Open main menu

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
Wikidata Telegram group
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 2019/05.

Contents

Fusion 'applies to other entity' and 'refers to different subject'Edit

Moved from WD:BN. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Those two qualificators have the same meaning?!, they are on the list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation).

--MHM55 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jura1:, as creator of refers to different subject (Q28091153), would you agree that these are the same? - PKM (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Probably. If so, "subject" might be more precise than "entity" as it refers to a specific part of a statement. OTH, it couldn't really be "object". --- Jura 10:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      •   Support merge. - PKM (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

cleaning our statements sourcing...Edit

Hello,

Now, a lot of items, especially authors have on same statements an old source, like imported from Wikimedia project (P143) svwp and regular sourcing with stated in (P248) + an authoritative source like an official library database...

in some cases, there are 10 P248 + & or 2 P143...

Why not have a bot cleaning those unreliable sources (P143), when there is a clean valid P248 ? What do you think ? It would remove a lot of junk info, without losing any real data. --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

+1, imported from Wikimedia project (P143) was only a temporary solution to populate WD. By cleaning these sources, we will show that WD is moving forward in the direction of quality and is working to avoid circular referencing with WP. Snipre (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
agreed. P143 is only a temporary solution. It would be great to seek out specific references in a Wiki(m|p)edia page that P143 had been based on. It'd greatly improve Wikidata's data quality. A while ago I tried this approach importing references of death dates from Wikipedia PL Deaths in 2019 equiv pages into WD (e.g [1]). Kpjas (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Depends on the context. For example, when I add an image, I also add a ref using imported from Wikimedia project (P143) and Wikimedia Commons, and I do not see this solution as temporary.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not convinced. What do we win if we remove such imported from Wikimedia project (P143) references? I find them often quite useful, even if "real" references with stated in (P248) and/or reference URL (P854) are present on the same claim. I'd say we let data users decide which references they want to use and which ones not—whoever ignores imported from Wikimedia project (P143) would likely also ignore inferred from (P3452) and based on heuristic (P887).
That said, I think we should overhaul Help:Sources and add separate sections for at least imported from Wikimedia project (P143)+Wikimedia import URL (P4656), inferred from (P3452), and based on heuristic (P887), including a description how they work and that some users possibly might want to ignore them. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea. I saw many times statements based on id was incorrect. For example, there are two different dates (day, month and year) in the person's date of birth (P569). One of the dates has imported from Wikimedia project (P143) used as a source. We can always watch the article in Wikipedia and check correctness of the date. The another date had two source date of birth (P569) and id. But if Wikipedia's article really has such date (day, month and year), then id has only year. Removing imported from Wikimedia project (P143) as a source of second date would mean removing real valid source of statement. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ksc~ruwiki, MisterSynergy: Please consider the mentioned case only: a statement where several references are present and some of them are imported from Wikimedia project (P143).
Then please remember that most Wikipedias have as rule that Wikipedia statement can't be used as reference for other Wikipedia statement. By not respecting that rule, we get a bad image and we have some difficulties to convince Wikipedias to use our data. We can always argue that we can filter the data according to the references, but for Wikipedians we are a mix of good and bad quality data, and they prefer to work with databases offering good quality data only (less work for them and no need of edit complex lua functions to filter what they want).
Then most importations from Wikipedias were performed without any consideration for referencing: no date, no link to the article version. As Wikipedia articles are changing due to correction and improvement, there is an increasing trend that WP articles don't mention any more the data we have in WD and so the reference link is lost. We can only say that once in the past one WP article (which one ? sitelink are changing too, so there is no guarantee that the Wikipedia article currently linked to the item contained once the data present in WD) mentioned the data.
So your examples are stucked with that situation and this definitively creates a bad impression of WD: even if I want to check the origin of a WD statement by using the sitelink, I can find no mention of the data because the WP article was changed in the midtime or worse because the sitelink was changed. How can you convince people that you are doing a good job in WD with that ?
imported from Wikimedia project (P143) is a static link, and WP are dynamic data compilation. That's why the property has to be deleted and replaced by normal references (static ones) or at least the link between the WD statement and WP has to be stronger by including the page version of the article in the reference. Snipre (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with the initial proposal of Hsarrazin per Snipre. --Epìdosis 09:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedias have to process references anyways, even if there was no P143 at all. There are a bunch of reference qualifers per reference, and the module/template coder has to arrange them to something which makes sense as a useful Wikipedia reference. It is pretty simple to either ignore references which contain P143, or to ignore a statement completely in case no other valid reference is there.
The lack of versioning for many (older) P143 references is a convenience problem, but as Jura points out, practically any editor with basic Wikimedia editing experience is able to read page histories. I do use this occasionally and find it very useful to deal with obscure statements which I find when doing various consistency checks; in fact, there are only few cases which I came across where the imported value has already been removed from the Wikipedia page. Anyways, for quite some time now we have the additional Wikimedia import URL (P4656) reference qualifier, which points to a specific version of the import source and makes this even less of a concern. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
My English is far from perfect but I described the situation you have meant (I have realized your idea very well). At least I hope I could described example with possible problem of removing imported from Wikimedia project (P143) from sources. Of course I remember The Wikipedia is not quite reliable source, but articles in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. If it is so, noone will remove them from the article. So it's not a problem to check the information. (About the property Wikimedia import URL (P4656) previously they have wrote. And by the way ids too often contain wrong information in coparison with Wikipedia). Besides I really forgot about problem they have mentioned bellow. Some of statements use several qualifiers. For example, some populated place was located in several located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) during it's history. We have a sourse like OKTMO 179/2016 (Q26833494) (in Russia) but for modern administrative territorial entity, but it doesn't contains information about start time, we take it from Wikipedia and make another source imported from Wikimedia project (P143). So we get total comlex of sources for all components of statement. If remove one of the sourses we'll make original research. Of course I don't mind if any user remove imported from Wikimedia project (P143) from item, if he or she see reliable sources for all components of statement, but I disagree the idea to do it by bot. P.S. The text I have wrote is just the result of prsonal experience of removing vandalism both in Wikidata and Wikipedia, so I really think imported from Wikimedia project (P143) is usefull.--Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's tempting, but it's always better to have a way to find where the statement came from. --- Jura 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: Do you really want to dig into the history of a WP article to find where the data present in WD was once mentioned ? Because imported from Wikimedia project (P143) is not a guarantee that the data is really displayed in the WP article. And do you really want to check the history of a WD item to be sure that the link between the item and the WP mentioned as reference was not changed after several years ? Snipre (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think most users with some experience of Wikipedia and Wikidata can find it fairly easily. --- Jura 13:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support for the specific case mentionned (which is already a lot of cases), it would clearly improve the situation. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If this should be cleaned up by bot, claims with qualifiers should be probably excluded. If the list of references should support a claim (with each reference possibly supporting a different part (e.g. start time (P580)/end time (P582))) it is not clear if the authoritative source supports the whole claim (with all qualifiers) or just part of it. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think in general we should try to find primary or secondary sources. A library catalog, another encyclopedia or tertiary source doesn't really get us closer to that. The advantage of the "imported from" reference is that it might actually help us find one. BTW, we still need a bot operator to clean up the last library catalog import: Wikidata:Bot_requests#Cleanup_VIAF_dates. --- Jura 19:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Metadata and reference unification for Economics and possibly other projectsEdit

