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 2017/07.

Migration of constraint definitions to property statementsEdit

Hello all,

As we previously announced, we are about to migrate the constraint definitions to statements. On (next Wednesday), we will enable constraint statements on Wikidata so Ivan (owner of KrBot) can start migrating existing constraints from templates into statements on property pages.

To have a smooth transition and allow you to make some tests, we deployed a test wiki where you can create and test constraint statements. You can find there a few examples, or create your own.

If you have any question or comment on this topic, feel free to ping Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE). Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Lucas! Looks nice, but how do I add exceptions to the constraints? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: once we have constraint statements: add a exception to constraint (P2303) qualifier to the constraint statement. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: There is a semi-related ticket (phab:T169374, triaged low priority), but IMHO… a constraint that has over two thousand exceptions should simply not exist. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This property is used more than 2M times, thus the exception rate is lower than 0.1%. Which is not that bad in my opinion. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
But they do exist, Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE). Homonyms accross different nomenclature Codes (Q2673092) are normal. --Succu (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC) PS: See The problem of hemihomonyms and the on-line hemihomonyms database (HHDB)
But there are maybe other ways to solve that?! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: If you want to replace a straightforward solution with a complex one, yes. But I fear splitting taxon name (P225) ínto Code dependent subproperties will not solve this issue and would raise a lot of confusion. --Succu (talk)
A splitting could help to simplify Property:P225#regulärer Ausdruck, but not will omit the NCBI and other cases. --Succu (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
A possibility could be to keep this constraint to the bot generated report and not use the gadget for them.
An other possibility could be to load exceptions from dedicated items. Including them on properties might lead to the chessplayer syndrome anyways.
--- Jura 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: The present solution does not looks very "straightforward" to me. We have today bot owners who help us updating the constraint reports. I think it will not be very difficult to find those who can continue help us with this single one. There are many more very complex relation out there. So I doubt this specific property will be the only who needs such help. I currently read a sci-fi novel with time-travel problems and parallel universes. People die before they are born, die twice etc etc. Try to make birth-and death-constraints to that! The number of biographies in StarTrek is huge, we only have a fraction of them here yet. The time-travel problem by some reason reminds me of the "simple located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)-hierarchy" in Q34. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Innocent bystander, I'm not sure how characters of Star Trek (Q1092) and time travel (Q182154) are helpful here. taxon name (P225) is not about a hierarchy. I'm not sure about you refering to bot owners. What could they do? I'm one of them. --Succu (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Some bots like PLbot and KrBot analyses dumps and based on that updates constraints reports today. I think, if we ask carefully, we can find bots who can handle such things in the future too. If we import all the data from the StarTrek-wiki you will find many contradicting claims. People dies and dies again, have multiple fathers, and have sons they are not parents of. Fiction is fiction, it fits our constraints very poorly. We therefor in the future probably have to tighten up more of our constraints or else our exceptions will grow in numbers. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  Support definetly a right move: to keep metadata (description of values) close to data (property entity) - the only reason not to do it is performance reasons
Maybe we should use a more suitable language for this task later? d1g (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: Due to build problems, there was no software deployment this week. The new planned date for enabling constraint statements from our end is (Thursday next week).
(Ivan has already migrated the constraint statements – thanks! – but they’re not currently used by Special:ConstraintReport and the gadget.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Does this mean there will be not contraint violations reports for the next seven days? This looks so.... Steak (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
No, the database reports by KrBot are independent from the WikibaseQualityConstraints extension. From our end, this just means that constraint checks will still use the old parameters imported two months ago for one more week. I don’t know what’s up with KrBot, sorry. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw this problem yesterday at another quantity property and I guess the problem was an incomplete range constraint statement on the property, which has been fixed meanwhile. The other property received an update yesterday after I applied a smiliar fix manually. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): et al. I work some with single value and unique value constraints for Swedish urban area code (P775) and Swedish minor urban area code (P776). In these cases the exceptions are fine as long as they are associated with qualifiers describing in what time they were valid, for example Skärgårdsstad (Q2720871) and no label (Q31899698) for a unique-problem and Spillersboda (Q2006732) for a single value-problem. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: It sounds like phab:T170403 (and more generally, phab:T167653) would also be useful here – Skärgårdsstad (Q2720871) could have a preferred-rank Swedish urban area code (P775)  no value Help statement, and in Spillersboda (Q2006732) the current statement could be changed to preferred rank. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): All these "old data" has always been visible in the infoboxes at Wikipedia, so I am not sure if that is the way we prefer it in these cases. They have never been treated like population-numbers that are replaced every time new numbers come. I can easily modify the WP-templates so they show both preferred and normal rank values, but I still doubt this is the way we prefer it. Especially is this true for example Stockholm City and Stockholm Municipality who have the same Municipality code. These two never coexisted. The latter replaced the first in the 1970's. So adding "novalue" as municipality code för Stockholms City would only be true before the codes came into use in the 1950's. And adding "novalue" to Stockholm Municipality would never be true, since it got its code directly when it was founded and still has the same code. (Stockholm City changed it codes when it changed county in the 1960's, but that is another story.) Take this into contrast to Skärgårdsstad who is a "populated place" and has been so for decades, both before and after Statistics Sweden classified it as an urban area of its own. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  Done see #Constraint statements update. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Some updates about Recent Changes pageEdit


Sorry to write in English. Please help translate to your language is needed and share it with your language community.

As you may already know, the Collaboration team has created a Beta feature. This feature is on your wiki since few months: "New filters for edit review". You can activate it in your Beta preferences.

What is this feature again?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked. It adds new features that ease vandalism tracking and support of newcomers:

  • Filtering - filter recent changes with easy-to-use and powerful filters combinations.
  • Highlighting - add a colored background to the different changes you are monitoring. It helps quick identification of changes that matter to you.
  • Quality and Intent Filters - those filters use ORES predictions. They identify real vandalism or good faith intent contributions that need help.

You can know more about this project by visiting the quick tour help page.

What's new?

Since the release, we have fixed small bugs and improved the interface. We have also released a way to bookmark your favorite configurations of filters.

We plan to add more new features! The full list is on this Phabricator page (in English) but here are the most important ones:

  • Filters for Namespaces and tagged edits and, later, filters for Categories and Usernames
  • Redesign navigation by using an improved time selector and better integrated navigation options
  • Add live updates
  • Have a more clear interface by putting community-defined 'related links' into a collapsible panel

This last change is about links displayed on top of the RecentChanges (see how they look like on your wiki). We do that change because we have discovered that those links are not that much used. Also, they sometimes take a lot of space on small screens. To help people to focus on recent changes patrolling, we will hide those links, with an option to show them. We have created some examples to show you how it will look like. If you like to see those links all the time, you will have to click on the link to show them and they will remain open. We welcome your feedback about this change.

You can ping me if you have questions. If this message is not at the right place, please move it and tell me. :)

Most of this information was already introduced in the Collaboration monthly newsletter. Please subscribe to get regular updates!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes slowEdit

Hello. I don't know if it is related to the new filters, but I have been experiencing very a high loading time recently. Like 30 seconds or more when I click in Special:Recentchanges. It is the only slow page for me in Wikidata. Emijrp (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

not only has it been REALLY slow for me also, but just now the Recent changes page generated a "Database error": "[WV@gGApAIDcAACNsuSwAAABI] 2017-07-07 14:53:09: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"" - I've never seen that in wikidata before. Maybe this "Recent changes" thing should be rolled back and reconsidered for wikidata? I think what we need here may be different in character from what other wikimedia sites need. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Please note those filters provide many more combinations than the default RC page does, and loading time for some combinations may be longer for certain combinations than others. It is especially the case when the prediction and intention filters are involved. Emijrp, can you send me the link(s) that give you the longest loading time (the full URL in your browser bar)?
ArthurPSmith, do you still have this issue? I don't have it. Do you have it when you click on this link? The link uses the safemode that removes additional scripts which may potentially be in conflict with the filters.
Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Trizek (WMF) - the database error just happened the one time. But Recent changes is slow for me on wikidata all the time now - with or without your special safemode link it takes at least 30 seconds to display anything. Even if I select "Show new changes since ..." and there are only a handful of changes it takes that long. If I select any of your filter options (say "Unpatrolled"), I have to wait at least 30 seconds to see the results. It's pretty un-useable at the moment. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry it is un-usable for you at the moment, ArthurPSmith. I'll report this problem sor that we can improve that Beta feature. I have tried with "Unpatrolled" and I have the same loading time as yours. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): Your link is slow for me too, it takes about 30 seconds, and I have got similar database errors to User:ArthurPSmith. I am in Spain, just in case it depends on region. I have had this issue for a week or two, I don't remember. I stopped checking recentchanges because it. Emijrp (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Emijrp. We are investigating. If you have the problem with some other sets of filters, please telle me. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't tried it for a few days, but today Recent changes is quite speedy for me, at most a 1 or 2 second wait. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF), ArthurPSmith: Today it is fast for me too. Emijrp (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Emijrp , a patch has been released on July 12. :) Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Editwar at Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384)Edit

Mr. Mabbett insists in keeping this version which has multiple flaws as I tried to explain in my edit comments. Please have a look. --Succu (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I wondered when Succu would finally deem to discuss their disputed edits. We've discussed previously why named after (P138) belongs as a qualifier on taxon name (P225) and not as a top-level statement (consider a taxon with vernacular and scientific names derived from different subjects); and Succu is repeatedly removing the reliably cited statement that the taxon was described as a species novae (Q27652812). Note also that Succu has falsely accused me - twice, in edit summaries - of committing vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Please give a link to that discussion. --Succu (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC) PS: Mr. Mabbett, you reverted with the following comments: „as before“, „as previously“, „per cited source“, „per source“, „obvious trolling“. There was no indication to an outcome from an earlier discussion. --Succu (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Josve05a, could you please comment your changes. Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

species novaEdit

Mr. Mabbett is now reverting at species novae (Q27652812) without any comments. --Succu (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Please argue here, Mr. Mabbett, and stop reverting. "sp. nov." did not mean „provisionally, named“ and so on. --Succu (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
In an attempt to justify their bad editing on Q30434384, Succu is removing a statement with three reliable sources form Q27652812, and is changing it from "subclass of species" (how can a "new species" be anything but?) to instance of Latin phrase (Q3062294) and abbreviation (Q102786). That's no more correct than making mountain (Q8502), water (Q283) or Douglas Adams (Q42) into instances of words or phrases, because the strings "mountain", "water", and "Douglas Adams" are the names of entities or concepts. This pointed, disruptive behaviour really needs to stop (or be stopped) for good. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Reverted as previously by Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You are mixing up different thinks, Mr. Mabbett. So lets start with the description of the item. User:Brya corrected your description „term used in biological taxonomy to denote a provisional name for a newly identified species“ to „phrase used when publishing the name of a new species“. Later you changed it to „species which is newly, and provisionally, named“, stating again that a species name marked with sp. nov. is only a provisional name. I restored Bryas description, what was reverted multiple times by you. None of your „reliable sources“ supports that a species name marked with sp. nov. is only a provisional name. --Succu (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what basis you imagine that your disapproval of the wording of the description in one language justifies your repeated and complete removal from the item "species nova" (meaning and aliased "new species") of the statement "subclass of species", which is supported by three reliable, quoted, sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
We should clarify this issue first. Then I will adress another point. --Succu (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This "spec. nov." is used in the publication where the species is described (in what is called the protologue in the ICNafp) and never thereafter. It is not linked to the species, but to the spot where the name is published. It is not a provisional name (in fact in the ICNafp provisional names are not validly published, that is they are not names). It is in no sense provisional, except as all names are provisional for the first few decades. - Brya (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
If Mr. Mabbett agrees to this version we could do the next step. BTW: Please keep in mind instance of (P31)=Latin phrase (Q3062294) was proposed by you. --Succu (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Species novae is not an "instance of" it is part of the publication of the species and as such should not be included on a species level. At best it is a qualifier. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
sp. nov. (or spec. nov.) indicates the role of the cited publication as a first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) and should be part of a reference, as done in Bartramia (Q2789944) and a lot more taxa. It's not perfect and should be reviewed. --Succu (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC) PS: Maybe type of reference (P3865) should used for the role of the given reference. --Succu (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  Info I've made the substitution. --Succu (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

