chose que j'aimerais savoirEdit

Quelq'un qui n'a pas de "bagages" informatique peut-il aisément espérant apprendre plus?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yobouekouadiojeanluc (talk • contribs).

Oui, pas de problemes.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Done correctlyEdit

Hello,

I couldn't find an link to an help portal, so I will ask it here. Please feel free to move it to a better place if needed. I just created: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56192990. Could you please check if its done correctly as its my first.

It keeps saying "no label defined" and no describtion :( Father of Lies (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I added some more information. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Date format presentation for wikidata entityEdit

I am looking at publication date (P577) of She and Her Cat: Everything Flows (Q54957839) and the value being displayed in the box to me is "4 3 2016", without any delimitor other than just spaces, nor any indication on month/date order. Is it possible to let users change it into a format they are more familiar with, or can it be localized to a date format that user would understand? C933103 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

When I look at it in English I see 4 March 2016. What language are you using? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Jc3s5h I am using the traditional Chinese (Hong Kong) interface. Where can the date format be fixed? C933103 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
C933103 Under Preferences/Appearance you should find a section titled "Date format". You can use that to select your preferred date format. Bovlb (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Bovlb I see two options available there. One of them is "default", the other one is "2018-08-20T17:49:47". How can I, a.) change the default for all people using this locale in Mediawiki software, and b.) add another options there? c.) Also, I have selected the "2018-08-20T17:49:47" option but the value in the entity I mentioned above is still displaying as " 4 3 2016". What's missing? C933103 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bovlb, Jc3s5h, C933103: This is a bug, phab:T63958, not something that can be fixed in user preferences. (The bug is from February 2014 and is not fixed.) For Chinese there is only one option in preferences, which is not the one being displayed. Jc86035 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Academic misconduct controversyEdit

Could somebody help me how I should connect Pál Schmitt academic misconduct controversy (Q1286171) to Pál Schmitt (Q184810)? Furthermore, please help me to expand the first one if it is possible. Many thanks, Bencemac (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added main subject (P921) --Pasleim (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pasleim: I added participant (P710) but your and mine generates error. What should I do? Bencemac (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bencemac: The constraint violation warnings are merely stating that the items of the people you have included in the P710, should have reciprocal participant of (P1344) statements added to their items. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Because entering data twice is such a good use of volunteers' time... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
True-ish. But redundancy makes report writing more easy. I wonder if symmetrical warnings such as this could be extended, maybe by gadget, to provide a 'do it' button, which, if clicked, does it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: that would be phabricator:T167700. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
You can also try User:Frettie/consistency check add.js. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Problems fixed except main subject (P921). Any idea? Bencemac (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #326Edit

How to represent news about organisationEdit

I want to be able to add a list of politically relevant publications (articles, books, blog posts) to entities that are instances of business. How can I achieve this?

--GiordanoArman (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@GiordanoArman: If the publications are about the business, create items for each work, and add main subject (P921) to them. Otherwise, we'll need to see examples before we can help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Example: http://killercoke.org/crimes_china.php. This article talks about crimes committed by Coca Cola in China. What I wanted to do is linking an article to a company and adding also more info (in the example, references to assault (Q365680) because the article mentions that an assault has taken place). --GiordanoArman (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I indicate that a school served only black or white students during segregation?Edit

I am trying to create structured data for a number of segregated schools in the American south in the first half of the twentieth century, when Black and White students were separated. What property do I use? The same issue arises with schools attended by only male or female students. Leofstan (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Leofstan: It's an interesting question. I've had a quick poke around and I can't find any single-sex schools/colleges which have relevant Wikidata properties, either. instance of (P31) doesn't seem like a good approach given that many of these will have been changed between segregated and mixed over time. One approach might be to use legal form (P1454) with a value like "segregated school", but that seems a bit hacky. Either of these would work for a quick-and-dirty solution we could improve later, though.
Alternatively, we might need to create something - preferably not just for schools, as there are also things like racially segregated military units (eg 92nd Infantry Division (Q4645846)), and all sorts of other organisations with some kind of restriction on who can be associated with it (eg freemasonry (Q41726)). Can't think what to call it, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe has quality (P1552) with racial segregation (Q59816) and dates? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Related issues: How to structure items for schools that are for particular religious groups, or particular age groups, or for speakers of a particular language? (These three might be somewhat different as all usually come with differences in content or method of instruction as well.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
For age groups, I think we usually use P31: primary school (Q9842) etc. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

intended public (P2360). Thierry Caro (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed.Edit

Property_talk:P2732#Could_not_save_due_to_an_error._The_save_has_failed._This_action_has_been_automatically_identified_as_harmful,_and_therefore_disallowed.