Mcnabber091 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Note 1 PAC2 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Rjlabs (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Datawiki30 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


  Notified participants of WikiProject Economics

I believe that we need create metadata template and ensure that all statements have minimal set of informations about sources/additional informations common for all things listed at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Economics#Properties. At this moment i can see that stated in (P248) and reference URL (P854) are very common. nominal GDP (P2131) is more verbose and contain also retrieved (P813) and license (P275) Alternatively, like @Yair rand: proposed we could create separated item for every source (eg for nominal GDP (P2131) item for files from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD would be created) and use it as metadata storage.

What qualifiers are especially important? Should stated in (P248) point to eg World Bank database (Q21540096) or be more precise and point to item created for stuff from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?

After discussion we would create documentation similar to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Open#Organisations_or_projects

constraint for "instance of" in property "Twitch channel ID"Edit

Property: Twitch channel ID (P5797)

Currently data objects need to be (instance of (P31)) human (Q5), video game developer (Q210167), video game publisher (Q1137109), software company (Q1058914) or esports team (Q989470). However there's a lot of twitch channels out there that don't match either of those. Examples would be but are not limited to groups of people that stream on one channel (e.g. the yogscast), events (e.g the German gaming convention gamescom), as well as non-Gaming twitch channel (e.g. the official NASA twitch channel). I believe there are a lot more examples. We could either try to add all these possible values for the constraint or remove the constraint altogether. I am suggestion the latter. --Madmaurice (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Maybe from the creator Kissa21782? --Madmaurice (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Do note, that I am certainly not the creator of anything – I've just edited the property in the past. But I do agree that the constraint is a bit unnecessary, and the best solution would be as you said to remove it altogether. YouTube channel ID (P2397) for example does not have the constraint at all. Instagram username (P2003) does, but I think that one should be deleted as well. --Kissa21782 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, you're right. I misread the edit history. Pintoch created the property with the constraint. And subsequent edits added more possiblities for instance of. Maybe they have any thoughts about it. Apart from that I'm a bit new to the whole discussion process on Wikidata. I obviously shouldn't just go ahead and change constraints because I want to... so how does this usually work? --Madmaurice (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that you should go ahead and delete the constraint – there's very good reason to do so. If someone were to disagree with good reasoning, they'll start a chat about it. Doing smart and pro-Wikidata edits are always welcome. --Kissa21782 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Someone removed it. Thanks eitherway! --Madmaurice (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

How to indicate precision in Date up to two month?Edit

Very often we can find in the sources "... someone died in April-May 1940 ..." How can we write this in wikidata? Example: Q2615881 --Glovacki (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

date of death (P570) 1940, quailifiers: earliest date (P1319) April 1940, latest date (P1326) May 1940. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum, thank you! And what should I write if "... someone died between May 1940 and May 1941 ..."? I can write date of death (P570) unknown, quailifiers: earliest date (P1319) May 1940, latest date (P1326) May 1941, but it looks ugly, because date of death is not unknown, it is just known with some precision. --Glovacki (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You could write "date of death (P570) 1940s" with qualifiers "earliest date (P1319) May 1940, latest date (P1326) May 1941". And if the decade isn't known, you can use century as the precision for date of death (P570) etc. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Q8743Edit

At Thomas Alva Edison (Q8743), one of Edison's children is listed as generic William (Q12344159), is it proper to use the generic name until an entry is created for that child? --RAN (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say heck no. A name is not a person, and denoting it as such only confuses things. We have number of children (P1971) (which I added) to list total number, including non-notable members. -Animalparty (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it violates the constraints and data-model. The proper way is to create a new item. If you want to avoid that, you could also use unknown value with stated as (P1932). ChristianKl❫ 09:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mekala Harika: who added the value. ChristianKl❫ 09:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Urgent admin action neededEdit

It appears that no admins are watching Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard.