named afterEdit

The taxon name is obviously not "named after" as it contains multiple parts and only the least significant part of the name is relevant here. When a name is preserved, it may happen that it becomes part of a subspecies containing three parts to the name as per Wikidata doctrine. In this case the "named after" part remains the least significant part but it does change at the end of the name. In conclusion, can we please have the arguments in place why we want a rationale for the choice for the positions taken. We may even ask an expert for an opinion. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, GerardM. Do you have any suggestion how we could the epithet (Q207869) of a taxon better relate to named after (P138) in general? --Succu (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I would include the "named after" as a statement, not as a qualifier. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: Please explain how you would apply that model to Kentish Plover (Q18855), with reference to both Kent (Q23298) and Alexandria (Q87); and to the vernacular names Hvidbrystet Præstekrave and Txirritxo hankabeltz, each of which is currently used as a label. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The taxon name would have a statement, the vernacular name has to have a qualifier as it is language specific (as mentioned above) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: "The taxon name would have a statement" I asked you to make reference "to both Kent (Q23298) and Alexandria (Q87); and to the vernacular names Hvidbrystet Præstekrave and Txirritxo hankabeltz". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: If you can't demonstrate that your model works for this use case, then clearly it is not the correct one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Andy, please read my responses. I said it before and repeat it just for you; the taxon including what it refers to is on a statement level. When a name in a language refers to whatever, it has to be a qualified because it is language specific. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I have read each and every one of your responses. In none of them do you address the issue I raised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
If "named after Barack Obama" doesn't apply to "Desmopachria barackobamai" as a taxon name (which of course it does), for that reason, then it doesn't apply to "Desmopachria barackobamai" as the name in the label, for the same reason. (Also, "barackobamai" is literally the (most) specific part of the name.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you know User:Daniel Mietchen/Wikidata lists/Named after started at 27 July 2015‎, which is based on having named after (P138) as a statement? --Succu (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Elizabeth Barr-BigelowEdit

The English article on Mrs Barr-Bigelow has quite a number of taxons named after her. The intention is to include information like this in Wikidata. With the current edit war being waged, I want quidance how this is to be done and how the author indication is to be included for a taxon. for instance "E.W.A.Boehm, A.N.Mill., Mugambi, Huhndorf & C.L.Schoch" as an example. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The current practice is to use named after (P138) as a statement. --Succu (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Obviously but how.. I would use it on the item level. Now how about the author indication for the taxon? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to refer to epithet (Q207869) you could use applies to part (P518). Maybe we should create a new item species epithet. --Succu (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Items can have different names in different languages and also multiple names in the same language. "Named after" is a property of a specific name of an item and therefore I agree that it makes more sense as a qualifier. I remember the previous discussion for named by (P3938) which we created as a qualifier but I don't remember one to transform named after (P138). ChristianKl (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Last week named after (P138) as a qualifier to taxon name (P225) had a single usage. --Succu (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Because some editors (well, at least one) disruptively remove it. Wikidata does not work by Fait accompli (as, for example, explained on Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Please note my edit comment: „if you want to set this only usage as qualifier as standard over a lot of usages as property then please discuss this first“ (dated 14 April 2017‎). --Succu (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
QED Note that Succu again removes a reliable citation, with a quote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately your „reliable citation, with a quote“ gives no statement about the origin of the genus name. --Succu (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
„Upland Sandpiper, Bartramia longicauda, was known... as Bartram’s Sandpiper. William Bartram (1739-1823) was not only long-lived, but he was considered the grandfather of American ornithology“ only mentions Upland Sandpiper (Q530194) and William Bartram (Q18243), but not that the genus Bartramia (Q2789944) was named after him. --Succu (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The third word in the quote is "Bartramia". QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Q.E.D. (Q188722)? No, you demonstrated the presence of the word „Bartramia“ and not that the genus was named after William Bartram. And please do not remove the author citation with the given source at Bartramia (Q2789944) again and again. --Succu (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
If you keep removing good content, then adding something else to "poison the well" against being reverted, you can't complain when your addition is lost during a revert. I've done enough cleaning up after you from that kind of edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The current best practice is to use named after (P138) as a qualifier on the taxon and/or vernacular name(s), as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is it the best practice according to you? After all on the taxon it is ambiguous. Vernacular names are different; they are language specific so there it has to be a qualifier. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not say "best practice according to me"; I said ""best practice". Please address my Kentish Plover (Q18855) example, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I indicated that you think it is a best practice. I disagree on that. I already addressed how I would do vernacular names. When you really want to know how I really address these issues, check out OmegaWiki. I consider it a flaw in the system. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: You have yet to respond to my Kentish Plover (Q18855) example; please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there some support that Carl Linnaeus (Q1043) named the species after Pope Alexander of Alexandria (Q44794)? --Succu (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The placing of "named after" is a matter of formatting, and as such debatable. Personally, I would prefer to place it as a statement, but I would also prefer to place "taxon author" and the "date of taxon name publication" as a statement. - Brya (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The "date of taxon name publication" is ambiguous. There are names that have been published on several dates in distinct publications. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Then change the label, or description, of the property to "date of taxon name's first publication", which is what is meant, and what is significant in taxonomy. Or give two dates and two sources. Either way, that's irrelevant to the issues raised here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Items included in this conflictEdit

Besides Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384) and species novae (Q27652812) there are now: Bartramia (Q2789944), Pinkfloydia (Q20675082) and Synalpheus pinkfloydi (Q29367343). --Succu (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you're stalking my edits, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Still stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I think they should be both qualifiers and main properties. 1 2
This is useful duplication, we probably cannot avoid this using only one approach: property is too inexact, white qualifier is less used for mentioned properties (named after - named after (P138))
Secondly, this particular duplication wouldn't change in future (unnamed after) d1g (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Your duplication proposal breaks in cases like Kentish Plover (Q18855), which has different labels in different languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide full example what should we do with Kentish Plover (Q18855)? d1g (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can add named after (P138) as allowed qualifier in taxon common name (P1843) and similar properties until we have a better option. d1g (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally about P138Edit

named after (P138) generally has one problem, it is language-specific. The month of March (Q110) is according to the item named after A roman god with the same name. But in "country: Turkmenistan" it is named after the day of new year in the Persian calendar. (I doubt this, since the Swedish name is the same in Turkmenistan as it is in any other part of the world.) In two named languages it is named after a genus of plants. None of these claims have any source, but that is maybe not the largest problem here. It is rather that there is no standard of how this should be described. I would prefer to see "language:Whatever" as a standard qualifier here, but that works poorly for scientific names, since it isn't a language. Maybe "applies to part" would work? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not a problem with the property, but with its usage. It is why it should be used as a qualifier on specific names (whether taxon names, or "name in native language", or whatever) not on the item generally; hence my giving Kentish Plover (Q18855) as an example - still unaddressed - above. Using it as a qualifier is both more precise, and addresses the issue you raise. Note also that no counter argument has been advanced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The months do not have "name(s) in native language"! Neither has elements like mercury (Q925) "native names". We cannot put qualifiers to labels today, I doubt that we ever will! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hence "or whatever". And that we cannot add qualifiers to labels is my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
On reflection, for the names of things such as mercury (Q925), which are not proper nouns, it may be better to apply the etymology to the relevant Wiktionary item; another option is to use the ISO code mul for multi-lingual content, like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
If you take Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Q1414593) you could say that it's named in English after Obama but that wouldn't be very useful. It would make more sense to say that the item has as name (P2561) Obamacare and qualify that with named after (P138). I think we should have a discussion on the talk page of named after (P138) to transform it into a qualifier and set the appropriate constraints. ChristianKl (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
named after (P138) is not directly relevant here, but:
country specific or ethnic or religious, but language-specific is only when everything else is unknown. d1g (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


It would be good if someone could give a short summary about this topic, including some conclusions how to proceed. Thank you. --Succu (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

With pleasure: named after (P138) belongs as a qualifier on taxon name (P225) and/or taxon common name (P1843) and not as a top-level statement. This is the only viable model discussed, for a taxon with vernacular and scientific names derived from different subjects; for example Kentish Plover (Q18855), which not only has different labels referring to Kent (Q23298) and to Alexandria (Q87); but also to the vernacular names Hvidbrystet Præstekrave and Txirritxo hankabeltz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your POV and does not reflect all arguments given. --Succu (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I repeat: "the only viable model discussed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If you believe so, then please point out where another viable model was discussed, and please explain how you would apply that model to Kentish Plover (Q18855), with reference to both Kent (Q23298) and Alexandria (Q87); and to the vernacular names Hvidbrystet Præstekrave and Txirritxo hankabeltz, each of which is currently used as a label. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I know so and made my point before. A fact you failed to acknowledge. The taxon is relevant in any language and consequently what it is named for is universal. The labels for a specific language are on a different level, they are relevant for one language only and consequently they have to be qualified. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


I just created Wikidata:RDF, in order to have a page to point to when asked about our RDF output. It could do with some content from people who work with Wikidata's RDF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We should point to Wikidata RDF Dump Format (Q32786132), not to "Wikidata" d1g (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I added skos:prefLabel (which WD emits as rdfs:label: that was surprising to me) and skos:altLabel (which WD emits as skos:altLabel).

