Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata:Project chat

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.
Requests for deletions can be made here.
Merging instructions can be found here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/04.

P123 (publisher) -- German/French problemEdit

publisher (P123) has as description: "organization responsible for publishing books, periodicals, games or software". As German translation "Verlag" is used and the description is: "Namen des Medienunternehmens, das die Publikation auf den Markt gebracht hat". (Literally: "Name of the media company that has published the publication to the market".) If one looks at the actual use of the property in references[1] one finds that there hardly figures any organisation which in German would be called a "Verlag". Actually, while the English description of P123 would need only little change to accommodate the actual use, the item publisher (Q2085381) doesn't fit, as many of the entries are no "media companies". The wikidata module in the German wikipedia uses P123 entries in references and precedes them with "Verlag", which doesn't make any sense in most cases. I'm just wondering whether there is some way to rectify the situation. 123 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you look at the constraints on P123 you will note the publisher can be an organization or a human. The German translation of the description is clearly too restrictive. But it seems there may also be a problem with the way people are using this property in references. Do you have some specific examples where it looks wrong to you? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, in the German wikipedia basically all entries with the property P123 result in something which looks (actually: is) wrong. Only 61 entries from 52155 use an item which is an instance of publisher (Q2085381) (to be a publisher in the sense of Q2085381 would be a necessary but not sufficient condition to qualify as a "Verlag") and even under these 61 7 actually do not give a "Verlag". For the rest: the United Nations, Rostock District, BBC, Statistics Belgium, Adobe Systems, Aargau, Department of Defense, Microsoft, World Health Organization, Bochum, oronto, International Astronomical Union, Bad Doberan, erbo-Croatian, Facebook, Wikimedia Foundation and so on are all no "Verlag". From a German perspective the problem is not so much that the description is too restrictive (it is adequate as description of a Verlag in the context), but that the translation of publisher with "Verlag" is wrong. The deeper problem is that the English and German ontology seem to differ. As a result there is no interwiki link from de:Verlag (and fr:Maison d'édition, pt:Editora ...) to the English wikipedia! (A link to en:Publishing would be as wrong as is the link from en:Publishing to de:Edition: "Edition" as concept is much narrower than "Publishing".) Most of the entries for P123 would qualify for what in the context of cataloging in German is called Körperschaft as de:Urheber (originator, creator) or initiator/causer of a publication. ("Urheber" again being an important German concept without interwiki link into the English Wikipedia.)
In an ideal world, from a German perspective (and French and some others) there would be at least four properties for the "Urheber" or initiator/creator of a reference: author (P50), editor (P98), publisher (P123) and a new one, called in German "Verlag" (in French "Maison d'édition", in Portuguese "Editora" ... and in English perhaps "Publishing house").
* author (P50) for, well, authors.
* editor (P98) for editors according to the description given: "editor of a compiled work such as a book or academic journal" (at the moment for most of the entries what is given are not editors but the organisations responsible for the publication, and P98 should therefore in these cases be replaced by P123).
* publisher (P123) should in German get a different name (like "Körperschaft" and a corresponding description); the English description could be somewhat wider on the one hand but exclude publishing houses and the like on the other hand.
* P|xxxx in German Verlag, in English perhaps publishing house; would correspond to item publisher (Q2085381)
The hole point is that the concept "publisher" as used now, lumps together two quite different activities: The actual production of content and/or ultimate responsibility for the publication of some work through some organisation (like the Worlbank producing and publishing data, the UNDP producing and publishing its reports ...) and the copy editing, layouting, printing, selling etc. of published work. Two examples (one from a library record, one from academic writing) which illustrate the difference:
*Title: Human development report ... By: publ. for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Place: Oxford [u.a.] Publisher: Oxford Univ. Press
*U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1975). Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Most of the entries under P123 give organisations like the UNDP or the U.S. Department of Commerce ... A very few give entities like Oxford Univ. Press or the U.S. Government Printing Office. Both categories should be distinguished. 123 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
123 - does "copy editing, layouting, printing, selling" even apply for information published on the world wide web? Certainly the "printing" and "selling" parts do not. At least in English, the verb "publish" means the act of making something public, or available for distribution to the public (whether for sale or not) and doesn't require any of the things you mention. So "publisher" should be the actor that performs that act of publishing for the work in question. I think the German verb "veröffentlichen" might be closest to the English meaning of publish as used here - is there a German noun that captures that meaning similarly for "publisher"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
"copy editing, layouting, printing, selling" served as an illustration not a definition. I just wanted to illustrate the distinction between what according to ISO 690 (1987), 690-2 (1997), 1086 (1991) and 5127 is a publisher: "Person or organization responsible for the production and dissemination of a document." [ISO 5127/3a:1981] and what is an author: "Person or corporate body responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a document." This distinction is relevant because according to the norms (ISO and otherwise) for bibliographic references the author (or more general: the creator of content) should come first while the publisher only comes after the title, (if relevant: media designation and edition) and place. Lumping together publishers in the sense of the ISO definition with corporate authors or creators of content (and with periodicals, namely newspapers), as it happens now in publisher (P123), makes it impossible to use the data of wikidata to create a correct bibliographic reference. This should IMHO be a serious concern for everybody who hopes for more widespread use of wikidata and for its quality. That's the reason why I thought we need a new property for "publisher" in the sense of the ISO definition (which more or less corresponds to the German "Verlag").
Looking through Wikidata:List_of_properties/Works#Literature, Wikidata:WikiProject_Books, Wikidata:WikiProject_Periodicals and Property_talk:P123 I notice though, that obviously P123 is/was meant in line with the meaning of publisher in the sense of the ISO definition and what really is missing are the properties of "corporate creators of content" and (less frequent, but belonging to a complete set of bibliographic properties) the one of "corporate editor". To move the corporate authors to author (P50) wouldn't be an ideal solution, as there are different rules for how to treat persons and corporate authors/creators of content in bibliographic references. And indeed editor (P98)(cf. Property_talk:P98) as author (P50) (cf. Property_talk:P123) require human persons as values. There is, at the moment, no property under which one could correctly place all those entries of corporate authors/creators of content in references.
As far as I know there is no (actually used) German noun which would capture the wide English meaning of publisher. (There is of course also a narrower meaning of publisher in English, given by the public version of the Oxford dictionary as the only one: "1 A person or company that prepares and issues books, journals, music, or other works for sale. 1.1 North American A newspaper proprietor." which again closely resembles the modern, wider meaning of "Verlag" in German.) But for the reasons given, just changing the German label wouldn't do. 123 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
123 let's talk about specifics here. You listed Wikimedia Foundation as not qualifying as a "Verlag". Yet it is listed as the publisher (P123) for Scholarly article citations in Wikipedia (Q21684024). What do you think the publisher should be instead there? Similarly you said Adobe Systems should not qualify, but it is listed as publisher of PDF Reference, sixth edition (Q26480769) (for which it seems to be also sole listed author and with no editor provided). Who do you think is the publisher instead? ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you hit the nail on the head of the problem with your first example. Wikimedia Foundation unfortunately is listed as publisher of Scholarly article citations in Wikipedia (Q21684024) - but it in no way is its publisher. The data set is "published" in the wide sense by Figshare, which isn't a publisher either, but a website, belonging to a publisher - Macmillan Publishers. In a correct bibliographic reference you would have to indicate the individual authors and later the place, where to find it (depending on the style you would indicate the direct url or only the website - Figshare - or both) but you could leave out the publisher part. I guess it would be mostly allowed to add Macmillan as publisher. But I might be corrected on this guess.