Urgent action is needed at Michael Moates (Q63245258), to remove defamatory statements as described at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Sock-puppet IP's and Vandals, almost twelve hours ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:   Done the actions requested at 22:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC). Mahir256 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I have one more request. Would you consider removing Men's Rights Movement and alt-right? Both are not based in fact. Alt-right has a citation of a tweet from someone making a claim that doesn't know the subject and is just a random individual. It is not a news source but a biased Twitter user posting on the internet. Datamaster1 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed those two claims. ChristianKl❫ 10:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

I want to understand something. A friend of mine 2600:6c56:6f08:1cf::/64 was blocked by an admin for "Edit warring." I wanna help him to understand what he did wrong. There was an individual 50.227.116.133 who was vandalizing a page Q63245258 and he reverted the edits multiple times. Now I understand the policy. The problem I am struggling with is according to Wikidata:Edit warring "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring" and "Reverting clear-cut violations of Wikidata:Living people is not edit warring" so why was he blocked? At this point, admins have removed the vandals content and he was right because everything removed was against policy. Can the block be lifted and if not can someone explain what he did wrong? Datamaster1 (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Relevant links are:

I, too, would be interested to know why - given the above quote from Wikidata:Edit warring - an IP editor was blocked by User:Jasper Deng for removing egregious BLP violations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

@Mahir256: @Pigsonthewing: @ChristianKl: @Jasper Deng: - The user is now vandalizing WikiCommons on the same individual RyanForTrump which was banned by Jasper is now uploading images that are claiming things that were removed by admins here for not following policy. The image is no based in fact and goes against policy because it is not notable and will never be used in an article. I have nominated the image for deletion you can see that here commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael-Moates-as-Hannah-Thompson.jpg. The user is clearly vandalizing all properties regarding Michael Moates across all Wikimedia projects. Datamaster1 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry I corrected the link Datamaster1 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Admins on wiki commons have blocked RyanForTrump indefenetly. 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 07:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NEW NEED ADMIN HELP ASAPEdit

Request immediate block of IP 93.177.73.226 they are back on Michael Moates (Q63245258) vandalizing again. They are clearly vandalizing at this point. 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 18:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Request immediate block of 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B as a sockpuppet of Mmoates (talkcontribslogs). See [2] 93.177.73.226 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The indvidual above has been found to be harassigng me and others. He is a sock of RyanForTrump which has already been banned here and at Wikicommons... you can see by his editing history that he has not edits other than his vandalism to Michael Moates (Q63245258). 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 19:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideas sought for "real and measurable progress in solving a critical problem of our time"Edit

The McArthur Foundation is offering US$ 100 million "to fund a single proposal that promises real and measurable progress in solving a critical problem of our time." Has anyone looked into that from a Wikidata/ Wikimedia perspective? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently, it seems like most of the work on Wikidata isn't metrics driven and most of the development is more speculative in nature then evidence-based. I would expect that there are many grants for which we are a better match. ChristianKl❫ 11:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
you could propose a wikidata driven sum of all knowledge translation + internet in a box. maybe we should undelete their images (negotiate about the meaning of CC licenses) before asking them for money. Slowking4 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata mainly exists to help Google, Amazon, Wikimedia, et al. get better results faster, i.e. results based on existing data. Not knowing what position Joe Blow played on his high school baseball team or the year in which a painting was painted isn't a critical issue of our time. I say save the money for curing childhood cancer, solving climate change, and generating new data for data enthusiasts to curate. -Animalparty (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: I think Wikidata potential is broader. Wikidata does have the potential to help with biomedical research by allowing data to be accessible in new ways but that potential is experimental in it's nature and doesn't have clear metrics. ChristianKl❫ 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"the year in which a painting was painted isn't a critical issue of our time" speak for yourself. the use of wikidata to link open knowledge and get it translated to local languages for non-English speakers can scale the sum of all knowledge. the same techniques used to correct painting dates, can be used on PubMed dates. in the medical field it can save lives. Slowking4 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Encoding errors at author stringEdit

Many statements of author name string (P2093) have wrong enconding (an - incomplete - list is at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2093). An example is "M Sánchez-Pérez" at Q59570196. The question is, if a bot could correct most of these encoding errors. 129.13.72.197 11:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WD not being automatically updated when moving pages on local project?Edit

Anybody encountered this before? GMGtalk 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. After doing a few of them by hand it seems to be working again. GMGtalk 17:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #364Edit