@D1gggg: I agree it's a bit confusing but how would you propose to reformat it? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Vladimir Alexiev: perhaps one table is not sufficient for Wikidata model, because there are many levels of abstractions; RDF is one of the lowest. Many RDF features are not used yet (no need to compare them). d1g (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


Wikidata:Data access → "database dumps documentation" link → Wikidata:Database_download#RDF_dumps

Wikidata:RDF: we have different RDF dumps (I forgot about it too), maybe we should cover RDF dumps at one page? d1g (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of genre on humansEdit

People don't have genres, but it appears that artists do on Wikidata. These should all be moved to P101 field of work. Can someone help with this? Jane023 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the property constraints and descriptions says something different. However, I agree with you. This will also influence the entity suggester in a better way. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Like you I felt that the constraints should have prevented this, but I also noticed some strange subclasses of genres as well. I started looking at occupations in general for artists, which is how I discovered this, but looking around it seems there is a broader problem with describing people using properties related to occupations (Genre I only noticed because I saw that people and artworks were both linking to genres). So for example I noticed that someone might be best known as a writer and have (correctly) the occupation writer, but that they also have an additional occupation "Assistant lecturer", which I am now thinking is incorrect. I mean, the person might be an assistant lecturer, but this is not their "claim to fame" and therefore irrelevant. It's like saying a famous painter of dogs also was a dog groomer, though in some cases "dog groomer" might actually be a claim to fame for someone else known for winning dog show competitions, etc. Jane023 (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
We ned to be careful about applying this as an item-level statement vs. a qualifier. Consider amateur painters who do so in a particular genre but are known for something entirely different. "Adolf Hitler -> field of work -> landscape painting" would not be sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree (see my comments on guitar players who might be mayors) Jane023 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary better to have "field of work" mixed with musical genres or we should review P101 for every art-related profession, not just for musicians or vocalists. I had plans to request "able to play instrument". Genres are about "how they play" such instruments d1g (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I guess it is OK for a guitar player to have occupation "guitar player" but then "field of work" could be "pop" or "classical". It might be overkill to say this person has occupation "musician" with "field of work" "drums"and "guitar" if they really mostly play the guitar. It depends on the person and if they are actually a city mayor who plays the guitar, then they should at least also have the occupation "politician" and maybe drop the musical occupation altogether. I just deleted the occupation "house painter" from a bi-athlete. Then there is e.g. Near Eastern archaeologist (Q26424344) which I think is wrong - this should be archeologist with field of work "Middle-east" or something. Jane023 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
"drums"and "guitar" are far more suitable for "instruments" property
We cannot change genre to occupation because we don't know how many of them play for money.
Correction: I am asking to switch the items listed for humans under genre to Field of work. Jane023 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It is difficult to say about individual performers d1g (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It does not matter for occupation (P106) whether the occupation is professional (paid) or not. We don’t really know this in so many cases anyway.
  • If an occupation is not the “claim to fame” as Jane023 described it above, it is still valuable in many cases to add this claim. However, preferred rank could be used for the “claim to fame” in that case.
MisterSynergy (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is an interesting idea that I hadn't thought of. Jane023 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
We have a couple of generic properties that cause undesirable “everything-links-to-everything” situations because both their domain and range of values are fairly unconstrained. genre (P136) is one of them, sport (P641) another one with a very similar problem. However, their claims are conveniently accessed from connected sitelinks, and Wikipedias use them a lot to present data in infoboxes etc. At the same time, querying these properties is very difficult since the result can contain pretty much everything.
In many cases, a better (cleaner) data modelling would make the infobox coding a little more complex (e.g. accessing a claim of a value item, instead of using a value item directly), but Wikipedias nevertheless seem to prefer simple access. The extra load is on Wikidata side, so they don’t really have to deal with the problems arising from this strategy. However, there are in fact cases where a clean modelling would make data retrieval in a template/module pretty difficult: traversing the knowledge tree from Wikipedia is not efficiently possible yet to my knowledge. But this is not a relevant problem for generic properties. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I must admit I noticed an alarming similarity between occupations and (English) wikipedia categories for people. At first I thought this had to do with people using Petscan to update Wikidata, but now after your comment I am inclined to think this might have to do with infobox logic. I agree we need to be careful how to enable re-use of our data without messing up our model of occupations. Jane023 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We don’t really know this in so many cases anyway

We have such problem with creative jobs, that's why I'm asking if it make sense to mix full-time senators with part-time street guitarist :) d1g (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. All I am asking in this thread is to take the time to look. I also want to switch the genres to field-of-work, but that is a different subject (use of wrong property for same thing). Jane023 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Since occupation (Q12737077) is described as "any activity of a person (hobby, work, pastime, professional sport...)", it seems like pastimes and hobbies are perfectly appropriate values for the occupation (P106) of a person, and are in fact required for a complete profile. Perhaps we need different properties for a person's work or career and their other interests, but it would be really difficult to know where to draw the line, even for many famous and well-documented people. Also, I think it's important to understand where people have come from. Yes, Harrison Ford was a carpenter when he was a struggling young actor, and we should acknowledge that as part of his biography. - PKM (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please enlighten me! Why do we need separate Q nrs for all items in a biographical dictionary?Edit

I just added the subject and then undid my edit for ADB:Pauw, Adriaen (niederländischer Staatsmann) (Q27585665) because I apparently already did that before. I was looking for the person and this biographical item came up. I missed the memo on why these are here as separate items and not just listed on the subject's item under identifiers. Is this something to do with interwikilinks for Wikisource? There are so many biographical dictionaries out there in so many languages, and it doesn't feel to me like this is the right way to do this. I am probably late to the party though and this must have been discussed before, so just point me to the conversation, thx. Jane023 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't, but we do include sitelinks to Wikisource pages. The advantage is precisely that one can identify the subject of such an entry.
--- Jura 06:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't what exactly? Are you saying this should be merged or not? The sitelink to wikisource for the subject in this case, namely the person Adriaan Pauw (Q367636), doesn't exist (yet), though I suppose I could make one as an example. I would make a wikisource page called "Author:Adriaan Pauw" and then in the wikisource author page I could list all articles about him and his treaty, do the same on Wikisource in all other probable languages like nl/de/fr and then on German wikisource the subject of this item ADB:Pauw, Adriaen (niederländischer Staatsmann) (Q27585665) could link both to his author page and the Munster page (for the treaty). I guess my question has to do with how we want to deal with Wikisource in the long term: will all distinct ws pages be getting a Q number or not? I should think not. Jane023 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
If there was no sitelink to Wikisource, the answer to "Why do we need separate Q nrs for all items in a biographical dictionary?" would be "we don't". Q27585665 needs mainly main subject (P921) not a sitelink to a Wikisource author page. Wikidata:WikiProject DNB more or less spells it out for another dictionary.
--- Jura 09:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
See my opening comment. I added main subject to that page twice already. My point it that this specific person (as many like him) have multiple encyclopedia articles written about him that could potentially already be on various Wikisource projects. My question remains therefore, is it correct to assume that each page on any wikisource will get its own Q number in future? Jane023 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
With some exceptions, yes! "Q27585665" represents an article about Adiaen Pauw. It does not represent the person him/herself. Some pages in main namespace can share item with Wikipedia-articles. Among them are the "Author-pages". Some projects have a separate namespace for those, but for example dews have them in main namespace. Some pages are regarded as "Wikisource-disambigs" and they can correspond to normal Wikipedia-articles. For example a page linking to all versions of "Raven by Poe", listing all versions and translations of that specific poem. Those can be linked to the item about the poem. But the pages with the text of Poe should not be linked in such a way. Do not mix these WS-disambigs with other ordinary disambigs who lists everything named "Raven", no matter if it has a relation to Poe or not.
The notability criteria tells that subpages in main namespace in Wikisource not should be included here. But I doubt that those discussions are based on real facts about how Wikisource is organized. It is true that many such pages are only chapters in books. But such "chapters" can also be found elsewhere in Wikisource. And many of these chapter can stand alone as a text of its own. "ADB:Pauw, Adriaen (niederländischer Staatsmann)" is more or less a good example of that! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I run into this issue before, where the only item on some person was a "biographical article" on Wikisource. I was not sure if it was OK to treat it like regular biographical item or not. In the end I created a regular item for that person, but it was confusing. --Jarekt (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I also find it very confusing, but mostly because ws is still so sparsely populated. For example, most Dutch encyclopedic articles of the 19th-century and earlier are not on Dutch wikisource at all, though this German dictionary article looks translated from the Dutch one. So in terms of "the future" I suppose we will eventually have items for each encyclopedia article that exist in each language on Wikisource, but not in other external sources, which is weird. I guess once there is more ws links in general it will make more sense to me. Jane023 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I also found it very confusing, and occasionally I am still perplexed when trying to figure out which is which. I assumed it was a relic of automatic uploading. Now, I just ignore it like I do entries for disambiguation pages from Wikipedia and other odd entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There used to be a huge mess with DNB before Wikidata:WikiProject DNB: items had partial labels, hardly any description and/or statements. People kept merging or confusing them with items for people.
    If the Wikibase installation for Commons works out, it might be easier to do a similar installation for Wikisource. This way all its metadata could be stored at one place.
    --- Jura 09:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @Jane023: There is no requirement for every entry in every compilation to have an item in Wikidata. There is the ability for biographical works to have an item at Wikidata where there is a (sub)page at a Wikisource. The "why" on how and why this would happen relates to 1) how we can directly link and reference an article at a WP or somewhere else, [think about a having a reference at a WP with a simple template link that calls all the data from WD] 2) to how we can produce/interlink metadata within WD for an article within a compiled work, [think about how we find and express information on the articles written by Joseph Foster (Q6283171) in many publications] and 3) how we can compile and express the components of a work by a query [think how WD can store and have queryable all the articles written in Dictionary of National Biography (Q1210343) by volume, or by edition, or produce a simple complete alphabetical, etc.]. I think that it is better to think of a biographical dictionary as just one type of compiled work, and the process that we have for compiled work is universal within wikidata, be it a bio dictionary, an encyclopaedia, a newspaper, a journal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting link, thanks! I guess I have always thought of this project as the ODNB, but I guess the ODNB is the successor to the DNB. Theoretically it is of course important to have this data so we can query it. I would be very interested for example if all the articles were completed with their metadata information, not only about their subjects, but also the wikidata items for their authors. This is important information for provenance of information in general and for studies on (for example) systemic bias. There should probably be similar projects per country (Netherlands: Van der Aa, USA: Britannica 1911, etc). Jane023 (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
the existing Q number for bio dictionary are an historical oddity, reflecting confusion on bibliographic metadata. you are right to be confused. - yes, ultimately we could merge all the bio articles under article subject - "described by source". the DNB is the PD version of paywalled ODNB, but they are different sources. (or we could leave bio article item as supporting reference for article subject). do we want to include Q number for every academic paper at wikisource or with a doi ? the DNB is above average, in that it gives us article author information, so article items could be kept for queries about the work. other bio dictionaries not so much. Slowking4 (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: Jane, the complete situation is like this: main subject (P921) properly links a "metadata item" like Q1234567 to another item like Q7654321, which is the true item on its subject. This has been envisaged since May 2015, when discussion concluded that, yes, all Wikisource items can have metadata pages here on Wikidata. I spent much time last year putting in such links for the old DNB.