Your second example is a typical one and the answer is very simple: There shouldn't be a publisher mentioned. It is case where some organisation (corporate body) not being a publisher produces some content and disseminates it itself. If you care you could download the document and you see how Adobe gives references in the bibliography: Most of its own publications it gives without a publisher (indicating before where they might be found). There is one execption: PostScript Language Reference, Third Edition, which was published by Addison-Wesley, a true publisher. Under "Other Resources" you find documents of many corporate bodies beginning with Apple Computer, Inc., which are always indicated as author/creator and no publisher is given (but often a place where to find the document). 123 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you disseminate content to the general public, then you are the publisher. For example, Apple, Inc. is both the corporate author of, and the publisher of,
The point behind identifying a publisher in a citation isn't to show that there's a professional publishing house behind the source. The point behind identifying a publisher was to make it possible for you to obtain the source (back when 'obtaining a source' meant writing a letter, on paper, in an envelope, addressed to "Example Publishing, London, England" (which used to be a functional postal address). In the case of self-published works, including a note that it's self-published does not help you obtain the work, and therefore it's usually omitted (although we might include it if the source (e.g., a book) might otherwise reasonably be expected to be non-self-published, and we think that this information would be helpful for some reason). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The way properties for works are structured in wikidata at this moment it would be "wrong" to put Apple, Inc as corporate author of There is no property for corporate authors (and none for corporate editors) and the property P50 is reserved for human persons. As the author/creator is the main responsible for the content of a work, it is of utmost importance to indicate him/her/it. Repeating the same entity as publisher is normally redundant and the requirements to indicate the publisher in case it is not identical with the author/creator, the url where a document is available in the case of a document disseminated through the web, or the printing company in case the author disseminates a printed document without a publisher intervening etc. take care of indicating ways to obtain the document. The common norms of how to create a reference to works of Apple, Inc (indicating and mostly starting with "Apple, Inc" as author/creator) have their good reasons. It is a pity that the way properties for works are setup in wikidata does not allow to create a reference abiding to those norms. 123 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, so would a new "corporate author" or "organizational author" property suffice to address your concern here, or are there other gaps in your view? Please propose a property along these lines, it does sound like you have a case for it! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
To address my concern fully one would also need the property "corporate editor". (Like an organisation as editor of a journal). This is less frequent, but I actually had found cases in wikidata where this would be adequate. (Unfortunately I didn't document them.) 123 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I proposed the property "corporate author" and would be happy if I could get your support:-) 123 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop this vandal Briya!Edit

Please, stop cross wiki vandalism by Sintakzo!Edit

P1448: official nameEdit

Hi! Regarding official name (P1448), while according to the description it is meant to contain the "official name of the subject in its official language(s)" and my feeling is that this is indeed the original purpose, from time to time I find here and there the property filled with the official name transcribed in non official languages. For example I am sure that russian and georgian are not official languages used in New York City (Q60). Discussing on the use of this property for infoboxes we realized that this would be a problem when we want only the "official name of the subject in its official language(s)". So I am asking if the description and the intended purpose of the property is correct. Additionaly it would be a good idea for maintenance to check for such problems (easy, most countries have only one or two official languages). -Geraki (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone answer that? It's a serious problem. See Germany (Q183). It has 15 values in this property. And only the first one (with preferred rank). If we want to write all possible language and just to have the official as preferred, we must write it down. Xaris333 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata description editing in the Wikipedia Android appEdit

Ciao, I just sent out a new announcement about Wikidata description editing, the experiment being rolled out on the Wikipedia app for Android. While this primarily impacts Wikidata, the changes are also addressing a concern about the mobile versions of Wikipedia, so that mobile users will be able to edit directly the descriptions shown under the title of the page and in the search results.

We began by rolling out this feature several weeks ago to a pilot group of Wikipedias (Russian, Hebrew, and Catalan), and have seen very positive results including numerous quality contributions in the form of new and updated descriptions, and a low rate of vandalism.

We are now ready for the next phase of rolling out this feature, which is to enable it next week for all Wikipedias except the top ten by usage within the app (i.e. except English, German, Italian, French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Turkish, and Chinese). We will enable the feature for those languages instead at some point in the future, as we closely monitor user engagement with our expanded set of pilot communities. As always, if have any concerns, please reach out to us on wiki at the talk page for this project or by email at Thanks!

---Elitre (WMF) (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC) on behalf of DBrant (WMF).

  • Can you add some Special:Tags to edits where people add/change these disambiguators? (or link the one that is already being used)?
    --- Jura 07:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    I believe mobile app edit is the one but that's just my assumption. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Seems to be. It would be good if these could be listed by language. Maybe a more specific tag could be generated? "mobile disambiguator-ca" (for Catalan disambiguators). Those not reading ru and he, currently need to skip through these.
    --- Jura 10:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, Matěj is correct. (The tag is a general one that catches app edits of all kinds both from the iOS and Android apps, but the description edits on Android are currently the only ones that are possible on Wikidata.)
    Regarding Jura's idea: Without being an expert on edit tags in general, I assume it would be very difficult to provide a separate tag for every possible language. That said (speaking also as a frequent recent changes patroller - as volunteer - myself), it looks like there is a need for such a tool in general, which would let one focus on changes to language-dependent content (such as descriptions) in one's preferred languages. There was already a Phabricator task at phab:T141866; I just made some further edits and suggestions there. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this is really cool! --Denny (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


We have:

What about a shield? Like en:File:Lewes shield.jpg. Xaris333 (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If there is a rich collection of them on Commons, why not proposing it? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking a Wikipedia article which covers two itemsEdit

Land Rover (Q35907) - the former company, and Land Rover (Q26777551) - the brand, are both covered by the same English Wikipedia article (Land Rover). How can I link that single article to the two different items? DeFacto (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Pick one. - Brya (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There are tons of Wikipedia ariticles that cover more than one Wikidata item. Until we can link to subsections of an article (if that ever happens), there's no way to resolve this. - PKM (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
See Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
in the long run you should make a list of problem articles, and build the team to go split them.Slowking4 (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mess in properties referring to the owner/founder of an organizationEdit

There is a bit mess in properties referring to the owner/founder of an organization.

parent organization (P749) and its duplicate Q1956113 has maybe a needless overlap with owned by (P127) - if a company is a parent company of an other organization, it usually means that the company is owner of the subsidiary organization. However, parent organization (P749) is inapplicable for cases when the parent organization is not a company, but have some different form. However, many aliases of the property are confusing, outside the name and basic descritpion of the property.