Merge Q797424 and Q3372150Edit

Hello, there are two data objects for the same Chinese deity Nüba/Ba/Hanba. Could someone please merge them? Thank you, --Herr Klugbeisser (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Herr Klugbeisser: I only find Nuba (Q3372150). What is the other item? LaddΩ chat ;) 00:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Laddo:: There are two objects: Nuba (Q3372150) and Q797424. Both talk about the same deity. One contains the links to the English language article in Wikipedia, plus a few others, and the other contains the links to the German and Estonian articles.--Herr Klugbeisser (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Q461012 dead or alive?Edit

Hi all. I would like to request that a native French speaker reviews the french article about Dorothy Head Knode (Q461012) (fr:Dorothy Head) as it is mentioned that she died in October 2015 (categorized in fr:Catégorie:Décès en octobre 2015) while the English article (en:Dorothy Head Knode) does not mentioned that she died. The problem is that her death date gets imported here from the French Wikipedia repeatedly. So, we need to resolve this conflict between enwiki and frwiki. (Let's ping the last editor of the frwiki article @Jmax: and the last editor of the Wikidata item @Pichpich:) Thanks. --Meno25 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The French article has an English reference for the date. Anyways, until it's added to the statement, I set the statement to deprecated rank. --- Jura 04:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

P279 loop needs attentionEdit

Have a look at the loop in this graph https://angryloki.github.io/wikidata-graph-builder/?property=P279&item=Q151885 Here is a snapshot.

There is loop in the subclass of (P279) property for the following five objects:

I guess at least one of the listed subclass of (P279) relations should be broken or reversed, but which one? Is it mental representation (Q2145290) that should be subclass of (P279) of concept (Q151885) rather than the opposite? Note that mental representation (Q2145290) is also stated as instance of (P31) concept (Q151885).

Here are some diffs related to this loop:

--Larske (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Larske: I've been tracking this for a couple of years now; there's only one other subclass loop at present (caused by a disease ontology mismatch issue, hopefully this will be resolved by the people who work on those - several similar earlier ones were resolved that way). In this case these concepts are at such an abstract/meta level it's never been clear to me either (A) if it really matters to fix this, or (B) what the correct solution would be. Some examination of their context (P31 and P279 properties referencing them, or other relations) might help to disentangle this one - feel free to go ahead and give it a try! ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not easy, for example en:Concept says "In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is" and I imagine that each one would need to represented as its own item with its own subclasses. Ghouston (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Should P31 only list the most precise subclass?Edit

A Danish hill had this statement with a reference:

I added this more precise statement with a reference:

We also have:

Now my question is if the first statement should be deleted so only the most precise case of instance of (P31) is left? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Not necessarily. Here it's not entirely clear if Q12302769 covers just one aspect of Yllebjerg (Q23732972). Also, sometimes references disagree about the exact nature of an item, so various P31 are useful. --- Jura 06:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say that in this case there is no aspect of Q23732972 which is covered by Q54050 but not also covered by Q12302769. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

[Breaking Change] wbeditentity including empty alias set will remove all aliasesEdit

Hello all,

This change is relevant for everyone using the wbeditentity endpoint of Wikidata’s API.

While working on editing the termbox from mobile, we discovered a bug in our code of the wbeditentity endpoint, that does not conform with the implicit interpretation of the documentation.

A request including {"aliases":{"en":[]}} should, according to the implicit interpretation of its documentation, replace all aliases in English by an empty string, meaning removing all aliases. However, at the moment this action is not actually performed, meaning that this request would leave the aliases untouched.

We want to fix this bug, because we need this request to work in order to be able to remove all aliases also in the new termbox on mobile. We are treating this bug fix as a breaking change because the documentation was ambiguous, and there may be some tools currently sending requests with empty alias arrays when nothing need to be touched, intentionally or not.

If you are maintaining a tool, please inspect your tool usage of wbeditentity endpoint, and make sure that no calls with empty alias arrays are sent unless the intention is to remove these aliases.

According to our breaking change policy, this bug fix will be first deployed on beta.wikidata.org later on May 28th, then on wikidata.org on June 12th.

If you have any question or issue, feel free to discuss in the related ticket. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikidata lack a Quality mindset? Sometimes it feels more like a playground for python exercises...?Edit

I start to see more and more edits done because it's there and I can do some Python instead of seeing that references adds quality to Wikidata!!

Should every source uploaded to Wikidata confirm all possible statements like a reference is a garbage can of everything we have found or should Wikidata have some understanding that a reference should add value and that not every source has the same quality? As Wikipedia starts using Wikidata driven templates things added to Wikidata also will appear in the articles if no one filter low quality additions out? E.g. Batch 12808 is adding references for gender by Marsupium (talkcontribslogs). the source is a thesaurus Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649) and if we check Agnes Branting (Q4940450) we have for this person both en:primary sources the birthbok and Dictionary of Swedish National Biography (P3217) that is written by fully employed historians at the Swedish National Archives... what added value does a thesaurus add? In my book of quality it should not be added.