What happens in practice is this: Q1234567 may exist, and its "main subject" cannot be added, because there is no such item about the subject person. Then either the situation should be left as is; or a new item created. Data about the _person_ should anyway not be added to Q1234567, which is marked instance of "biographical article" or suchlike. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes Charles I got all of that. I am just wondering whether separate Q numbers are really useful if they are not going to be modelled the way I suggested. Just linking ws pages seems so useless. Either you want the whole thing because you are going to actively use it somehow as a dataset (for studies on systemic bias - e.g. how many articles are based on people from London vs other places, etc), or you can better turn it into a property that links properly to various sections of ws. If I look at the growth of the English Wikisource for the Britannica 1911, it seems pretty sad that it's not completed when there is only 65,000 articles in total and this was supposedly what English Wikipedia was seeded with at its inception. That means that if you would even try to do what you have done with the DNB you would first have to finish the 65,000 articles on English ws source first. If I compare this work to what I am doing with the art catalogs of Hofstede de Groot then it seems similar datamodelling work is going on. The difference is that if I only add the subject items, which are "instance of painting" and not "instance of article about painting". If I can't get sources for the painting then I don't add that painting to Wikidata as an item. I will only include catalog numbers that have an image or collection metadata. Otherwise it could just be a double entry or a flat-out mistake. So to my mind, it would have been better to keep the whole dataset on ws and just link the ws article to subject items only. The problem is with Wikisource and the ability to link articles about a topic to each other. In the case that I started with, namely a notable Dutch "grand pensionary" who happens to be poorly documented on wiki projects (so far), linking one encyclopedia article to him from one ws instance (german ws) as a separate item just seems so random to me. If you had a "topic" namespace on Wikisource that was similar to the "author" namespace, then you could interlink such articles within the same ws instance, as well as link out to other language ws projects and the proper wikidata items. I guess I am in disagreement with the current vision for the future of ws and wikidata in this sense. Jane023 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
well, the EB1911 biographical articles are "finished" (not proofed or validated) and only 2,849 wikipedia articles to reference. (incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter) "random" is the wiki way. tell me more about the vision. Slowking4 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (Q5641607) and Help:Using talk pages (Q4592157)Edit

ro:Wikipedia:Pagină de discuție is listed in the "Help:Using talk pages", but the Romanian page is marked as a guideline. Shouldn't it belong to the list of "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines"? Also, some others listed in the "Help:" query page should belong to the "Wikipedia:" query page. Must I be bold to change the lists, i.e. move some items to the other query? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

sv:Wikipedia:Diskussionssidor is a guideline, but only for the talk_pages of the main namespace. Talk_pages for user_talks and places like the Village pump is not directly involved. I doubt there are so much strong opinions here at Wikidata. These items do not look very useful for the database we have main interest in. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for belated reply. Anyway, can changes to the queries be done right away? If not, what else shall be done with these queries? --George Ho (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Now reached this one.--GZWDer (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this worthy of noting? With so many duplicates created and needing to be deleted/merged, we can 'pump up' an insignificant number as something of value when it isn't. I think that the number of live items is a better measure that this 'faux' number.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
We reached 519000000 edits. --Pasleim (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
How about counting the number of redirects already within these latest 3 million items due to the many duplicates introduced by the indirect geonames data import. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment there are 21912 redirects in latest 3 millions of items[1]. XXN, 15:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Now 26909. In less than 2 days +5000 recent items were merged. --XXN, 00:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should just use Special:Statistics "content pages" figure (29,020,672 right now). That variable excludes redirects. Emijrp (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The userpage at User:Succu has an interesting graphic illustrating the missing 4 million items (12%).
    --- Jura 14:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
ːYes, but it's six months old. Can somebody update this graph? Steak (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And it does not mention the Q's that are never created. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Done, Steak. --Succu (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

confusing date of birthEdit

Can someone help me figure out best known date of birth for Italian painter Orazio Borgianni (Q2265356)? Many reliable sources (some printed and some online) have different dates. --Jarekt (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking for which is the best reference with which to set a preferred date?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess so. My problem is that I am not sure how to deal with conflicting data, especially if it looks like someone's typo. The best thing to do would be to check all the printed sources, which I do not have. It is a case where more research is needed by someone, and we should probably tag it somehow as conflicting data. Another similar example would be date of birth for Russian painter Nikanor Chernetsov (Q15080902). My guess is that the date coming from Russian Wiki has a typo, but since it is backed up by printed sources it is hard to verify. I guess We should leave a note on Wikipedia projects about cases like that and hope that someone will look up printed sources. --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Listing several dates with the normal rank is the best way we handle conflicting data. If there's one value that you consider most likely to be true, give it the preferred rank. If there are values that you believe to be false, depreciate them. ChristianKl (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Source without itemEdit

Succu has reverted my source because "comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) is depricated". But what solution should I used to add a source which has not item yet? --Infovarius (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Add the detail as a reference, you have enough ... "American Journal of Science 30(5): 138—141 (English)"  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: Hm, with what property? --Infovarius (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Help:Sources#Scientific, newspaper or magazine article. —MisterSynergy (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
...Why not just create the item? --Yair rand (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes yes. But I don't want to think about notability of such works. --Infovarius (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If the item is used as a reference, it has structural need and is therefore notable. —MisterSynergy (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, we can have an item per every edition of the book. 09:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that having such a property would be helpful. The last time we discussed the idea it didn't found a consensus for creation but feel free to make a new proposal. ChristianKl (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is incomplete, because you omitted the fact that the article was published in 5th series of American Journal of Science (Q465355) in volume 30. Thats why issue (P433) and volume (P478) are wrongly given. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Uncertainty of population (P1082)Edit

At the Dutch wp we use the population from wikidata not only as a value but also to express the density of an area by {{#expr: {{{population}}}/{{{area}}}}}. Since the P1082 value also uses the uncertainty of ±0, the expression gives an error. Is there a way to not include the uncertainty to keep the expression working? Have a nice day! Q.Zanden questions? 20:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not simply remove the uncertainty from all values? Steak (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess they are imported by bot automatically or with QuickStatements, and maybe because there is an uncertainty... Q.Zanden questions? 22:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@QZanden: How is the values transported to nlwiki? If you use things like {{#property:P1082}} you will get the uncertainty and maybe also will get adapted decimal separators and thousand delimiter, all things that makes it impossible to use the data in the way you want yourself. If you instead use LUA, you can yourself decide if and how you want to use the uncertainty and wait with adapting to local language until after all the calculations have been done. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
±0 is relict from days when we worked around ±1 by explicitly typing "±0". The process of removing explicit zero bounds to no bounds is ongoing but I don't know at the moment what's remaining to be done.
If you are also using area (P2046) as {{{area}}}, please note that the property is not guaranteed to always have the same unit. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
And dividing with "38 163 hectar" is neither easy with the #expr:-parser. But that is also solvable with LUA, as long as the unit is specified and convertible to the units you want to use. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander, at the moment I am testing it here. You can see the problem at Cameron (Louisiana) where the Infobox states: Inwoners 406±0 (0 inw./km²). BoH (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@BoH, QZanden: I have made some changes to the template now. But I do not know what happens if you add this template to an article that has two or no values in P1082. I think you have to look into that too before you implement this on a large scale! You probably have to ask the developers of the local Wikidata-module to see to those cases! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@BoH, QZanden: And note that the main problem with the density here was not that the number included "Uncertainty" but that the value from Wikidata was never transported into the "#expr:"-parser! It was still the bevolkning-parameter that it was based on, and that was "nil" and nil divided by almost anything becomes 0. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Your explanation is a bit too technical for me, but it works now.
Regarding different population numbers, if I look at New York City (New York (stad)) where a range of population data exists, removing the population data results in the 2015 data being used. So that seems to work fine.
One thing I haven't been able to get working properly however, is get the date of the population count in correctly. This edit by me is not the solution. Do you have an idea? BoH (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@BoH: If you look into Q60#P1082 you there see that only one of all these New York-numbers has "preferred rank". So no matter which system you use, you aren't bothered by importing several numbers. When I made some experiments in your nl:Wikipedia:Wikidata/zandbak with code like {{#invoke:Wikidata|claim|p1082}} I get 77. So it only gives me one single number and that is good! The problem is that I want the latest number. But the module does not give me that, at least not by default. It gives me the first number, no matter if it is the oldest or youngest. I have no clue about how advanced your module is, if it supports giving you the latest number. And I do neither know if it can give you the date. It definitely looks like it can give you a reference, and that is really good.
Very much can be done with modules like this. In sv:Tjäll you see an article that get both population with date and reference, area with unit and reference, pop-density, coordinates and codes with reference, all from Wikidata. The template in sv:Lanna, Värnamo kommun gives you information of how big parts of the village of Lanna is located in Värnamo and Gnosjö, all from Wikidata. But it is a little tricky to solve it by templates like these. It would be better if the whole infobox was LUA-based. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is a bit too complicated for me, I have no clue about LUA. Thanks anyway! BoH (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
BoH, do you know anybody at nl.wikipedia who have such skills? Or are there anybody here with such skills? I have expanded the functions of the local module at svwiki, but I am afraid I am an self learned amateur who tends to create spagetti-code. So I am not the right person to help you there. (And I am a little too busy IRL at the moment.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There should be a few, I will try. Thanks again! BoH (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!Edit

Many happy returns (if a little belatedly) to Wikidata:Property proposal/head coach of, our oldest unresolved property proposal, which was opened on 13 July 2016. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Which Wikimedia project for historical data (time series)?Edit

Is there a wikimedia project that hosts notable time series data? I am considering to provide the 622– nile maximum and minimum water levels at Kairo published 1925 by Omar Tousson, but only the maximum values can be found online. This time series is still used a lot in current research. Any suggestions? --DeWikiMan (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways:
  1. Use the tabular data type on WikiCommons.
  2. Create a property proposal for minimum and maximum water levels and add it to Nile (Q3392). This solution means that we have to first agree on the best way to model the water levels in general. ChristianKl (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Christian. Will give your first suggestion a try. --DeWikiMan (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Restore pleaseEdit