If the owning organization is a company, we need use parent organization (P749), but if the owning organization is not a company, we need use owned by (P127)? Or we need use owned by (P127) also paralelly with parent organization (P749)?

For cases when the parent organization is not the "owner" strictu sense, but the "founder" (typical for non-profit governmental organizations, subsidiaries of associations and clubs, church parishes etc.), we can use founded by (P112), which is too general and ambiguous, covering all from official and formal founder status to informal inspirational role in the world of movements and ideas. --ŠJů (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

there is also part of (P361) which can be used instead of parent organization (P749) although that might not cover all cases of interest. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)



Can anyone help me with the tool? I want to add numbers. For example,

Q4831311 P2046 5,823

Xaris333 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

For decimals you need to use a . (period) as a separator, not a , (comma). And a separator for thousands isn't used. Mbch331 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
What are the units for this property? You must specify 5,823Uxx as mentioned here [3]. Also check the example entities given in Jsamwrites (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jsamwrites: The units are square kilometre (Q712226). How I must write it? Xaris333 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

amount[lower,upper]Uxx5.823U712226. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried Q4831311 P2046 5.823U712226 but is not working. Xaris333 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to put the period in the number, and don't forget the tabs (which you can't place in the tool, but you have to do it in excel or a texteditor) between the different items: Q4831311 P2046 5823U712226. Q.Zanden questions? 17:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Its not a period. Its the comma for decimal. Still wot working with tabs. Xaris333 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Same by me... it seems that unit support has only been added to the old version. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, isn't supporting units. Looking forward to the day it does :-) 123 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
It works in the NIOSH Fork. I did so. Lymantria (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work :( Even if I try Q16269888 P2046 "3,737" is not working. Units are optional for area property. Do you know any other tool that can help me? Xaris333 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: It should work! Try Q16269888[TAB]P2046[TAB]3.737U712226. Do not use commas! Units may be optional, without unit the statement is without meaning... Lymantria (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lymantria: Is working but is adding 3.737±0.001 [4] I don't want ±0.001 .Xaris333 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Ah. I don't think in general the ±0.001 is a bad idea. But you might try something like Q16269888[TAB]P2046[TAB]3.737[3.737,3.737]U712226. Lymantria (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lymantria: Bad idea [5]. Nevermind. Thanks for your help. Xaris333 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Error in setting official websitesEdit

Try setting official website (P856) for url shortening webservices like TinyURL (Q1196499) or Bitly (Q21079) and it won't work and gives the following error: "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.". I think exception can be made in these particular cases. Jsamwrites (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In principle an expectation can be made but it's not straightforward. There's a global blacklist that's effective for all Wikimedia website and it comes into effect here. It's likely not worth the effort to create a system that allows this for the few exceptions. ChristianKl (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi ChristianKl, do you know any approach (or another property) to specify a string for such URLs similar to the approach followed in Wikipedia. Check w:TinyURL infobox. Jsamwrites (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It might be possible that admins or sysops can enter this information but I don't think there's a way for a regular user. ChristianKl (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that would trigger this error on every next edit to an item that has a blacklisted url. Multichill (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
We discussed this today. It should be possible for a steward to make the edit. The question then is if the item can still be edited by someone else afterwards. It is best if we just try that. @Sjoerddebruin, Hoo man, Stryn: Can one of you add the link to the official website for one of the items below so we can test it? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I'm also not able to add these URLs. See also phab:T36928. Still, if I could add the URLs the item would be un-editable for most users because the source will contain the URLs. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
How about using MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist on Wikidata for url shortening services? It should overwrite the pages given in m:Spam blacklist as far as I know. Stryn (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we want to generally whitelist url shortening services on Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
the blacklist can also be a problem when you try to reference with archive, but the url has rotted to spam. there needs to be a rethink of blacklist. Slowking4 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
We can whitelist them, and create an abuse filter to allow to use them only as "official website" in items. Stryn (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Property for "named by"Edit

Good day, do we have a property for "named by"? For example, who gave the name to an island. If not, should we create it? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

named after (P138) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's what Amqui was looking for. E.g. for Rastorguyev Island (Q2581188) we can have the statements named after (P138) Stepan Rastorguyev (Q4390607) and named by Eduard Toll (Q559426). conferred by (P1027) might work if used as a qualifier to named after (P138) - naming something after someone is conferring an honour so I think it's within constraints but I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Thryduulf (talkcontribslogs) is right in what I'm looking for. I think it would be useful to have this property on its own and not only as a qualifier of "named after". I say that because something can be "named by" someone without being "named after" something else. Anyway, to use conferred by (P1027) that way, we would need to expand its scope, because right its description is only for awards or prizes. The "named after" is not only an honour, because something could be "named after" something that is not the name of a person. For example, there is an asteroid 274301 Wikipedia (Q3913001) "named after" Wikipedia, but could we say that this name is an honour/prize to Wikipedia in order to use "conferred by"? I guess it can make sense if it's always a qualifier of "named after", but not as a property on its own. Amqui (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Property Country of CitizenshipEdit

hello, I would like to specify the country of citizenship for items of class human who studied at the university Oxford based on the continent the country is located in. I used the property "part of" and the continent item to get the results. It worked for Europe but not for other continents. E.g. I get no results when the continent Item is changed to North America, although there are many north american items that should be in the output. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks for help! see line 17 here.--Sky xe (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Try replacing part of (P361) with continent (P30). Shinnin (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice, it works. I didn't know that such a property exists. Thanks Shinnin. --Sky xe (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Add referenceEdit

Hello. Let say that some items (more than 100) have a property with one value. This property may have a reference or may not. Is there a way to add automatic a new reference (reference URL (P854), title (P1476), archive URL (P1065), archive date (P2960) etc) to all article. The reference is the same for all the items. I don't want to change the value of the property in any item. Xaris333 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the value: If it is a quantity there isn't any tool I know of. (And if anybody knows of one, I would be more than happy to get a recipe.) If it isn't a quantity (or what else?) seems to work perfectly. 123 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to add the values, only the reference. Xaris333 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
QuickStatements won't create new statement if it already exists and will still add the reference if it doesn't have the same one. (Statements are same when they have same property, value and qualifiers.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but do I still need to have the value? I know that the values are correct, I don't want to add these information to quickstatements again. Just to add the reference. Xaris333 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to add a source to a value, knowing the value is essential. Doesn't matter whether by hand or in bulk. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