It seems the previous link redirected to the link you wanted to add so I have changed it. Your edit was disabled because it was considered harmful by the abuse filter. Esteban16 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Question re. amaBhungane Q23927926Edit

AmaBhungane is an investigative journalism organization in South Africa. The name was chosen, because it means “dung beetle” in at least one of the dialects of isiZulu, the primary indigenous language of South Africa. As of 2018-08-21 Google Translate rendered it as “butterfly”. That's not the translation intended by the founders of amaBhungane. Does it make sense to try to enter this information about amaBhungane into Wikidata? Or just enter it into the Wikipedia article I'm writing about it? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you could use literal translation (P2441) on a name or official name statement if you like. Ghouston (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tagishsimon (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Useful hall of fame (Q1046088) and sports hall of fame (Q42245028) websitesEdit

Jura
Daniel Mietchen
Marsupium


  Notified participants of WikiProject Q5 MisterSynergy Thierry Caro &beer&love   Notified participants of WikiProject Sports

Many of these sites have no properties yet, please propose a property for each.Thanks --David (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

<no value> in P570 meaning 'is still alive'Edit

I came across a <no value> in a date of death (P570), which surprised me; and talked to a user who suggests that it is a reasonable way of encoding "is still alive" against a person item. As far as I can see, 69 items at the time of writing this have such a value. What do we make of this? Good, bad, indifferent? Thoughts please; thx.

select ?item ?dob where {  
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 . 
  optional {?item wdt:P569 ?dob.}
  ?item p:P570 [rdf:type wdno:P570] .}

Try it! --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A good reason to have the statement is data completeness and that in this way we have recorded the fact, that said person is indeed currently living, because they haven't died at the time when the statement was made. Not to have any statement can lead to the confusion whether the person is currently living or the date of their death just has not been recorded in Wikidata yet. That means less confidence in the actual status from the data at hand. On the other hand, reasons against the statement could be, that some living people, who have Wikidata items could find it creepy, to even have a statement related to their death at all. --MB-one (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about people who have been mistakenly reported as dead? We have the wrong date depreciated. Should we have a normal statement with <novalue> or only have the depreciated statement? – Máté (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  • There is Property:P1317 to indicate that a person was alive on a given date.
    --- Jura 11:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I think it would be misleading to use that property for living people, since it implicitly says that while we don't know when they died, they did. – Máté (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't think it implies that people actually died.
        --- Jura 12:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

E.W. Hobson duplicates but there is a third option?Edit

There are duplicates: E. W. Hobson (Q436096) (British mathematician, 46 statements, 10 sitelinks) and Ernest William Hobson. 1856-1933 (Q47475543) (Biographical article, 9 statements, 0 sitelinks). I think it would be better if there was an entry just named Ernest William Hobson? I'm not sure how to go about this, perhaps someone can step in please. Deadstar (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. The second item is an item for an academic journal article. It is a distinct thing; academic journal article <> person. They should stay as they are, linked, as they are, by a main subject (P921) statement. Their descriptions provide the necessary disambiguation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
OK thank you. Deadstar (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No probs :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Item Marked as Spam?Edit

Hi, I'm a new contributer who created an item High Plains Regional Climate Center (Q56195871) which was marked as spam, yet the related item Western Regional Climate Center (Q30687889) exists on WikiData. To lend credibility I linked Q56195871 as a subsidiary to University of Nebraska–Lincoln (Q1353679) with reference and provided public data sources that are produced by Q56195871 (Data sources are Applied Climate Information System Summary Map (Q56196714) and Automated Weather Data Network (Q56196824), which were also marked for deletion).