Question: is this a problem? Do we need to rank sources or should the consumer(every WD driven template) /Wikipedia reader be the person filtering what adds value? Or is more references always better - Salgo60 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Salgo60: Concerning the specific task of that batch: It adds a reference to sex or gender (P21) statements only if there is no other reference at all. That is against Help:Sources and in best case they shouldn't have been added without a reference in the first place. sex or gender (P21) isn't as trivial as it seems. I stumbled upon many cases for which it was wrong here or in other databases. That's why I consider it valuable to have a source for the statements. Dictionary of Swedish National Biography (P3217) doesn't seem to state sex or gender (P21) explicitly in [6] for Agnes Branting (Q4940450), does it? In art history, Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649) and RKDartists (Q17299517) are probably the freely available person databases of their dimension with the highest quality. The majority of printed sources won't state sex or gender (P21) explicitly, neither seems Dictionary of Swedish National Biography (P3217) to do so. To me it seems for the majority of those statements we will either use databases like Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649) as a reference or none at all. I prefer the first. Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649) is issued by a renowned research institute and is a reliable source. The information that it backs a statement is the value added in my eyes. Until it's discussed if it should run at all, I've stopped said batch together with another running one that was adding Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649) references to occupation (P106) statements. (No Python used BTW, only federated SPARQLing.)
Concerning the general questions: should Wikidata have some understanding that a reference should add value and that not every source has the same quality? Yes. Do we need to rank sources or should the consumer(every WD driven template) /Wikipedia reader be the person filtering what adds value? Both, we have to provide information so that templates can filter the references and pick the best. At the moment Wikidata does a very bad job in this, I'm very interested in improving this situation. Or is more references always better? No. (And that's why I'm adding the references only to statements which don't have any other reference. In many cases existing ones are worse I think, but I haven't figured out a good way to rank them, apart from filtering by imported from Wikimedia project (P143) which I planned to do.)
Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fast answer
  1. Swedish church books shows male/female. For Agnes Branting (Q4940450) you have on Page line 10 column 7 indicates female and column 6 is male.
  2. My point is that in 10 more months we will have 10 more sources like this that someone feels is good
  3. The quality of Getty as a source without links to a primary sources I think is also worth a discussion
  4. Having a Wikipedia with +300 languages and then let all templates do the filtering I feel is bad design. I believe in DRY (Don't repeat yourself)
+ for using federated SPARQL see my test
- Regards Salgo60 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
For reference, ULAN does list the sources for its statements: see Branting, Agnes which cites "Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon / Artists of the World (2009-) accessed 1 March 2010" as well as the LOC authority file. - PKM (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"Does Wikidata lack a Quality mindset" yes, it has a tool mindset; it lacks a quality circle process to curate references. but merely adding superfluous references is not a quality problem, per se, rather the lack of a quality improvement process to assess those references is. importing low quality data is not necessarily a problem, but the lack of quality process is. improvement is getting done on an ad hoc basis. there is not one best reference. Slowking4 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: and how do we move this forward? In the video above we also have the problem that we have an excellent source but in Wikidata we get people of +200 languages reading an article with this very good source. How do we communicate the "TRUST" of a source used? - Salgo60 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think multiple sources are better, especially if they are of different levels: primary, secondary, and compilations of these. If some Wikipedia edition prefers, e.g., only sources with "authority" in the name, it can easily filter for that. --- Jura 08:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jura: I think we will see the number of references will explode I can already see on e.g. Selma Lagerlöf (Q44519) has 12 references for birth dates and then a reader has difficult which source can you trust or not. When doing a federated search between Wikidata and the NobelPrize.org we have +20 mismatches and then its nearly impossible to say if Wikidata is correct because I dont know the quality of the Wikidata sources
I miss that we better describe if a source is a primary source or not, the quality of the source. And this Quality statement should be machine readable. I asked Denny Vrandečić how we better should model quality inside WD see tweet - Salgo60 (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the GUI isn't really working for multiple sources at Q44519#P569. At least in the default skin, it's unclear where one reference ends and the next starts. Other than that, what is the problem with the statement? Do you think it's incorrect or incorrectly supported by some of the references included?
You could add type of reference (P3865) to some of the references, but the some extent the same information is included in the item for the reference.
Personally, I think the quality of a given reference can vary for each statement. It's a mistaken assumption by some Wikipedias that only references with the word "authority" in it can be trusted or should always be trusted. --- Jura 08:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes this is complex, but I think Wikipedia/Wikidata should help the reader understand the quality/experience other have of using this source and also explain what sources are prefered using
I think Wikipedia/Wikidata could be an excellent place to gather opinions/warnings about a source that wuld help me understand what I can trust or should not trust. Today I feel its just up to me - Salgo60 (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So the question actually is about a perceived lack of (expression of) a ranking between external sources referenced by Wikidata. This has nothing to do with "quality". There's also nothing new about it, in that usually references on Wikipedia are all grouped in a single section even if they are of differing "ranks"/reliability. The only difference is that Wikidata gravitates towards comprehensiveness when it comes to external identifiers, so there is some significant overlap in the functions performed by the many identifiers one item may have. Nemo 09:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nemo: it's more about TRUST and communicate if a source has a track record of TRUST. Ranking sources of low quality makes no major change. Compare how Academic awards are ranked by external organisation - by IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence. I guess that is an interesting approach if we could get people experts in the field share the experience they have of sources in a machine readable way.
My guess is that Wikidata/Wikipedia is an excellent platform for sharing knowledge of quality of sources. We have articles in 70 languages about the latest Nobel prize winner Nadia Murad (Q22007112) but we have no exact birth date in Wikidata. I guess some of those people writing the articles has more or less good sources about her birth- Salgo60 (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
birth dates are controversial as personal identifiable information. you tend to see them for the deceased and athletes for disambiguation. and wikidata is a work in progress, you should not expect to find every fact that you want to find. you will have to build a consensus about how to curate references. maybe a discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData? your reference trust appears to be original; you might want to bring some academic citations to the table. Slowking4 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I do think Wikidata lacks a quality mindset, but this is by design. Wikidata leaves quality discussions historically to Wikipedia projects and concentrates on enabling those projects to provide additional information within the scope of that project. That said, I do believe Wikidata needs to document and better reference itself in this ongoing process of enabling quality for all other projects, not just Wikipedia. For example, we have this great "pot of gold" at the bottom of Wikidata items with all external ids. These ids have been criticized by LOD people for "not being full urls" but anyone who has hung around here since 2012 or 2013 knows external websites tend to change their base urls from time to time and thus the "id part" in our external id process has proved extremely useful to have. That said, I think there should be a better way of distributing the information hidden in these urls as references in an item for its various statements without having to copy the entire url with reference URL (P854) on each statement. Jane023 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jane023: There is. Just give the identifiers as the citations. Cf eg all the citations to the BL online catalogue on an item like A Residence on the Shores of the Baltic (1842 edition) (Q63314374) Jheald (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Still messy, because that is actually more difficult to do than adding the url. Plus this increases the total number of property statements for that property. Not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Jane023 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The way described by Jheald is current consensus per Help:Sources#Databases. I've spent quite some time in getting stated in (P248)s in references where people didn't put them when creating the references. Their absence makes querying and reuse of references way harder if not impossible. I don't think the number of reference snaks should be an argument here, best way to keep entities small is not to add content at all – but yes, I often wish we had an equivalent for w:WP:NAMEDREFS. --Marsupium (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems some consensus that more quality related data about the sources we use as references is desirable. Should we try to move forward to some actable steps? Without much consideration I'd be interested in:
    1. Do we have a way to indicate if a source (or its different levels) is peer-reviewed?
    2. … to indicate if a tertiary source gives sources (like ULAN, see above) or not?
    3. … to easily get the level of a data source: researcher, institutions: research institute with discipline that of the content ---------> crowd-sourced sources, etc.?
    4. … (what else?)
I think I've stumbled upon an ontology for this kind of stuff, but don't remember where. What exactly can do to make judging easier? --Marsupium (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: deployment dates for wb_terms redesignEdit