List of users with the most edits?Edit

I just made my 100,000th edit and was wondering, is there any list of users with the most edits on Wikidata, and if not, could one be created? I know some other wikis have them. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There is such a thing but there is little point to it. PS Great effort :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You will find it here, updated every month. Mahir256 (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Well done for being in the top 200, though stats are so skewed for this wiki due to people's ability to "bot" mega-edit with the use of tools. If you have done them manually even more congratulations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, all of them were either manual or with the Wikidata Game. Thanks you. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #256Edit

Petscan — what am I missing?Edit

I am trying to get Petscan to add family names to a manual list. I get the list up fine (petscan:885680), and I get the P/Q pair in fine "p734:Q29470680", click the green button, it counts down the items being added, and nothing is actually added to the items. I am clearly missing something, though it is not evident to me what it is. [Yes, I am logged in with WIDAR. Tried FF and Chrome to same non-action.] Can someone please give the right guidance to this nonce. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Iirc, Petscan is case sensitive. Try "P734:Q29470680" with a capital 'P'. Shinnin (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
High five! Curse you case sensitivity on first letters!  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I am having brainfarts as I now cannot get this query petscan:886845 to offer me the ability to add data pairs through the tool. Can someone please enlighten me to where the heck I am failing. (query is manual list of 42, filtered for those without P734, result is 35). Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In Petscan, go to 'Other sources' -> 'Use wiki', and select 'Wikidata'. This should fix the problem. Shinnin (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that does resolve the issue, though it is not clear to me why, as "other sources" seems to be input. Can I ask that we better document the "use wiki" line at m:PetScan/en.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) at 19. 4. 2017, 06:07‎ (UTC).
Your input was "Manual list", so "From manual list" will use the wiki from the manual list. I think this makes sense. But I agree that having this option inside "Other sources" tab (well, some others from there should also live somewhere else) can be a little confusing. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 in MontréalEdit

Wikimania 2017

This year, Wikimania is happening in Montréal, from August 11 to 13, and for the Hackathon and the Sourcethon, from August 9 to 10! In the hackathon, there will be some projects for WikiData. Interested?

You want to give us a hand? We need YOU as a volunteer!

Contact Antoine2711 at

Come make a difference with a great team of passionate Wiki people.

--Antoine2711 (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Properties in general. Property Category tagging to Projects. Teaching Ps & Qs.Edit

Been looking "top down" at properties that have been created to date.

My interest lies mostly for the following projects: Organizations, Economics and Companies. I see that properties (at least via the related discussion page, may be specifically tagged to Wikidata Projects.

There is great confusion among Wikipedia users migrating to Wikidata over what should be an item (Q) and what should be a property (P). Questions around property inheritance from parent items is also a typical stumbling block for new project members.

I understand project members, typically go out and tag properties (via a Category: tag) that appear relevant to their project. This is to guide new users to preferred / frequently used properties, and avoid new property proposals that merely duplicate the standing ones. This category tagging (to a Project) process seems very "hit or miss", especially since properties have expanded greatly.

Category:Properties_by_number_of_uses, a potential aid for Projects focusing on the most important properties first seems to be in error. The numbers should go up at the "bottom" and never decline. I assume this is auto generated? Any chance for a fix?

Also, any suggestions on how to teach new project members "what should be an item (most) vs. what should be a property (few)", and how to do that, along with how to focus new project members on filling in important property instances vs. creating more "far flung" properties very much appreciated. All projects must wrestle with these issues. Rjlabs (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me to discussions where contributors are confused as to what should be a property and what should be an item? I have heard a lot of things to be confused about, but have never encountered this one. --Denny (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Here is an example. Accounting standard is a fairly abstract concept. For a reported number you need to know what standard was used (generally country dependent, and specific to a year. Accounting standards constantly evolve and are typically maintained, codified and implemented by year. Frequently there are XML Schema files (.xsd) by year that very specifically describe reporting under a specific standard. These .xsds are written in the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (xBRL)

Looking at what we have now:

Accounting standard (Q1779838)

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - US (Q650978)
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - US - 2015 (Q29168386)
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - US - 2016 (Q29168379)
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - US - 2017 (Q29168365)
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Q16981751) (Canada)
Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (Q16981746) (UK)

Note: accounting ontology is not unified across years or across countries, even in xBRL. For example, labels used in the UK 2015 .xsd might be exactly the same or similar to those used in the US 2015 .xsd but the actual meanings could be different. Likewise the exact same measurement might have two different labels. A global ontology for accounting standards, with concordances between different countries/years/etc. will likely take years to fully emerge.

In addition to the above Q's is Wikidata:Property_proposal/accounting standard. An accounting number with a general label is nearly useless unless you know the specific standard under which it was purportedly prepared. Context information is essential. For example:

Take a quick look at how xBRL handles company financial data because they have been at it for many years now and are good at it. See specific example in XML at [[6]]. In the simplified example you can see they are reporting four numbers: Other Operating Income, Other Administrative Expenses, Other Operating Expense, Other Operating Income. Each of those “numbers” has a 'context id reference which shows the period (start date and end date, here a year), and the unit id (here EUR, which is specifically identified as iso4217:EUR. Best of all xBRL has a very good way to describe a huge variety of units in a flexible, and very specific way. More at:

In designing its company object/property structure there are several articles that WikiData can "go to school on" to facilitate high quality linking:

  • An Ontological Approach to XBRL Financial Statement.pdf
  • Dave Raggett - xBRL & Sparql.pdf
  • Fundamental Analysis Powered by Semantic Web.pdf
  • Publishing XBRL as Linked Open Data.pdf
  • Representing financial reports on the semantic web a faithful trans…_ORIGINAL.pdf
  • Semantic Integration Approach to Efficient Business Data Supply Chain - Integration Approach to Interoperable XBRL.pdf
  • Semantic Paths in Business Filings Analysis (thesis).pdf
  • Translating the FINREP taxonomy using a domain-specific corpus (2103).pdf
  • Translating XBRL Into Description Logic - An Approach using Ptotoege, Sesame & OWL.pdf
  • Triplificating and linking XBRL financial data.pdf
  • Using Semantic Web Technologies to Facilitate XBRL-based Financial data Comparability.pdf
  • XBRL - Consequences to Financial Reporting, Data Analysis, Decision Support, and others.pdf
  • XBRL and open data for global financial ecosystems - A linked data approach.pdf
  • XBRL taxonomies and OWL ontologies for investment funds.pdf

There is a significant volume of financial and economic data of interest to WikiPedia currently. But, this represents only the very top level of what is actually available in readily accessed public repositories. At present WikiPedia seems only interested in less than a dozen numbers per company, and only to report for the most current year. That's a great start but over time WikiData may ultimately want more. (For example a 10 year historical reporting of the key numbers to show trends, etc.) In any event WikiData is today confronted with the cross country compatibility issues.