Q33082442 and Q20669522 were deleted as not notable. Can they be restored, and can we see if the person responsible, User:ValterVB deleted other records under the same premise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any references or identifiers on the deleted item, though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Restore it so that I can see it please. It should have a link to Wikimedia Commons. It may have been deleted during the filling in process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The history shows that there were never any sitelinks added. Mbch331 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
That is awesome, can I still have it restored so I can see it. Wikimedia sitelinks is only one of multiple reasons for having an entry. Lack of sitelinks is not a valid reason for deletion. Am I at the wrong venue for undeletion requests? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Mbch331 misinterpreted you! You said that it was deleted before you had the time to add a sitelink, and Mbch331 replied by telling it had no sitelinks. The correct place to ask for a restore of a deleted item is WD:AN, but if it solved here, that is no big deal. Personall,y I do not see what makes it so difficult to restore deleted versions of a simple item. If it wasn't what you thought it was, it can easily be deleted again. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WD:N, a single sitelink to Commons does not make an item notable. The item never had one and it's final version didn't have any references and any external identifiers. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually WD:N reads the opposite: "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons."  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).
    Read further: In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. However, it is allowed to link Wikimedia Commons categories with categories in other Wikimedia sites in items. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    What are "main article items"? Wikidata doesn't have prose articles, what does that even mean? What does "categories with categories in other Wikimedia sites" mean? I read 10 times, and still have no clue what it means. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Conflicted 2 time :) The item was without references, have you a source that indicates that it is the person you say? So I can restore and add reference. --ValterVB (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
If we must delete unreferenced entries, I will write a script to search for them. If you show me the rule, I will start work on the script and we can begin massive deletion within the hour. Also show me the rule that requires an external identifier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Already exist: is Wikidata Query Service but we can't delete automatically, it's necessary check every item before delete them. --ValterVB (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): One modify suggestion: It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on any of our supported Wikimedia Projects. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Check what? You just said we have to delete unreferenced records and the search finds unreferenced records, what is the holdup? Get deleting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Every item I have created have been empty when I start to edit them. What makes it so difficult to restore it so it can be filled with more claims and sitelinks? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Then delete all unreferenced entries greater than 12 hours old. A simple fix!
(After multiple edit conflicts) And the rule is WD:N. It didn't have sitelinks, so it fails #1. No links to the item (otherwise it wouldn't have been deleted), so fails #3. So remains #2. There weren't any references, so how can an admin know if he can be described using serious and publicly available references? With the number of DR's it's not doable to check every item if there might be publicly available references. So that information has to be present somehow in the item and that wasn't the case. Mbch331 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
WQS can't show if someone removed valid site links or valid references, that's what needs to be checked. Mbch331 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Innocent bystander: I can't see Richard saying he wants to add information, just to see if the deletion was valid. Mbch331 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Re on "Check what?": Before deleted an item is necessary check if someone deleted valid sitelink, or someone moved sitelink without gadget, so we must search destination item and do merge, in some case we must check backlink (sparql can check only ns0). --ValterVB (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Re on "Then delete all unreferenced entries greater than 12 hours old. A simple fix!" Do you understand "We must check?" It isn't a problem of time. --ValterVB (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I gave up and recreated them as Q33082442 for Q20669522(I cannot find the original number, it gets deleted from my contributions) and Q33082485 for Q20669522, someone can merge the data fields later for me. Twice the work, but it will make contributors to this thread happier. Thanks! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you have read " have you a source that indicates that it is the person you say? So I can restore and add reference"? --ValterVB (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please can you read all this page and avoid to create not notable item or item with wrong claim? How is possible that value of spouse (P26) is a category item? --ValterVB (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata notability: "can be described using serious and publicly available reference" How does it fail this? If someone had Wikidata notability they can be concatenated to other family members that we have fields for. That is why Wikipedia does not allow articles on presidential children if not independently notable, yet Wikidata does because they "can be described using serious and publicly available reference", a census entry is a "serious and publicly available reference" as is a marriage certificate or a death certificate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, is this a strict rule, that we delete unreferenced entries, or is it just used ad hoc to delete entries that people with admin rights do not like? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I repeat my self: Do you have read " have you a source that indicates that it is the person you say? So I can restore and add reference"? --ValterVB (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer my question first: Is this a strict rule, that we delete unreferenced entries, or is it just used ad hoc to delete entries that people with admin rights do not like? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Can someone do a quick count on how many articles would be deleted if we followed the rule of deleting unreferenced Wikidata entries? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
15,000±5,000 (my estimation). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
7174 items about people would be deleted [2], that are 0.2% of all our items about people. --Pasleim (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I restored the item. The marriage certificate hosted on WikiCommons is clearly a serious and public source. ChristianKl (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Can you restore Q33082442 I mistyped it last time. Can you also respond to the wording below. We have few eyes on here as compared to Wikipedia so rules creep in without any challenge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the Q33082442 reads "Category:Lena Elaine Olson" and is instance of (P31) Wikimedia category. While I consider an item with instance of (P31) human (Q5) for Lena Elaine Olson to be notable, an item for the category isn't. ChristianKl (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
He just makes the situation even more confusing by editing messages hours later while other people responded to them already. Highly unwanted. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course restoring it like I asked would have solved all the problems and amounted to 1/10 of the work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone please merge the new with the old, all outside links that are pointing in to Wikidata now use the new Q numbers. Thanks. I changed the Q numbers pointing in. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Was it so hard? If when I asked to you "have you a source that indicates that it is the person you say? So I can restore and add reference" (my first answer) you answered: "Yes, here:" You saved a lot of words. --ValterVB (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I can cut and paste too. Is it still impossible to answer? (third time asking) Is this a strict rule, that we delete unreferenced entries, or is it just used ad hoc to delete entries that people with admin rights do not like? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If point 1 and point 3 are not applicable and I can't check if point 2 isn't respected I delete item, so: yes, for me is a rule. --ValterVB (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
i think we need a consensus to establish a rule. Slowking4 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" ItemsEdit

As a general question, for those of you concerned with unreferenced items, what exactly constitutes a "reference"? A sitelink? A reference/citation on any statement? An identifer? A described by source (P1343) statement? A described at URL (P973) statement? - PKM (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Glossary#Reference. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I’d like to expand Matěj’s answer a bit. Written down as bullet points, since several loosely related points are addressed.
  • Almost all items with sitelinks and backlinks (according to WD:N) are pretty safe anyway.
  • Difficult are cases that are notable due to point 2 of WD:N. The phrase “… can be described …” seems a little outdated meanwhile as Wikidata has matured a lot, and there is also uncertainty about the matter what a “serious” source is.
    • Although I don’t know what the exact reason for these uncertainties is, I suspect that this is intentional flexibility that allows us to deal with all kinds of special cases in an apropriate manner. The uncertainty typically isn’t used to aggressively delete items, it rather enables us to allow very special situations as well.
    • Regarding seriousness of sources: according to my impression this means coverage by an external source that is maintained by some kind of authority. Thus, many external databases (external identifiers) are serious sources, but not all are. Facebook and the like are not serious. User-generated content (without any supervising authority) in general is tenuous, yet not generally non-serious.
    • As a rule of thumb it would thus help a lot if items which are notable according to #2 of WD:N are equipped with an external identifier, which is not user-generated content. There are certainly exceptions to this “rule”. Anything that helps to unambiguously identify this entity is extremely useful.
  • Besides that, we also work for individual references for each and every claim, but this isn’t something we will achieve that soon.
  • I’d also like to address why this is important. We do have notability criteria, since we are not able to cover each and every entity in this world—neither technically, nor socially with this community. In order not to drown in promotional content and fake content (there is indeed a lot of both) as well as other non-notable items, we do need to check precarious items for their notability. This is unfortunately done by just a few admins, and the backlog of problematic cases reaches back until at least 2014 (!). A typical such item does not provide much more content than “John Doe, male American person, born 1940”. How would one check whether this is a notable “John Doe”? It is in fact not really possible for admins to do that. The typical workflow is thus to identify a list of problematic items, check for references (in each claim, not “imported from: some Wikipedia”), check for identifiers and backlinks, check history for (deleted) sitelinks, and if it is not clear then what or whom this item is about, it is deleted. Since there are myriads of cases, admins could do this for hours without significantly reducing the backlog, and this is really the most boring Wikidata activity one can imagine. As long as only a few admins/editors work in this field, the number of cases does not permit to ask involved editors individually, and neither does it allow to perform Google searches.
  • If such an item is deleted, kindly ask the admin or WD:AN what it was about, and whether it could be restored. I would be happy if this could be done without much drama.
MisterSynergy (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that answers my question. - PKM (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Can someone explain what this means, it is currently being used as a rationale for deletion but it makes no sense as written: "In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. However, it is allowed to link Wikimedia Commons categories with categories in other Wikimedia sites in items." Can someone find the discussion that took place to add this to WD:Notability? Wikipedia has "articles", Commons hosts files, Wikidata hosts Q entries that contain other property (P) fields. I think it was added at some point to disallow Q entries for Wikicommon entries that do not have Wikipedia articles or WikiQuote or Commons gallery entries, so the wording about "articles" makes no sense. If correct it should read: "Wikidata entries are not allowed for Wikimedia Commons categories if the subject does not contain an entry in Wikipedia or WikiQuote or WikiSource." Someone else will have to figure out the second part. Anyway, it contradicts the very first rule of notability, if my interpretation is correct. Many category entries at Commons do not have a corresponding "Commons gallery" page, because no one bothered to make one. I never bother to, even when adding a dozen files on a notable subject. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia not only has articles but also Category pages and Disambiguation pages. Both of those are notable enough to warrant their own Wikidata items. Category:Germany (Q1410828) is for example no article but a category. Given that the category has sitelinks to Wikipedia it's notable, if it would only have sitelinks to WikiCommons that wouldn't be enough for notability. ChristianKl (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Where is the discussion for including this as a notability rule, and the discussion that determined the wording? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the notability of Commons sitelinks in my opinion is that you there can find categories and galleries like Files uploaded by User:X, who looks community-centric, instead of contributing to the knowledge base we want to build here. (This person maybe is notable by other reasons, but that is another question.) I therefor do not think that every category or gallery on Commons is a good base for notability. But in many cases I think they are, like this random piece of musical instrument. That does not mean that it is a good idea to mass-import by bot such items. Instead they can be imported when the need is found. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links, Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive 3#Are Commons categories notable by themselves? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a good reason to surgically exclude those specific self-referential categories about contributors. Currently the rule is so poorly written it can used as a bludgeon to delete anyone with only a biographical category at Commons. Lets close the loophole by rewording that sentence, and lets have a genuine discussion, before we have a major rule change. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Currently c:Category:Solidago canadensis is not linked as a sitelink to any Wikidata item, despite it being a category for Solidago canadensis (Q254436). That's because c:Solidago canadensis is linked to that item instead. Am I to understand the notability rules correctly, that I am not allowed to create a new Wikidata item for that Commons category, since there is no other sitelink for the same category? (tJosve05a (c) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
+1 --Succu (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And for that use we also have Commons category (P373) where you can add the category instead of putting it in the sitelink-section. Q.Zanden questions? 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
... which means that sitelinks aren't included at the commons category. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I am misreading the statement above, however, I dispute QZanden's suggestion that the means to progress is to exclude categories as sitelinks for Commons, or that this is the consensus that has been reached. I will accept that where a gallery exists, it precedes a category as the interwiki, however, where no gallery exists, I firmly believe that a category link should be used as the interwiki. 1) The interwikis existing are valuable and easily usable; 2) There will be so many categories that should never have galleries at Commons, and as such the category interwiki serves a strong function. I would always have the category added using P373 whether I have it interwiki'd or not.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst, no I meant that if there are both a page and a category at commmons, then you put the page as sitelink and the category in P373. If there is no page, then put the category in the sitelinks. Q.Zanden questions? 12:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The rule is footnoted to a discussion, but that discussion was only about creating a field to hold a commons category. I do not see consensus in the discussion for disallowing the creation of a Wikidata entry, or the deletion of a Wikidata entry, because it only links to a commons category. Many biographical entries only have a link to a commons category and not a commons gallery. This is because it is a lot of work just to create a commons gallery, just so you can sort the images chronologically instead of alphabetically. The discussion here that is cited above is also nebulous. I think the wording has to be changed, since it is being used as a basis for deletion or at least for not restoring entries, that have previously been deleted. It is also being arbitrarily enforced, which is never good. We either have to change the poorly worded rule, or purge all the entries that only have a link to Commons category. I think what the rule was meant to say was to not automatically create entries for every Commons category because they contain a few category types not useful for Wikidata. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
If item is notable, we delete sitelink, not the item. --ValterVB (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you show me where this discussion took place about deleting Commons Category links. Is this occurring now? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment well I am confused about what was the point of the conversation, and it seems that there is a whole lot of cross-purpose conversation. All it points to me is that we do need to better explain Commons linking. 1) The requirements for main ns item, and what items it includes, and then what interwiki links, and in preferential order of linking; 2) the requirements for Category: creation, the body items, and the interwiki links, again in preferential order. This help should be based on the outcomes of discussions, as having users have to pull up each page to know the protocol is antediluvian. Is this a call for [[Wikidata:For Commoners]] or some such name ?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Strategy discussion, cycle 3. A new challengeEdit

Hi! It's the third week of our Cycle 3 discussion, and there's a new challenge: As Wikimedia looks toward 2030, how can we counteract the increasing levels of misinformation? You can suggest solutions here. Earlier challenges can be discussed as well. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fetching QIDs through SPARQL?Edit