Hello all,

This is an update regarding the dates of test environment and migration of wb_terms table replacement solution.

Due to various complications that the developers in the Wikidata team have been working on solving over the last few weeks, we unfortunately will have to push the dates for when a test environment for tools builders will be ready, which was supposed to be ready today, and the following dates for starting migration of wb_terms data into the new schema in production.

The new dates are:

  • 29th of May: Test environment for tool builders will be ready
  • 12th of June: Property Terms migration starts
  • 19th of June: Read property terms from new schema on Wikidata
  • 26th of June: Item terms migration begins
  • 3rd of July: Read item terms from one of the two schemas (as explained in this task)

You can find more information regarding those dates and how to prepare for them in this task, and we have dedicated a board to receive and help with any questions from tool builders that need to update their tools accordingly.

In order to keep all discussions in one place, we kindly ask you to react or ask your questions on Phabricator.

As a reminder, if you want to discuss with the developers, ask questions and get help in order to update your tools, you can join the IRC Mediawiki meeting, today at 15:00 UTC on #wikimedia-tech.

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

New museum digitalisation grant (pilot)Edit

Grants:Project/Rapid/Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton/Pilot project at Geoscience Museum

Hi guys, my name is Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk), I'm start a new GLAM digitalisation pilot, as in this start I'll focus a lot in Wikidata, it will be nice you check this proposal. To summary, the idea that touch here is check with the museum what's the best databases around geoscience, if possible import it, and what are the patterns (statements) used internationally to properly describe items related to the museum, minerals, gems, meteorites...

Let me know if you have any questions, and check out the project, if possible endorse it. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Python API reference for public/open-source projectsEdit

Hello everybody,

I am looking at making a collection of multiple opensource projects that have python APIs, that I plan on calling programtically. Would it make sense to add them to wikidata, or optimistacally is there already an object for this?

I am thinking a table of like | full python name | usage | description |. With each project (blender, mycroft, libre-office, etc) getting a unique node, and a node referencing all of the API nodes.

What are your thoughts?

Best way to show in Wikidata that someone appears in a list in another project without creating a new categoryEdit

I am adding Wikidata entries for the first aviation deaths found in this image: File:Aviator_deaths_in_Je_Sais_Tout_on_15_August_1912.jpg. I can link from the Commons file to Wikidata and Wikipedia, but is their an easier way to display FROM Wikidata that a person appears in this document, other than creating a category for each person mentioned. --RAN (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Eventually, it should be possible to find from Wikidata edits like [7]. --- Jura 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In this particular case, I'm pretty sure depicted by (P1299) is the property you want. The problem, of course, is that something cannot be at the same time a list article and a multimedia file. This could conceivably be created as an published article item with the file as illustration, though. Circeus (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding Data About Video Game Statistics?Edit

Hello! I have been a longtime lurker on the Wiki project in general and I saw the Wikidata project as a way to get my feet wet in contributing to this. I also apologize if the way I word this isn't that straightforward or if my formatting isn't that tidy! I am still trying to understand a bit.