Getting the Q's and P's right at WikiData, especially to elicit all required contextual data around financial statement number presentation will greatly facilitate (or inhibit) linking company data. "Accounting Standard" as a P and as a Q is just one example of potential P/Q options and confusion. Rjlabs (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that was insightful. Thank you for taking your time to answer. I see that you already found the relevant Wikiprojects, Economics and Companies. I would claim that it is the task of these Wikiprojects to figure out how to best represent the data within their domain, and then check with the wider community if that's OK - or just go ahead and do it. Missing or badly defined properties would also be discussed there. --Denny (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rjlabs: Thanks for another insightful posting on company data --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I suggest you copy it to the relevant project, since it will be lost quickly here.
    • Do you have links for the papers you listed above? Could you add those links above?
    • Your original question is quite simple. After a prop "accounting standard" is made, you'd state <financial report> "accounting standard" Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - US - 2015 (Q29168386) (assuming the report uses that particular standard).
    • But that's assuming <financial report> is a structured item (holding the numbers). If that's just a link to a PDF, then it's enough to say <company> URL <financial report> / of "financial report" (or whatever more specific thing they filed). There's no necessity to state which accounting standard the PDF conforms to, since a user can read that in the PDF, and you're not processing the numbers by machine
    • IMHO WD won't be ready to take detailed financial reports for a couple of years yet. One question is capacity, the bigger problem is having an interested community of people like yourself who know the domain, what needs to be integrated, and what apps can be made on top of it
    • As you say, financial terms can mean different things in different countries or even editions of a standard. So then, before those numbers are input to WD, you need to harmonize meanings across national standards and variations, so you can make properties that have a fixed well-defined meaning. This sounds like a huge undertaking to me.

How do we know the page to which a flow topic belongs ?Edit

Topic:Tovhw8vkh8f2c9b0 is part of user talk:Zolo, but that does not show in its title. It makes it impossible to use the magic word {{PAGENAME}} the way it is usually used. Any solution to this ? Any simple way to get the title of the page to which a Flow topic is attached ? --Zolo (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. I'm also missing the "user contributions" link on the left pane, which is there on normal user talk sub pages, but not on those using Flow. Stryn (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Zolo and Stryn, thank you for your feedback.
Concerning PAGENAME, it is an already known problem. I'll push it up with your feedback.
Concerning user contributions link, Flow pages are disconnected from the parent page. That's why you don't have a "user contribution" link, which is link on an item. I've however report your idea.
Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How to model Finnish high school / upper secondary education courses in Wikidata?Edit

Any tips, opinions, experience, good examples etc. in saving curriculum data (high school / upper secondary education courses) in Wikidata?

We at the Finnish broadcasting company Yle are thinking of saving the obligatory, national Finnish high school courses in Wikidata. We use Wikidata for tagging content in our web services and our need for having these courses in Wikidata is to be able to categorize certain pieces of content in Yle Knowledge & learning (Yle Oppiminen: according to those high school courses. E.g. that a certain piece of content belongs to a certain high school course like "Human biology, Biology course 4" or "Economics, Social studies course 2" in curriculum.

But how to model this data in Wikidata? Are there good examples for curriculum or other educational data in Wikidata we could use as models?

Grateful for all kind of feedback, Pia Virtanen / Pikrvi

perhaps a new property is needed for this - "Finnish education course category" or something like that? We have a US classification property along these lines - Classification of Instructional Programs code (P2357). Or you could use a more generic property such as perhaps main subject (P921)? Pinging the Education wikiproject here for any other ideas also... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Runner1928 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC) —M@sssly 10:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Abreu Guilherme (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Education

@Pikrvi, ArthurPSmith: There are related taxonomies here. I'm going to use an information model from IMS Global Learning Consortium, which is a leading group of educational technologists that care about this issue. In, they write that "Competencies and Academic Standards Exchange (CASE) includes...machine-readable statements of what the learner will know and be able to do (items) and explanations of relationships between standard sets and/or among individual standards or courses where applicable (associations)".
  1. The first taxonomy that Wikidata can hold is modeling courses. E.g., "Economics 2" is an instance of a high school course with main subject economics, follows Economics 1, followed by Economics 3. We might try to ensure that courses around the world that cover the same topics use the same Wikidata entity. So this "Economics 2" course could have a new Wikidata property "fulfills" or "is required for" and it would point to an entity for the Finnish graduation requirements. But the course could also be required for other nations' high school graduation. Modeling courses is ideal if their content is relatively static: e.g., International Baccalaureate courses.
  2. The second is modeling competencies and academic standards. In the CASE model above, an item is a machine-readable standard. An association is a link between a standard in one jurisdiction and a standard in another jurisdiction that mean the same thing (and therefore should have the same Wikidata Qid), and it's also a link between an academic standard and a course. Here is where Wikidata could have a new "is aligned with academic standard" property to join courses with the standards they teach to. This is where "Economics 2" would point to the specific standards it teaches to, which is much more specific than just using the "main subject" property.
  3. A third is modeling curriculum/learning objects to courses or academic standards. If we have a learning object in Wikidata (e.g., a Wikiversity learning resource, a Wikibook, a Wikidata item that describes a video, or many others), we can use the same proposed "is aligned with academic standard" property to say that this learning object teaches to that standard. I think it's much better to say that a learning object/curriculum item is aligned with a standard rather than a course, because one definition of a course is teaching to some set of related standards that changes from time to time. If you align your videos or curriculum to standards, and align courses to standards, then you'll have your learning-object-to-course mapping automatically.

Now, that's a best-case scenario. I'm guessing you don't have the information required to map all required Finnish high school courses to their academic standards. A near-term solution would be just doing the "first taxonomy" (modeling courses) in the manner described above. You could keep the relationships between your learning objects and courses in your own database. But I think we'll have a better long-term solution if we move toward modeling academic standards too. Runner1928 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Runner1928, ArthurPSmith: Thank you for your help! I need to digest this information with Wikidata specialists in Finland!