Hi all. I have a very daft question: how can I fetch QIDs through SPARQL? Doing a query like "SELECT ?item WHERE { VALUES ?val {wd:Q33093130} ?item wdt:P31 ?val }" returns a wikilinked value for ?item, rather than the raw QID. I can't spot an example that does this at Wikidata:SPARQL query service/queries or through google (but this is a difficult thing to search for!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a simpler approach, but one way would be cast the value to a string to get the full URI:
SELECT (STR(?item) AS ?qid) WHERE { 
  VALUES ?val {wd:Q33093130} 
  ?item wdt:P31 ?val 
Try it!
If you just need the final part, then you could also use REPLACE (again, not sure if there's a more suitable URI-processing function):
SELECT (REPLACE(STR(?item), '', '')  AS ?qid) WHERE { 
  VALUES ?val {wd:Q33093130} 
  ?item wdt:P31 ?val 
Try it!
--Oravrattas (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I routinely use
SELECT (STRAFTER(STR(?item), '')  AS ?qid) WHERE { 
  VALUES ?val {wd:Q33093130} 
  ?item wdt:P31 ?val 
Try it!
for that Jneubert (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I use this approach but save some typing through STRAFTER( STR( ?item ), STR( wd: ) ). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
And I typically use replace(str(?item), ".*Q", "Q"). - Nikki (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I've created phab:T170788 asking for a more direct method. It seems like enough people would use it. - Nikki (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Some also use substr .. I'm curious which function is the most efficient one.
    --- Jura 11:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! It would be good if this could be documented somewhere so it doesn't get lost in the archives (since it doesn't look like the phabricator ticket will lead to a change with this any time soon). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


I think it is strange that we encourage the use of to link to Wikidata Query Services (it's the short URL produced on the Query Service page!), and then block it from entering it into Wikidata. I couldn't use it on my user page to bookmark a search I produced! While I understand that shorteners shouldn't be used in the main wikidata space, the question is: Is there a possibility to exclude user and talk pages from the block? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Contact the development team/Archive/2017/02#Query result shortlink is a tinyurl... and it's forbidden in Wikipedia.--Jklamo (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Improving documentation during the Wikimania hackathonEdit

Hello all,

As you may know, the international conference Wikimania will take place in August in Montreal. Before that, two days of hackathon will allow people to work on any Wikimedia-related project. Just like during the Wikimedia Hackathon, we will organize a documentation sprint, where everyone can come and help improving documentation pages on any topic.

We suggested a few tasks related to Wikidata:

If you have any other ideas, feel free to create a comment or a subtask of the main task.

The hackathon will take place on August 9th and 10th. Of course, you're welcome to participate remotely, and continue working on the projects after that! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): - Great to hear it! As one of the organizers of Wikiconference North America pre-conference (happening at the same time, Aug 10) we were thinking of doing Wikidata training with our North American constituents, including showcases of how to use Quickstatements, Google Spreadsheets, OpenRefine. Perhaps we could join forces here, even if it's just for 90 minutes or so in the day. -- Fuzheado (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help fixEdit

Wikidata as usual is not making it easy for me. I linked en:Elwro to pl:Elwro and cannot undue it, it's a mistake en:Elwro should link to pl:Wrocławskie Zakłady Elektroniczne Mera-Elwro instead. Thx -- 11:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done I have moved the link from Elwro (Q9253030) to Elwro (Q3051868). --Sintakso (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #269Edit

Merged entities IRL with funky Wikidata resultsEdit

Not sure what the proper venue for this is, so pointers for that would be appreciated.

I just ran across some funkyness that I don't know how to fix.

What seems to be the IRL background, is that the French commune w:Sacy, Yonne was merged into w:Vermenton (on 1. Jan. 2016). Through whatever process this change has been reflected here as the original Wikidata item for Vermenton (Q1422869) (and possibly Sacy too, I haven't checked) being changed to some kind of "former" status, and a new Wikidata item no label (Q28732226) created for the new combined entity. Two issues with this:

First, it seems, to me, to be wrong. If Sacy was merged into Vermenton, as the enwp description suggests, then the Vermenton entity didn't really change its identity (it just expanded scope). Sacy did, so that probably does need some kind of "former" status.

Secondly, the new Wikidata item for Vemonton lacks a description (which was how I noticed; a Q-code was displayed in a Commons Creator template that pulls from Wikidata), iw links, and a bunch of the properties that are on the old Wikidata item.

In any case, for my purposes I could just copy and paste the description between items, but as best I can tell the above reflects an actual (not just cosmetic) problem with the data. And since I have no idea how to fix that (or indeed what the correct state is for this situation) I figured I'd drop a note here so someone with more Wikidata-fu can sort it out. --Xover (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Notabilty rules limits in footnotesEdit

Was it proper for User:ValterVB here to revert my emendation of a footnote? The actual discussion about the rule change occurs at the link I provided in addition to the previous link. The previous discussion cited is about the creation of the Commons Category link system, not about the limits of its use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was, because the reason he reverted you was need consensus. I read quickly through the page you added as reference, and to me it did not look like there was any consensus. The most of our guidelines/policies and especially new additions or removals to existing guidelines/policies should always be based on censensus (not majority). Q.Zanden questions? 09:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus at the first link either. I do not see any place where the wording gained consensus. The first link discusses the creation of the field to hold "commons category". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
As you can see, the first link has been "completed" by marking it with a blue square around the whole text, a sign that the outcome of the RfC was succesful and as written under Addendum 2 there was a succesful outcome of option V as well. Your link still does not end with any conclusion and as it is in the archive-section there will not be any ending conclusion in favor of your extra link. Beside that, there is already one footnote for the text, so why would you wnat to add a second one? Q.Zanden questions? 14:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What country are Israeli Jewish settlements in?Edit

moved from my talk page. Ijon (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding these your edits from late 2016, removing country (P17) isn't the best choice, even if it's values might be considered controversial by one or another part of people. We need a country (P17) claim for each item about localities, and usually in case of disputed territories there are added and kept both values. What do you think about this? --XXN, 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, XXN. They are outside the international borders of the State of Israel, even according to the government of Israel. I think the most accurate value for country (P17), if any, would be Palestine (Q219060). It may feel incongruous to those Jewish settlers who certainly want to believe they are in Israel, and the government of Israel is (criminally, according to international law) giving them benefits of Israeli citizens and applying Israeli law to them, but it is still a matter of fact that those places are outside the borders of the State of Israel. Ijon (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the right thing to do is adding both Palestine (Q219060) Israel (Q801) because it's disputed.--Mikey641 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Mikey641: What, exactly, is disputed, though? Can you provide any reliable source for Israel's borders extending to include those settlements? Ijon (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The Israeli government itself considers the territory to be disputed, but I don't think that's the primary issue here. I think there might be different views about what the country (P17) property is for. The government over the areas in question is clearly Israel, and the residents are Israelis. IIUC, the government doesn't claim that the area is in Israel, but it does recognize the national affiliation of the settlements to be Israel. Foreign powers don't consider the settlements themselves to be non-Israeli, although they do consider the territory they're located on to be so. As such, I'd recommend listing them as being exclusively Israeli.
Note that P17 is also used for non-territorial entities, such as government entities, armies, legal entities, and groups of people. --Yair rand (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's move to WD:Project chat to get more opinions. I'm open to any solution that respects facts. It is IMHO incorrect to state as fact that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank are in Israel, even according to the Israeli government, however gladly it applies its laws there and supports the war crime that these settlements are (the fact of their being a war crime, unlike the fact about Israel's borders, is disputed by the Israeli government). It is true and accurate Jewish Israeli citizens live there, under Israeli military protection, enjoying Israeli infrastructure (such as electricity) etc., but none of these things change the internationally recognized borders of the State of Israel.
Thoughts, anyone? Ijon (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is to some extent disputed if Israel is a recognised nation at all. Same thing could be said about Palestine. My opinion is "add both" and use qualifiers to describe the problems with those claims. Internationally recognised law and borders does not always agree with how things de facto works. Some here still claims that the way Norway separated from Sweden was not according to international law. I know some claim the same thing about Texas being a part of US. But international law does not always change how things de facto works. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ijon: Indeed, but why not say those statements as disputed territory (Q15239622) or state with limited recognition (Q15634554)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, don't add statements if you're not sure you can find a source to support them. This is especially true of statements that could be disputed.--Melderick (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not unusual for towns or settlements in one one country to be populated mostly by people from some other country, such places still should have country (P17) property matching current internationally recognized borders. Almost any territory might be disputed by someone, but that is not enough to give those views equal footing and use "add both" solution. --Jarekt (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources calling them Israeli settlements, and presumably none calling them Palestinian settlements. There are relatively few sources saying that they're "located in Israel", compared to saying that they're in the Palestinian territories. Which attribute is associated with P17? Location, or national/administrative affiliation? --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's an essay I wrote on Commons about a similar issue: commons:Commons:Disputed_territories. I think most of it applies here too. --99of9 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Removing the values seems to be clearly wrong. On the one hand, even if you think that the claim is wrong it would be likely better to deprecate it then to remove it. On the other hand, it seems to me like the Israeli government does consider those settlements to belong to Israel. The fact that according to your beliefs they don't belong isn't ground for removing the claim. You can add "Disputed by". ChristianKl (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, ChristianKl but it is unfair to call facts "my beliefs". These are geographical facts: look up these settlements, and look up Israel's international borders. The former are outside the latter, and even the government of Israel does not dispute that they are. That government nonetheless extends its power over them, in a way that seems illegal, but in terms of international borders, those settlements (of Israeli citizens) cannot be said to be "in Israel". It is my understanding that country (P17) should refer to the country in whose territory (whether contiguous or not) the place lies. This is not the case for Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. I remain confused about what should be their "country"; perhaps none? Ijon (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Or perhaps West Bank (Q36678), which appropriately is an "occupied territory", thus permissible as a country (P17), and isn't "the Palestinian Authority" (which would be misleading and factually incorrect, as it wields absolutely no power over the Israeli settlements). Would that be a good solution? Ijon (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Or Palestinian territories (Q407199). XXN, 10:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Units with QuickstatementsEdit

I asked a user at sv.wikipedia to do some edits with Quickstatements. He reports that he has problems adding units to area (P2046) with the new version. Using the old one is not much of an options since it has other flaws, even if it looks like it works to add units with it. How could this still a problem? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems that Magnus haven't found time to fix that yet. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Darn, I was thinking of using Quickstatements to add some area information for towns in Vermont from the US Census. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope Magnus will find his way to review and merge this. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: I skipped waiting för the bugfix, and created this listeria-page who list all (for me) relevant pages with missing units. All 800 pages will not be fixed today, but in due time... -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, but my main interest is being able to add areas, together with the appropriate units, as stated in a reliable source. I have reviewed the majority of the towns, and so far, either the area is absent or it is stated in appropriate units. Finding and identifying quantities that lack an appropriate unit of measure is not my area of interest. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

wbEntity config variable to be deprecatedEdit


This is an important message for people who develop gadgets or user scripts for Wikidata’s frontend.

We plan to deprecate the wbEntity javascript config variable in the next months. The variable is currently used on every page load, even if when it is not useful (for example on mobile). With that change, we will increase the load speed of the entity pages. After that the expression mw.config.get( 'wbEntity' ); will not work any more. All code that uses this config variable should be migrated towards using the Mediawiki hook wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded.

When a user opens an entity page (item or property), as soon as the JSON representation of the entity stored on the current entity page is loaded, the Mediawiki hook wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded is triggered. Listener callbacks should expect the entity as a native JavaScript object (the parsed JSON serialization) passed as the first (and only) argument.

Note: The entity object is completely frozen (read-only) to avoid the case when one of the clients accidentally changes it and breaks other clients.