I guess my question is what have I done wrong, can I fix it, and why would these publicly funded entities and products be considered spam/non-notable given the number of users from within their field?

@WEP11: All items look absolutely fine to me - notable, now interlinked; no problem I can see. User:Esteban16, do you still have a problem with them? They're clearly not spam, so it's a bit odd that you marked them as such. (WEP11 - I refactored your post to get better links to the items in question.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I noticed that having a Wikipedia page is important, but that won't appear until it makes it through Wikipedia's review process.
@WEP11: That helps by satisfying criteria 1 on Wikidata:Notability. Your items clearly satisfy criteria 2 (references always help) and criteria 3, since they will be linked from academic & other papers, people items, etc. But, you know, deletionists versus keepists (?)--Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: ITYM "inclusionists". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
user:WEP11, sorry about the anti-organization bias. best to find a friendly neighborhood wikimedian to move your article, and avoid Conflict of interest claims. as you see, some editors can be dismissive of what they do not understand. we would be happy to help with an editathon, if you had content you wanted written about. Slowking4 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How to record Oricon anime[BD/DVD/VCD/VHS]/comic/novel/music/etc sales data in Wikidata?Edit

Oricon is a Japanese company that is responsible for collecting sales data from various different channels for various different media in Japan.

For different media, there are different way for them to release their collected data, and are often of interest to different people.

Take anime as an example, for number of discs sold, currently they would release weekly/yearly data about sales performance of each individual anime blu-ray disc volume, and weekly data for dvd discs, in addition to by-series weekly/monthly data release.

For each anime title, the first week sales performance of each individual blu-ray/DVD release are of interest, and then the latest total amount of disc being listed in the oricon data are also of interest. An example list of data for a single anime production could be re-represented like this on other websites:

○Title of Series
Vol First week     Total    Date
    BD(DVD)    BD(DVD)
01 15,000(*2,000) 18,000(*3,000) 10.09.11 ※Total 21,000
02 14,000(*2,000) 17,000(*3,000) 11.09.10 ※Total 20,000
03 10,000(*2,000) 13,000(*3,000) 11.10.09 ※Total 16,000
---
Avg 13,000(*2,000) 16,000(*3,000)   ※Total 19,000

And then if there are special versions or sales of things like boxset then those data would also be added in. How should such data be stored inside Wikidata?C933103 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

My first concern would be intellectual property & licences. This sounds like valuable commercial data. Have you given any thought to copyright & database rights? Under what licence, if any, is it released? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Humm indeed the original data release channel requires a paid subscription to access some of these data and the user agreement also stated that content should not be transferred to third parties. And the nature of the data is also more like an approximation based on collected data instead of direct reflection of collected data so there might also be some creative elements here that might make it eligible for copyright. It would probably be better to avoid meddling with those data here. C933103 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to be notified when an entity is changed?Edit

I need some entities to follow a certain schema and would like to be notified when they change. Is this feature currently implemented in Wikidata?

--GiordanoArman (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Watchlist (top right link in the user interface) lists recent changes to entities you have "watched" - click the star between "View history" and the search box to add an entity to your watchlist. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
See also en:Help:Watching pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any coordinate location (P625) with Ordnance Survey National Grid (Q1967305) value?Edit

I am reading the manual for the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Coord on English Wikipedia, in which it mentioned that, the source: parameter can be used to specify the data source format, with one of the possible format being Ordnance Survey National Grid (Q1967305). As coordinate location (P625) specify that only WGS84 coordinate should be included in the property, if someone accidentally included Ordnance Survey National Grid (Q1967305) coordinates as value for this property, it might result in errors in the resultant product (possibly up to 120m difference according to its article on wikipedia). And then as bots/users would copy value from Template:coord into wikidata for coordinate location (P625), it seems like it is possible for coordinates to be mistakenly copied over. Is there anyway to find out if there are any/how many of such cases exists in wikidata, and then locate/fix them?C933103 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How to request for deletion of an itemEdit

Please how do they request for deletion here? I mistaken created Wale Aboderin (Q56224240), only to discover that it has already been created as Wale Aboderin (Q55808390). Kindly delete. Regards. HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)