How do I enter a quantity in QuickStatments without lower and upper bounds?Edit

I try to add Q4115189 P3864 5.5 P518 Q27177113 P585 +2015-01-17T00:00:00Z/9. Unfortunately it doesn't add any of the qualifiers. The datasource is and it doesn't specify anything about the accuracy. ChristianKl (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Add "±0" after the "5.5". I believe the new QuickStatements should work. Mahir256 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, the new version seems to handle it better. I have a follow up question: What's the easiest way to go from a list of country names to adding information to the corresponding item via QuickStatements? ChristianKl (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
If the list of country names corresponds exactly to the names of their Wikipedia articles, you can run something like "(country name) Senwiki (country name)" using the old version to get their respective QIDs and simply replacing the column containing the country list with those QIDs before adding your information with the new version. Mahir256 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Well numbers like 5.5 or 6.5 seem to work well. No luck with 5.6, or 0.641. I get something like 5.5999999999999996447286321199499070644378662109375 or 0.6410000000000000142108547152020037174224853515625 123 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The new QuickStatements are not the only tool to suffer from this bug. HarvestTemplates also had to block numbers with decimal points although it's using a different API. I think it happens when data are being converted to JSON in order to send them to Wikidata. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The wikibase API actually has a call to convert a string to the right form in a way that works like the wikidata API - people should be using that rather than their own (whatever language their code is in) string parsing to real numbers. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I notice this edit to one of the sandboxes. It obviously does not produce the correct result. It indicates 5.5 is an exact value, when the source clearly indicates it is an estimate. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I guess the user was just experimenting how to produce a value without lower and upper bound. In the context of a sandbox I wouldn't say then, that the edit didn't produce the correct result. (It produced what it produced and the user now knows.) 123 (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wales buildingsEdit

Heads-up: I (via User:Reinheitsgebot) am creating ~27K buildings with heritage status (Cadw Building ID (P1459)) in Wales. Data via User:Jason.nlw, from original source. Added some semi-automatic inferred statements where possible (GPS from easting/northing etc.) --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: you triggered 27055 constraint violations for something that is marked as mandatory. Can you please add the missing country (P17) -> United Kingdom (Q145) and undo this edit? Multichill (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

How to say "Telescope was used to discover object"?Edit

James Lick telescope (Q6138045) was used to discover Amalthea (Q3257). What's a good way of recording that? discoverer or inventor (P61) (that I'm currently using) seems to be more about the person that discovered it, while site of astronomical discovery (P65) and location of discovery (P189) seem to work the wrong way around ("X was discovered by Y"). Any suggestions, or does this need a new property? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

item operated (P121) ? and I was thinking as a qualifier to P61.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @billinghurst, but I think that's also the other way around ("X was discovered by Y" rather than "Y was used to discover X"). Maybe that's the better way of doing it, but it seems odd we can't do the link both ways around. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I was seeing it more as A used B to discover C. B is passive, so I don't think that it discovered anything. Cook -> Endeavour -> eastern Australia (to Europeans as the indig. already knew it was there)  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: I was hoping to pull this into en:Template:Infobox telescope to say that "this telescope was used to discover these things". Reverse queries are complicated and expensive... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
significant event (P793) ?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
There is also the simple, generic properties "uses", "used by" +++ others (subject of-, object of- type stuff) around.
@billinghurst: significant event (P793) -> discovery (Q753297) -> (which property?) -> Amalthea (Q3257) might work. Except I'm not sure what property can be used in the middle - "astronomical object" would be the obvious thing, but that's not suitable for a property. Other generic properties probably have the same issue... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, of (P642) might work for that middle property! It's convoluted, but it might do. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
W00t, that seems to work. :-) en:James Lick telescope now has a "discovered" line in the infobox. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add identifier columnEdit

Hi can anyone help me out in adding identifier column. please kindly let me know

My page Zebronics (Q29113803)
You don't need to add an extra column. You can just add identifiers like a normal statement. ChristianKl (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Process for updating VIAFEdit

Hoi, the Dutch "Koninklijke bibliotheek" is interested in providing information to people in the Netherlands about the availability of books by an author in the local library. Dutch authors are also known through VIAF. My question is; who knows about the monthly process whereby VIAF gets updated with new Wikidata identifiers and, if and how we gain the information of libraries like the Dutch.

Of relevance to the Dutch Wikipedia community is the question when VIAF information is problematic, how does it get communicated, is there a process? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How are we handling people with geographic descriptors?Edit

With something like Richard of Wendover (Q18546748) we have picked out the person's name for "given name" and we have lost the "of Wendover" in a data sense, and that part of the name label is important. What is our means of capturing the "of Wendover" in the item fields, so it is retrievable data? Having it solely and only in the item label seems insufficient. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing tools/toolchainEdit

I started to contribute in wikidata because I hoped I could help to provide consistent and up to date data for changing entries in country and economy infoboxes. But I unfortunately have to note that wikidata is still missing the tools to do so in the form of batch jobs. What is missing are tools which allow for properties with "quantities" - including possibly decimal points - with and without units:

  • Delete or deprecate deprecated values. (For many datasets not only newer values are added, but the older values are revised. At least one should be able to deprecate those values - but I guess it would be better to even simply delete them and replace them by the revised values.)
  • Add the rank "preferred" to the newest value.
  • Add needed qualifiers.
  • Add the full set of information about the source (reference) needed to create a reference in wikipedia.