My understanding is that as long as the information is freely available that we can add it to data points? If so, is it possible to add the concept of statistics of video game characters to their entries if it comes from something like a fandom wiki?

An example I can give is for example Q59457373 (Brand from the game League of Legends) who according to the game they are from, have statistics like attack, magic, etc. These stats are archived via the fandom wiki page on this character. Is it possible to do this? I can possibly see the limitations (Source of data or the attributes of the data in question even) but I wanted to make sure.

Cheers, --Senator mailman (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

PigmentsEdit

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Hugo
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Leiem
  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

Currently, cinquasia red (Q418071) is <instance of> chemical compound and pigment, and <subclass of> red and color. Should the color “cinquasia red” be its own item? Can a substance be both a chemical compound and a pigment, or would we prefer separate items? - PKM (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

One thing I'd say is that a pigment should not be a subclass of a colour. A pigment is a chemical compound, and a colour is a type of light. Ghouston (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Ghouston on this. A pigment has a property of having a colour. So, a pigment *is* a chemical compound and *has* a colour. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh good that's what I thought too. - PKM (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Bug when units redirectedEdit

I recently noticed that when an item that has been used as a unit is redirected, it shows up as an unlinked Q-code in the interface. See this example: Q63862967#P1436. I just wanted to report this in case it's not a known issue. I think there are several thousand items of my past imports that would be affected by same item from the example being merged and redirected. There may be other cases live in Wikidata where this has happened as well. Dominic (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There are bot which usually resolve all redirects a few days after a merge. However, units are a rather remote place of use which might be overlooked. There are currently ~100 statements with unit Q59221354. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2Edit

CluebotEdit

Cluebot patrols en.Wikipedia and reverts obvious vandalism. I've enquired about having it run on this project; initially to patrol descriptions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Metrics on use of Wikidata in other projectsEdit

I seem to recall seeing a report or tool, showing statistics on the use of Wikidata in our sister project. Where is it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you. The Usage Dashboard is what I had in mind, but the rest are also very useful; so I've made WD:Metrics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Beware what the statistics are not telling. Some Mediawiki projects may use only the main value from some statements, while other may also show qualificator values, references, and additional information like for instance chains of administrative entities until the country for places, convert units to the local preferences etc. but both will count as a page using Wikidata. So some statistics about how much and what is used per page could also be interesting. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

List items that have certain propertyEdit

How can I list "railroad lines" (Q728937) that have "OSM relation ID" property (P402)? Like for example this one - Q802995. Possibly limit to country: CZ too. How can I show results to map (in case the item contains coordtinates)? Thanks.--Kozuch (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kozuch: Best place for a question like this is WD:RAQ Jheald (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, asked there.--Kozuch (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Q1624024 vs Q63928711Edit

Should R38 airship (Q1624024) and ZR-2 (Q63928711) be merged? R38 airship (Q1624024) links to a Wikipedia article on this entire class of airship, even though only one was built. The bulk of the article is on the the aircraft accident of the one built. ZR-2 (Q63928711) is the one that was actually built and crashed. --RAN (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding many properties for existing itemsEdit

I compared a local dataset related to Cultural Opposition (Understanding the Cultural Heritage of Dissent in the Former Socialist Countries) with Wikidata regarding people, organizations and groups. The comparison was about extending Wikidata with new properties for existing items and adding Same As property, so the local dataset will be connected to Wikidata.

Please your advice how to add this data (like providing you with a RDF file in a specific syntax, or...)

Thank You in advance, Ghazalgf (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ghazalgf: If the properties you would need do not yet exist, the normal procedure is to propose them at Wikidata:Property proposal. What sort of data are you proposing to add? Is the dataset freely licensed, and is it already online and publicly viewable? Jc86035 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Item documentation - bumping requests from 2017Edit

I love {{Item documentation}} and use it all the time. However, there are two bugs/requests outstanding from 2017 on the template's Talk page that I'd like to see improved.

  • The links to Taxonomy Browser don't work (possibly because {{Taxonomy Browser}} doesn't work), though the tool itself still works at this link). @JakobVoss:, can you help?
  • It would be great if we could add a link to "explore this property with SQID". Can someone here help with that?

Thanks, all! - PKM (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Unable to add en.WS link itemEdit

I cannot add s:en:Author:Robin F. Wynne to Robin F. Wynne (Q18749301). Each time I try to publish I see an error message:

A page "Author:Robin F. Wynne" could not be found on "enwikisource".
The external client site "enwikisource" did not provide page information for page "Author:Robin F. Wynne".