Here are a few examples on how you can use it:

 // Basic usage
mw.hook( 'wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded' ).add( function ( entity ) {
  'use strict';
  // Your code goes here
  console.log( entity );
} );

// Convert to jQuery promise
var entityPromise = $.Deferred( function ( deferred ) {
  mw.hook( 'wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded' ).add( function ( entity ) {
     deferred.resolve( entity );
  } );
} ).promise();

// Convert to native promise
var entityPromise = new Promise( function ( resolve ) {
  mw.hook( 'wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded' ).add( function ( entity ) {
     resolve( entity );
  } );
} );

See also: the related ticket, the code of wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded.

If you have any question or need support with migrating specific gadgets, feel free to write to me. Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons URL considered invalidEdit

I get an 'invalid character' error trying to add"Wikimania_2016".pdf to Wikimania 2016. The World Gathering of Wikipedia in Esino Lario (Q32979517) using full work available at (P953). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Escaped double quotes with "%22" and it worked. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but why is a working URL, from our own sister project, rejected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Working ≠ valid. It doesn't work in wikitext either: "Wikimania_2016".pdf. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
A bug in Commons (or MediaWiki), then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really either. Valid URLs may contain a pre-defined set of characters, and the quote character (") is not allowed and needs to be encoded as Matěj indicated. However, to make URLs human-readable, one can decode the valid URL, and all modern Browsers and most content management systems (such as Mediawiki) support this functionality to make non-valid URLs working. One could argue now that there should be some URL encoding happening as well if you add a non-valid URL to a claim, but I am not sure which unexpected side effects could arise then… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many redirectsEdit

Is the quality of items going down? Because on this graph I have noticed a ~300000 increase in redirects in one day! This trend of mass redirecting seems to have started on July 8, probably from GZWDer (flood) (talkcontribslogs). PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 13:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see +30,000, not +300,000. Moreover, I don't think number of redirects created corelates with item quality. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think redirects can be a good marker of improved quality, in that redundant items in different languages or scripts are being identified and merged. We still have a lot of those to find. - PKM (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Difference between P1943 and P242Edit

It seems that location map (P1943) and locator map image (P242) are quite the same, and are being used elsewhere to state the same. See their talk pages and, for example, Gansu (Q42392) -Theklan (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

location map (P1943) is for inside the boundaries of the place, while locator map image (P242) should show the location of the place within the higher administrative unit. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Commons has a good description of the difference. Mahir256 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

precision of birth and death datesEdit

I was working a lot lately with importing date of birth (P569) and date of death (P570) from Commons Creator pages. In case of no birth/death dates on wikidata I just imported them with "Imported from Commons" reference. Now I am working on cases where we have date with day-precision on Commons and with year-precision on Wikidata. At the moment I was adding and merging them by hand, looking up the references and setting ranks to "preferred" for day precision dates. That takes a lot of time and since there are hundreds of possibly thousands such items it is not practical to do by hand. There are several options here:

  • I import high precision dates so we would have high and low precision dates with the same rank in large number of items. Unfortunately multiple dates with the same rank is also how we model cases where sources claim two possible dates. This solution also leaves the dates with poor "Imported from .." references.
  • A better solution would be if someone did a bot run and added day-precision dates from RKDartists ID (P650) or other databases (most of the time affected item also have RKDartists ID (P650) which I use as a reference). Those dates should be either added with preferred rank if year-precision dates are present or they should replace year-precision dates.

Any chance someone could do such bot run? If not than unless there are objections I will ask at Wikidata:Bot_requests. --Jarekt (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how this database identifies whether dates are Julian or Gregorian calendar, and your plan to take this into account. Also please identify whether dates in this database are local or universal time, and if local, your plan to deal with the fact that Wikidata uses Universal Time. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Dates in Creator templates can specify if unusual dates are in Julian calendar. This relates mostly to 18 and 19 century Russians for whom dates are usually recorded in Julian calendar and I take that into account. I do not deal with birth and death dates with precision higher than a day so local vs. universal time is not much of an issue. We report dates in literature and those rarely come with time zone info. In my opinion any "adjustments" to the recognized published dates would be very confusing, as project using the data are unlikely to be able to "unadjust" before displaying. --Jarekt (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It may be best to modify the creator template so that it compares dates with the equivalent in Wikidata, and adds any templates where the date(s) do not match to tracking categories. Solutions can then be crowd--sourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I am already adding dozens of tracking categories, see c:Category:Creator template maintenance. Creator template track when:
  1. data on Commons matches Wikidata (such metadata is then removed from commons and pulled from Wikidata) -> "Creator templates with Wikidata link: redundant ..." categories
  2. Commons has metadata that is missing on Wikidata ("Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing ..." categories)
  3. Commons and wikidata have the same information but it does not match -> "Creator templates with Wikidata link: mismatching ..." categories
  4. I am also tracking few of the fields to see if they use local or wikidata metadata -> "Creator templates with Wikidata link: local ..."
  5. pages in c:Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: quick statements‎ have   icon which will launch preloaded QuickStatements tool which will upload metadata missing on Wikidata (at the moment it is mostly day precision dates maching year precision dates on Wikidata)
If some people would like to dive in and help with figuring out the missing or mismatching categories that would be great. let me know if there are any questions. --Jarekt (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

SEO is poor, isn't?Edit

Is it possible to fix it with Extension:WikiSEO or another extension? We don't have any page-specific HTML-keywords e.g. here - is it right or wrong now? d1g (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that current indexing of Wikidata is pretty poor. Google says only 7,000,000 pages are indexed of over 30 million items. I remember that Google indexes English Wikipedia new pages quickly (I think they "scrape" the newpages special pages). Couldn't they do the same for Wikidata? Emijrp (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we want search engines to be sending people to Wikidata edit pages? - PKM (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Lag timesEdit

High dispatch lagEdit

There has been a higher dispatch lag since the end of last month. The English Wikipedia is now three days behind Wikidata, according to Special:DispatchStats. I would like to ask everyone to keep mass edits to items with sitelinks to a minimum low until the dispatch lag is on a reasonable level.

I would also like to ask Magnus Manske to build proper editing limits into his tools. It should not be possible to run more like one instance of QuickStatements for example. Some tools also don't seem to have limits at all. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Server lag and bot edit ratesEdit

In the last weeks Wikidata has experienced some cases of "server lag" (dispatch lag, job queue). Currently, according to admins the dispatch lag and job queue is pretty high. I have been requested to stop my bot tasks for a week. I have about 10 tasks approved, I was just running 1 of them (at 130 edits/min, needing several days to complete) and I am just 1 of dozens of bot operators here in Wikidata, and that was enough to cause trouble.

I think that the current lag was provoked by the creation of 3 million new items for categories in the last weeks. Anyway, I don't want to point to anybody. I think we should discuss about this situation, as now bots "can't edit" until the dispatch log goes down. I have some proposals to mitigate this in the future:

  • Any bot task must be approved (I have seen bots running several tasks, and their bot templates just show 1 approved task) and it has to state an upper edit rate limit
  • Develop a pywikibot throttle function that counts not only maxlag but dispatchlag figures
  • Ask WMF/WM-DE to allocate more resources for Wikidata (job servers?). Some bot tasks are so big that running at 50 edits/min would need months to complete (and after that time, they would need to be restarted again). Anyway, running just 6 different bots at that rate, would sum up 300 edit/min, which is probably a rate high enough to cause trouble to servers.

Wikidata needs bots to keep items updated, tons of bots. I wonder what would happen when Commons structured data and Wiktionary lexemes (dozens of million data snipets) are added to Wikidata, will this turn unsustainable?

Comments? Thank you. Emijrp (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Me changing my signature template on 1000+ pages didn't help, but that should take a minute. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You should not be using a template for your sig. Please disable it, and then it can be substituted and deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And at least make the font size smaller first. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: Did you see this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, sometime I wanted to run multi jobs more than 4 jobs, but then my bot will do more then 350 edit in minute via API.?

def New(data, summary):
    r4 =, data={
        "action": "wbeditentity",
        "format": "json",
        "maxlag": "3",
        "new": "item",
        "summary": summary,
        "bot": 1,
        'utf8': 1,
        "data": str(data) , 
        'token': r3.json()['query']['tokens']['csrftoken'],
So is there a way to make the bot do 60 edit per minute at most in multi jobs? --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are doing multiple jobs from the same application, do not execute requests directly but make a separate variable with callbacks and use threading.Timer like:
from threading import Timer

queue = []
stop = False
timer = None

def next_callback():
    if queue:
        callback = queue.pop(0)
        if stop:
    timer = Timer(1, next_callback).start()

timer = Timer(1, next_callback).start()

# ...

def New(data, summary):
    queue.append(lambda:, data={
        "action": "wbeditentity",
        "format": "json",
        "maxlag": "3",
        "new": "item",
        "summary": summary,
        "bot": 1,
        'utf8': 1,
        "data": str(data) , 
        'token': r3.json()['query']['tokens']['csrftoken'],
If you are running bot from multiple applications, just wait (time.sleep) before each request 1 * (number of jobs). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The dispatch, job, and lag statusEdit

The problem is so great that I think a discussion on Project Chat isn't going to cut it. I think we need to spread the message of how to help the problem to the entire site, probably with those banner things that can be placed on the top of a page. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

But just pointing bots as is the main source of problem is not enough: what's about QuickStatement and other tools allowing mass edits or fast edits ? And what's about the efficiency of all those edits when we hear that more than 30'000 items where recently merged ? To much freedom is going to kill WD: lonely contributors shouldn't be able to decide mass edits without support of some groups of contributors like wikiprojects and with an appropriate curation of data BEFORE the import in WD. Snipre (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. I like the interface of QuickStatements 2, maybe some option that another user (with some protection to avoid sockpuppets) needs to approve a bath task first? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
We have to put more constraints in items creation: at least one label with a description and at least a instance of/subclass of statement. And for tools like QuickStatements, a number of edits per batch as to be defined with a consistent lag time. To overcome these limitations, an evaluation like the one used for bot ask should be required with link to the discussion defining the need of the mass edition. ~Just some ideas. Snipre (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
QuickStatements is like running a bot. I think that any QS task should be approved, like any bot must be approved first (Though we know that here in Wikidata many bots managers post the first task to get the flag, and then they don't look for approval anymore). Sometimes categories aren't linked between Wikipedias, so I wouldn't blame the bot operator if that is what happened here. Importing unconnected categories and merging them here, helps to improve the connectivity, reducing Wikipedia maintenance backlog, specially for small languages. Emijrp (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that recent changes is not production ready? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I use QuickStatements all the time to add multiple statements to single-item new creations, often for books to be used as references, or for missing "steps" in a class hierarchy. Requiring approval for "any QS task" is not going to solve our problem here and is going to make it harder for individual contributors to do quality work. - PKM (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It now looks like the GUI has trouble from time to time, making manual editing fail. The statement-parts of the page looks read only while the label/description looks editable, but when you "edit" the interface fails, only providing editing in one single language. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Currently QuickStatements2 have security flaw that even blocked users can use this tool to edit.--GZWDer (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Strategy discussion, cycle 3. Challenge 4Edit

Hi! The movement strategy discussion is still underway, and there are four challenges that you may discuss:

  1. How do our communities and content stay relevant in a changing world?
  2. How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways?
  3. As Wikimedia looks toward 2030, how can we counteract the increasing levels of misinformation?
  4. and the newest one: How does Wikimedia continue to be as useful as possible to the world as the creation, presentation, and distribution of knowledge change?