This is not to complain, but just to indicate where I think some progress would be really helpful. 123 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see at least 3 distinguishable activities in your proposal:
  1. Adding "economic figures" with point in time (P585) qualifier and source
  2. Choosing which statement (among several existing) need to be displayed by wikidata-consumer
  3. Purging statements that contains old (or no longer relevant) data
My understanding is that (1) is fully covered by quickstatement. (2) has to be decided by consumer (e.g. infobox code might select statement with most recent p585 and show up/down arrow depeneding on the value of second most recent). In order to impelemnt (3) we need to reach consensus regarding thresholds --Ghuron (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
To be able to perform so many different tasks we need bot and not tools. What is currently missing is a large number of bot operators able to provide some services for data import and data update. I thing the first step should be the development of a format for data which have to be imported in order to be able to share the tasks between the bots. Currently each bot operator develops its data format according to its use. Snipre (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Re 2) For preference do we want the latest set of figures to be preferred? or to push preference based on the latest update? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. What you are discussing is more about having a query that retrieves the figures based on the latest date set. I am not certain if you have a set of data that you would want to delete it. Not something that I think that we wish to promote. If you have two sets of data for March 2016, wouldn't you deprecate a set at that point. Showing a comparison between the same set of data though from initially cast, to finally cast can have value; eg. (un)employment figures often have variance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Is not covered by quickstatement: While for instance the NIOSH Fork supports quantities with numbers, neither the original version of quickstatements nor do. But the NIOSH Fork doesn't allow to include additional information to sources (title, author, date accessed etc.) because of issue #52. All versions suffer from issue #65.
  2. According to Help:Ranking#Preferred_rank "preferred rank" has exactly the function to indicate which is the most reasonable default value to choose. (For instance: data just published by the IMF on GPD for 2016 would be the most reasonable candidate for inclusion in an infobox.) Consumers could override that if they want. Looking at the reality of the wikidata modules now: they choose either the value with the rank preferred or (if there is none, what very often is the case) the entry first added or the list of all entries (neither makes much sense).
  3. Whether deprecating or deleting is the better solution should probably have its own discussion. If at the moment somebody looks up the HDI for Venezuela she will find 0.762 for 2014. (The wikidata module will return 0.628 from 1980!) If she follows the source she will find the value 0.767 for 2015 - looks like a significant increase. If she looks more closely, she will find that the source gives 0.769 (not 0.762) for 2014. (So there was a slight decrease from 2014 to 2015.) I think that's a problem and one at least should mark the data as deprecated. I don't have a huge problem with retaining them, as long as they are marked as deprecated (and the newest revision is added). I just don't see much use in retaining such data - given that there are provided newer ones, based on the newest revision. If something wants to study the ways the data are changed through revisions she really should go to the primary data source. (As far as I could see if people do provide revised data manually they just replace the older data.)
Actually, if either would allow (1) to use units, (2) to add/change ranks and as a bonus fix issue #65 or the NIOSH fork would fix issue #52, allow to add/change ranks and delete statements (and as a bonus fix issue #65) all the different tasks I'm missing could be performed! As a first huge stepp it would be enough if just would allow to use units (whithout loosing any of the features it already has): I could then go ahead and for instance add for all countries GPD values etc. for 2016 and replace the deprecated values for 2014 with revised ones, which agree with the source given. 123 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Re "preferred" here as you are identifying the figures with other identifying and selectable data, eg. GPD as at YYYY, forcing a preference is unnecessary. I generally see that preferences apply when there is no means to qualify a preference, eg. two images and you want to pull one; two dates of birth provided though the sources are of different verifiability; two VIAF identifiers, we just need one.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Indicating a preference doesn't "force" anything it just indicates a preference. If you want to call it forcing than the absence of a preferred value "forces" on you either a unordered list or some random value (the first one added) and I think that's worse than "forcing" on you the most up to date figure. In infoboxes for countries and economies that's what people normally want. As far as I know the wikidata modules on various wikipedias, they don't allow you to choose values based on qualifiers (like point in time (P585)) rendering properties with various values without a preferred one unusable for most cases. 123 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking for most recent point in time (P585) qualifier is not exactly rocket science, and, as you can see, for Venezuela (Q717) among Human Development Index (P1081) statements it will select 2014 value (0.762) which is decrease comparing to 2013 value (0.764). It is much more sustainable solution comparing to playing with ranks. But I agree units (I thought they were there) and more accurate calculation of floats (#65) is desperately needed for quickstatement. BTW I suspect that long trail of random digits can appear only if you specify ±accuracy. --Ghuron (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like conversion to float occurs even if ±accuracy is not specified. @Magnus Manske: why wouldn't you just pass value as-is in this case (without *1)? --Ghuron (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ghuron: Where can I see a wikidata module returning the 2014 value in the Venezuela HPI example? (And possibly try it out for other examples?) 123 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@123: I was assuming that you can see it in source code   In ru-wiki we have no integration for Human Development Index (P1081) yet, but mechanism works for many other properties. For instance ru:Маунтфилд infobox is constructed based on Mountfield (Q21180783) and all financial figures formatted with the piece of code, mentioned above. If you notice any glitches there, please let me know --Ghuron (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ghuron: Well, this is exactly one of my points: There is no wikidata module allowing me as an editor to choose, that for any property I want to use the newest year or (even better) a given year is shown. I don't think the approach that the developers of the wikidata module decide which properties to integrate in such kind of mechanism is efficient. Add to this, that point in time (P585) is just one property which might be relevant to determine the preferred value. Have intelligent humans to give an indication what - as default - probably provides the most useful value, and allow editors to freely choose another one, seems to be much more promissing. And as an asside: In Mountfield (Q21180783) the values used in ru:Маунтфилд are actually (and IMHO rightly so) marked as preferred ... 123 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with your approach - if you believe that "intelligent" fetching through millions of statements and determining their ranks is the way to go - why should I stop you?   But please do not "delete" old information (quickstatement supports that), technically it is possible to build infographics based on how HDI was changing over time period --Ghuron (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We have 2 items for marketplacesEdit

market (place) (Q132510) marketplace (Q330284)

I propose to use any. d1g (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to merge it but there are 4 conflicts. I had to remove the enwiki one because it was a redirect. MechQuester (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Given their descriptions I think someone thought that e-Bay is a marketplace (Q330284) but no market (place) (Q132510). ChristianKl (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing the data type of propertiesEdit

Is it possible to change the data type of properties after creation? I think ISIL ID (P791) should be classified as an "External Identifier", not as a "String".

When I became property creator, I learned that it is not possible. However, things may have changed in the last two years. Jonathan Groß (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

When the external identifiers were introduced, many string properties were converted to external ids, so this it is technically possible. However, on WD:Identifier migration/0, P791 is listed under Properties with serious objections to conversion. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

LC Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT) needs to be able to be added as an identifier.Edit

I would like to be able to add identifiers for Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms, but that is not currently an option. How can we add this? For example for the Wikidata entity Q4172847 (Filipino people), there is an LCDGT established: I would like to add the identifier dg2015060630.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

Tool to look for the existence of one identifier in WikidataEdit

Hi, I am looking for tool able to search the existence of one identifier in Wikidata. My problem is the following: I found several cases where contributors created manually new item but the concept was already existing in WD in another item. Searching an existing item using the label is not efficient enough as we can have different names for an unique concept and not all languages have one label.