I have tried adding the link to a newly created data item Q63930093, with the intent to merge, but I get the same error message from that page as well. Can someone determine why this error is occurring? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Same for me. Trying to add it:Categoria:Dolci a base di pasta di mandorle in Q63930113, but the same message appears. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Same problem trying to link to Commons categories. Joostik (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds as though this is a general problem then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Tried again, and now seems to be working. Still not sure why it wasn't working before, but seems to be corrected now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
apparently WMF outage - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T222418 -- Slowking4 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Best way to link to people profile on organisation websites?Edit

These are not, typically "official websites", and they sometimes will have more than one (cf. Carlos A. Camargo (Q59765406)). This property is more connected more closely to affiliation (P1416) or employer (P108), and I feel relegating it to references is unhelpful. Circeus (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

KasparbotEdit

Hello everyone, I would like to know if there is a substitute in Kasparbot for authority control between wikis and WD? Thank you for your replies.   --Eihel (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Is this still needed? --- Jura 08:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Shape Expressions arrive on Wikidata on May 28thEdit

Hello all,

After several months of development and testing together with the WikiProject ShEx, Shape Expressions are about to be enabled on Wikidata.

First of all, what are Shape Expressions?

ShEx (Q29377880) is a concise, formal modeling and validation language for RDF structures. Shape Expressions can be used to define shapes within the RDF graph. In the case of Wikidata, this would be sets of properties, qualifiers and references that describe the domain being modeled.

See also:

What can it be used for?

On Wikidata, the main goal of Shape Expressions would be to describe what the basic structure of an item would be. For example, for a human, we probably want to have a date of birth, a place of birth, and many other important statements. But we would also like to make sure that if a statement with the property “children” exists, the value(s) of this property should be humans as well. Schemas will describe in detail what is expected in the structure of items, statements and values of these statements.

Once Schemas are created for various types of items, it is possible to test some existing items against the Schema, and highlight possible errors or lack of information. Subsets of the Wikidata graph can be tested to see whether or not they conform to a specific shape through the use of validation tools. Therefore, Schemas will be very useful to help the editors improving the data quality. We imagine this to be especially useful for wiki projects to more easily discuss and ensure the modeling of items in their domain. In the spirit of Wikidata not restricting the world, Shape Expressions are a tool to highlight, not prevent, errors.

On top of this, one could imagine other uses of Schemas in the future, for example building a tool that would suggest, when creating a new item, what would be the basic structure for this item, and helping adding statements or values. A bit like this existing tool, Cradle, that is currently not based on ShEx.

What is going to change on Wikidata?
  • A new extension will be added to Wikidata: EntitySchema, defining the Schema namespace and its behavior as well as special pages related to it.
  • A new entity type, EntitySchema, will be enabled to store Shape Expressions. Schemas will be identified with the letter E.
  • The Schemas will have multilingual labels, descriptions and aliases (quite similar to the termbox on Items), and the schema text one can fill with a syntax called ShEx Compact Syntax (ShExC). You can see an example here.
  • The external tool shex-simple is directly linked from the Schema pages in order to check entities of your choice against the schema.
When is this happening?

Schemas will be enabled on on test.wikidata.org on May 21st and on wikidata.org on May 28th. After this release, they will be integrated to the regular maintenance just like the rest of Wikidata’s features.

How can you help?
  • Before the release, you can try to edit or create Shape Expressions on our test system
  • If you find any issue or feature you’d like to have, feel free to create a new task on Phabricator with the tag shape-expressions
  • Once Schemas are enabled, you can discuss about it on your favorite wikiprojects: for example, what types of items would you like to model?
  • You can also get more information about how to create a Schema

See also:

If you have any questions, feel free to reach me. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • congratulations to all the team. sounds like a lot of work leading up to this moment. will this affect the wikibase extension directly? the docker image? Pdehaye (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lea Lacroix (WMDE): So presumably these are going to be important for Wikidata items that defines classes, and there will be a property like properties for this type (P1963) but on steroids, that will connect a class-item to a shape expression, which will record behaviour, properties etc that may be expected for instance-items of that class (and its subclasses), and for eg the sorts of values expected for particular properties for such instances?
So for example on a class like ceremonial county of England (Q180673) one might identify a shape expression to say that instances of the class should have located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with a value that is instance of (P31) region of England (Q48091)
Is that the general sort of idea? Jheald (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pdehaye: it's not decided yet. Seeing all the extensions and tools that we have around Wikidata, we may decide to have different "packages", like a data quality package, a data import package... For now, EntitySchemas, will not be included in the extension or the docker image.
@Jheald: You got the idea right :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): So will something like a constraint violation show up on statements which do not conform? And wht sort of queries will be possible eg in WDQS? Jheald (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

LanguagesEdit

  1. How I can have more than 46 languages loaded on property page to have labels and descriptions already in table for faster edits? Eurohunter (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Why if I have more than 46 languages in my babel table these languages not even shows in "All entered languages" at property page? Eurohunter (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. There should be bookmark with settings in the preferences which let me choose what langauges I want to use instead of set them in my userpage. Eurohunter (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Saving changes to these 46 items takes very long time, too long in 2019. Eurohunter (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You could just load the labels in a spreadsheet and edit them there? --- Jura 15:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: What do you mean? Eurohunter (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You can download the labels from Query Service, edit them in a spreadsheet and then upload the edited version with QuickStatements. --- Jura 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Urgent Admin Help NeededEdit

Can someone block IP 93.177.73.226 they are a sock of RyanForTrump and are back on Michael Moates (Q63245258) vandalizing again. They are making libelous statements. They are engaged in edit wars. See

They have already been banned from Commons as a vandal see. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Cross Wiki Vandalism

Also request protection of Michael Moates (Q63245258)


Datamaster1 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)