We should have an user friendly interface where we can put the property and the value and the search can be done in a similar way as the current search tool. For example I want to know if an item has the property P235 with the value JPUKWEQWGBDDQB-DTGCRPNFSA-N. How can I do this search ? I know we have SPARQL query but we can't propose that tool to contributors who contributes occasionally to WD. Snipre (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good workflow to tell new people to run a search beforehand with a new tool given that this would make the work of entering data more complex.
To me this issue feels like it's about implementing constraints at the moment data get's entered. If a person put's in a value for an identifier that violates the single value constraint, they should be alert that they are doing so and have to confirm their actions. It would also be possible to offer the user at this point a choice to merge the two items. ChristianKl (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: ran into that problem several times. Take for example RKDartists ID (P650) -> 32439. How do I find Vincent van Gogh (Q5582) based on "32439"? I can do a sparql query, but that's not very user friendly. I thought I found a tool where you could put in the property and identifier and it would give (redirect?) you the Wikidata item. The only thing I could find was beacon. Not extremely user friendly, but it is very fast and easy for the power user.
The answer based on beacon is Trifolin (Q7841515). Multichill (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): This is perhaps something to add in the development plan: create an "Advanced search" tool in order to find item not only based on the labels/aliases but using an interface where the user can enter one property and a value. In order to avoid to use this tool to extract data, we can reduce the choice of the properties to the ones defined as identifier. Something like this page where the "All Fields" menus can be replaced by the property list like the one used to choose property when adding a new statement. Snipre (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I don't propose to force contributors to search before creating a new item, but I want a tool in order to be able to recommend it when people create duplicates. Currently I doing a lot of maintenance and one of most important tasks is the merge of duplicates. And currently I don't think we will be able to avoid creation of duplicated items because the current Search tool only focused on labels/aliases which are one of the less reliable identifier parameters. Reinforcing data input based on constraint violations was rejeted by the development team in its development plan, see Wikidata:Development_plan#UI_redesign. Snipre (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: Phab:T99899 /
You can't just search for JPUKWEQWGBDDQB-DTGCRPNFSA-N because the search engine doesn't index strings in statements (external-id uses string). Can't find the task for that one. Multichill (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: In practice it isn't true that Wikidata doesn't enforce constraints. Preventing Redirects from getting easily added is a constraint that enforced by the software.
As far as I otherwise understand the goal in the times the development decisions live up to it, it's about allowing people to enter constraint violating data. It's would be compatible with that goal to offer a user to merge items in those cases where they provide an identifier that's already in use. ChristianKl (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Magnus' Resolver tool is what you are looking for. --Denny (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Snipre:I don't think that it's useful to tell a user who created a doublicated item: "You made a mistake, you should spend more time searching before creating an item" in cases where the straight search doesn't find the item. It increases the effort for the user to contribute and even if it might reduce the number of doublicate items, I don't think it's worth it.
An alternative solution could be to have a bot that writes messages to the discussion page of an item. The bot could ping the item creator and the person who added the external ID that's doublicated and ask them to check whether it's the same person and the items can be merged. ChristianKl (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

FormatterURL needs to be more flexibleEdit

FormatterURL is a URL template with a single slot $1 where the external ID is interpolated. There are many examples where this simple capability is not enough.

Eg for EU VAT number (P3608) I put FormatterURL =$1&number=$2 but that doesn't quite work: it results eg in

Another example: Wikidata:Property_proposal/WarSampo_ID where I gave up on proposing "WarSampo Place" since the site URLs use "types" and making IDs like "places/municipalities/m_place_509", "places/karelian_places/k_place_195", "pnr/P_10239521" seems like the wrong thing.

Can something be done about this?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Alexiev (talk • contribs).

@Vladimir Alexiev: many examples? Looks like an edge case to me. Probably less than 10% of the properties affected, maybe even less. Maybe someone can get some hard data? The examples you give are sites that seem to have made a bit of a mess. Why should we do all sorts of work-arounds? I think we already have a (low priority) bug for this in phabricator.
In the meantime you can do a pull request on to use for the properties with funky url's. Multichill (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: You're right, "many" is probably an exaggeration. Don't think we can criticise sites for their URL design, eg the VIES choice to split country code and number in separate fields is wholly reasonable. How does the tool of @ArthurPSmith: help me in this case? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There are several "solutions", currently used here:
  • create a different property for each "sector" (country in this case) - not a solution in this case, of course
  • use URL datatype
  • use "FI&number=15243611" as property value
each of these have their props and cons. Ideally I think it would be like statement with general qualifier (in this example: value - 15243611, qualifier - FI). --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that the externalid-url tool only works with the existing wikidata formatter URL's and can take only one parameter on a per-item basis (of course you can put as many parameters as you want in on a per-property basis but that doesn't help when you need different URL's for different items). So yes it wouldn't help in this case, unless the $2 value can somehow be derived from the $1 (eg first characters, type of string, etc.) or you create an artificial combined ID that can be split somehow. We have been asking for better formatter URL's for some time now - there's T150939 and T148170 at least in ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that glueing together property (FI15243611) and then using wikidata-externalid-url to get URL is another option. Actually I wanted to propose some time ago. Of course, it's not very user-friendly, but it's probably the easiest to implement. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to produce a list of Wikivoyage articles sorted by the amount of articles that exists for each destination in each wikivoyage edition?Edit

Is there any way to generate such a list? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the list was even available but I am not sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you can ask at Wikidata:Request a query. I am not able to construct the query, but I think it is possible.--Jklamo (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

How should we handle best player classifications?Edit

There are currently open proposals for a bunch of properties for the best player at X under . To me the proposed properties feel like they are a bit to specific and not generalized enough. The proposal discussions itself aren't conclusive at the moment.

Does anyone have additional input? ChristianKl (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy and authorsEdit

Hoi, in taxonomy an author is not by his or her name but by a unique string of text. There is a property for this. In principle to describe an taxon (species, genus) properly, the author is a mandatory part. The name of the person is typically not really well known but any publication does include the abbreviation for the name. Would it be possible to only show the abbreviation when we add the author (for a taxon) property and can we please only show this abbreviation in Wikidata? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If a biologist has their abbreviation, then it makes him notable for Wikidata, doesn't it? A Wikidata item can hold more information then a plain string. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I know. I do not want to find him though his label but for the value that is the author information. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that by "taxonomy" is meant "taxonomy of algae, fungi, and plants", there do exist "standard forms" which are recommended to be used when author citation is desired. Author citation is found in scientific works but not elsewhere (it is not "mandatory"). As things are, it is possible, when entering data, to put in the relevant "standard form" in the data field of "taxon author", and just about always the system will find the item of this taxonomist. - Brya (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Another technical questionEdit

Is it possible to convert page pile # 8670, which contains only Wikidata items, to the names of the parallel page names on the English Wikivoyage? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Something like this Petscan psid=895527? Shinnin (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom propertyEdit

A ruler is ruler when he rules some land. Do we have a property to mention the kingdom of a ruler? Please guide me. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at George V (Q269412). It uses position held (P39) with qualifiers. ChristianKl (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Capankajsmilyo (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverse fetching?Edit

Does Wikidata do reverse fetching? I found a lot of cases where father of a person was given but he/she was not listed as child of the said father. Is there a bot or something, or it all has to be done manually? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is mostly done by bots but they usually require human oversight to prevent reproducing mistakes. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Are the bots disabled? I rarely find such operations being carried out. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I would say they don't run on items about people as they are sensitive against invalid data. I don't remember now whether there were some agreements in the past. Other inverses are completed very often though. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

first line (P1922) & last line (P3132)Edit

These properties will use in film, music works, television series and anime labels? --Nakare✝ (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #257Edit