The last, fifth challenge will be released on July, 25.

If you want to know what other communities think about the challenges, there's the latest weekly summary (July 10 to 16), and there's the previous one (July 1 to 9).

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Query Service not WorkingEdit

So I decided to fnd rivers in the USA with a query, so I used the valid query:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q4022.
  ?item wdt:P17 wd:Q30.
#This is to make the template work

Try it!

I got some results (23k to be exact), but none of them is showing up with a label or description, even though the items have labels and descriptions. What is wrong with the Query Service? PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 13:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You should add the line SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }, because otherwise WDQS doesn't know in which language it should show the descriptions and labels. Q.Zanden questions? 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that was always optional. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 15:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Scores in ORES will be more accurateEdit


If you use ORES to watch vandalism, you may be interested by the next evolutions of the tool.

Currently, when patrollers hit the ORES API to check if an edit is vandalism or not, they get a score between 0 and 1 (example). From July 25th, these scores will change for edits, will get more signal out of edit summaries, and will be more accurate. We will for example use existing lists of bad words to catch this kind of vandalism more easily. You can see the details on the task.

If the patrollers set the threshold in their tools to highlight an edit if it was, for example, more than 90%, they need to revisit the number once the new changes got deployed. On this page you can find full statistical parts and find out what is the new threshold when it gets deployed.

If you need any help to set up your tool, feel free to contact Ladsgroup. Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

How to access Wikidata with LuaEdit

I am trying to figure out how to access list of all Wikisource or wikiquote sitelinks from Lua. Current mw.wikibase.entity:getSitelink function allow me to access then if I know which language I want, but so far I could not figure out how to get a list of all choices (other than test every supported language). Any Ideas? I am also trying to figure out how to access item aliases from lua. --Jarekt (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Here follows a list of all Wikisource sites and its corresponding pages in Project:Village pump (Q16503).
enwikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium, iswikisource:Wikiheimild:Potturinn, bnwikisource:উইকিসংকলন:লিপিশালা, ptwikisource:Wikisource:Esplanada, itwikisource:Wikisource:Bar, etwikisource:Vikitekstid:Üldine arutelu, cswikisource:Wikizdroje:U pramene, bswikisource:Wikizvor:Čaršija, idwikisource:Wikisource:Warung kopi, sawikisource:विकिस्रोतः:समुदायद्वारम्, jawikisource:Wikisource:井戸端, lawikisource:Vicifons:Scriptorium, fawikisource:ویکی‌نبشته:دفترخانه, dawikisource:Wikisource:Skriptoriet, trwikisource:Vikikaynak:Köy çeşmesi, orwikisource:ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର:ଆଲୋଚନା ସଭା, frwikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium, hrwikisource:Wikizvor:Pisarnica, ruwikisource:Викитека:Форум, vecwikisource:Wikisource:Ciacole, brwikisource:Wikimammenn:An davarn, hywikisource:Վիքիդարան:Խորհրդարան, srwikisource:Викизворник:Писарница, huwikisource:Wikiforrás:Kocsmafal, bewikisource:Вікікрыніцы:Супольнасць, dewikisource:Wikisource:Skriptorium, eswikisource:Wikisource:Café, hewikisource:ויקיטקסט:מזנון, svwikisource:Wikisource:Mötesplatsen, mkwikisource:Wikisource:Тековни настани, ukwikisource:Вікіджерела:Скрипторій, viwikisource:Wikisource:Thảo luận, skwikisource:Wikizdroje:Portál komunity, glwikisource:Wikisource:A Taberna, yiwikisource:װיקיביבליאָטעק:געמײנדע, nlwikisource:Wikisource:De kroeg, slwikisource:Wikivir:Pod lipo, zhwikisource:Wikisource:写字间, elwikisource:Βικιθήκη:Γραμματεία, fiwikisource:Wikiaineisto:Kahvihuone, liwikisource:Wikibrónne:Gebroekersportaol, cywikisource:Wicidestun:Y Sgriptoriwm, plwikisource:Wikiźródła:Skryptorium, arwikisource:ويكي مصدر:الميدان, fowikisource:Wikiheimild:Undirhúsið, eowikisource:Vikifontaro:Diskutejo, kowikisource:위키문헌:사랑방, nowikisource:Wikikilden:Kontoret, rowikisource:Wikisource:Scriptoriu, azwikisource:VikiMənbə:Kənd meydanı, cawikisource:Viquitexts:La taverna
You see the code to access this at Module:Sandbox/Innocent bystander
It is also possible to access any alias in any language. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Here follows all English aliases in Richard Feynman (Q39246)
Richard Phillips Feynman, Richard P. Feynman
The code can be seen in the same page. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Innocent bystander, thank you. So no fancy lua calls just dive into the entity data structure. I will have to remember this approach when running into other issues like that. --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It is possible that there are shortcuts to access this information, but I think this method is straightforward, since all data is there, aliases, sitelinks, labels, descriptions and statements. You do not have to download twice, once for label and once for the sitelink. Sometimes the fallback to English is not the best of options, like when looking up transcriptions from a language with Cyrillic script, then labels in German is often much more useful. Other times the fallback to Bokmål or Danish is much better, for example names of occupations. The ordinary way to access the label is then not the best option. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I need a DB of all the cities in the world, an alternative to geonames org and since wikipedia seems to have a page of all the cities, I guess I could use this site. So im trying to learn the query, and made this query for all the cities of italy but the result is only 150 rows instead of 7000, so am i doing anything wrong ? The query:

SELECT DISTINCT ?cityLabel ?city ?official_name ?located_in_the_administrative_territorial_entity ?country WHERE {
  ?city (wdt:P31/wdt:P279*) wd:Q515.
  FILTER (?country = wd:Q38)
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
  OPTIONAL { ?city wdt:P1448 ?official_name. }
  OPTIONAL { ?city wdt:P131 ?located_in_the_administrative_territorial_entity. }
  OPTIONAL { ?city wdt:P17 ?country. }

Try it!


@Widauser: proper place to ask it here: Wikidata:Request a query d1g (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The following query uses these:

  ?c wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q486972. # 138 Results with Q515; 63553 Results with Q486972
  ?c wdt:P17 wd:Q38.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }

Try it!

We really need a good definition of City here. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Permission for 12000 categories creation from wiktonaryEdit

Permission granted? PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: thanks a lot if you have a bot able to do this. Do you plan to import categories from all the Wiktionary projects or only from few of them (English one and maybe few others)? Pamputt (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pamputt: I need to request permission first. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 02:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No. You don't seem to understand why you have to ask for permission, otherwise you would not make such vague requests. You should also reread Wikidata:Project_chat#Lag_times. We are trying to avoid mass edits right now, particularly things like mass creating items for categories. - Nikki (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Which categories? Almost all categoies with interwikiki are already imported except some of those which are on fr.wikt and end.wikt only and except categories with some interwiki conflicts from top 35. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
To receive the permission you have to explain what you will do and how you do it. And the best is to discuss first with people from Wikisource Wiktionary to see what they want to see in WD. Just creating items is no sense without a purpose. Snipre (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Snipre: I guess you wanted to write Wiktionary (and not Wikisource). Pamputt (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

search items by altlabelEdit

Hi, I try to search item by alternative label and it does not work for some reason.

when searching according to labels it does work:

SELECT DISTINCT ?s ?sLabel ?sAltLabel WHERE {
  ?s wdt:P19 wd:Q844930.
  ?s rdfs:label ?sLabel .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
} limit 100

Try it!

But when searching according to altLabel I get no results:

SELECT DISTINCT ?s ?sLabel ?sAltLabel WHERE {
  ?s wdt:P19 wd:Q844930.
  ?s skos:altLabel ?sAltLabel. 
  FILTER(CONTAINS(?sAltLabel, "Bolatu"@en)). 
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
} limit 100

Try it!

why is that and how to fix it? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you wrap the part with skos in "OPTIONAL" you will get a hit.
SELECT DISTINCT ?s ?sLabel ?sAltLabel WHERE {
  ?s wdt:P19 wd:Q844930.
 OPTIONAL { ?s skos:altLabel ?sAltLabel. }
 FILTER(CONTAINS(?sAltLabel, "Bolatu"@en)) 
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
} limit 100

Try it!

I can't explain why. --Larske (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Request a query is a better place to ask.--Jklamo (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  ?s wdt:P19 wd:Q844930.
 OPTIONAL { ?s skos:altLabel ?sAltLab. }
 FILTER(CONTAINS(?sAltLab, "Bolatu"@en)) 
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
} limit 100

Try it!

I think  ?sAltLabel has something with "SERVICE wikibase:label" if you change it to any thing, you will get results. --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting find with "?sAltLabel"!
    --- Jura 23:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Item pages not loading fullyEdit

For the last half hour or so, I've been unable to load item pages properly; I get no "edit" links, with the occasional exception. I've tried re-starting my browser, and then my machine, to no effect. I have the latest Firefox (54.0.1), under Win 10, on a powerful Dell XPS. How can I fix this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I bet this has something to do with phab:T170668. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the affected items is Andrea Leadsom (Q750091). How does it look to other editors? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"no edit links" - got this bug yesterday with Firefox 54.0. But right now everything works fine with Q750091. Firefox seems to be 2-4 times slower in general with Wikidata than Chrome. d1g (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I get the same symptoms, including on that item, in Chrome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I can not edit d:Q30426860 (creator link has to be removed). --Jarekt (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Same here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the Phabricator discussion, purging the item fixes it - but that is obviously not a sustainable solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a workaround till the patch is reviewed, merged and deployed. Mbch331 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Constraint statements updateEdit

Hello all,

following the announcement two weeks ago, constraint statements have been enabled on Wikidata and all constraints have been migrated from templates on property talk pages to statements on the property itself (thanks Ivan for doing the actual migration!). You can now edit the constraint statements on a property, and the change will be reflected almost immediately when you check the constraints with the gadget or special page (see usage instructions). You can also see if there are any problems with the constraint statement on that statement itself: if the constraint parameters are invalid, the gadget adds a report similar to the normal constraint report, but with a bright orange icon (I’ve added an example on Sandbox-String (P370)).

However, there is one unanticipated problem: a few constraints (specifically, on taxon name (P225), GNIS ID (P590), IMA status and/or rank (P579), Commons category (P373), category's main topic (P301), and INSEE municipality code (P374)) have so many exception to constraint (P2303) qualifiers that they don’t fit in the constraint database, so that a constraint check on any item with a statement for one of these properties crashes with a fatal error (if you use the gadget, you won’t see anything, the constraint reports will just be missing). We’ll deploy a fix for this as soon as possible, but seeing as it’s Friday evening, that might still take a few days. In the meantime, you can also fix this problem on Wikidata by reducing the exception lists of those constraints, or by removing the constraints completely. (The fix we’ll deploy will not actually add support for such long exception lists, it will just reduce the impact of the error and report it properly. We have no immediate plans to fully support extremely long exception lists.)

If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. Thanks! --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What about usability, Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)? taxon name (P225) started with 20.508 Bytes (20 June 2017) and has now (16 July 2017) - after migration - 631,637 bytes. It is - in my opinion - not maintainability anymore. --Succu (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
IMHO these constraints should just be deleted, maintaining such a long list of exceptions is against the spirit of the system anyway. − Pintoch (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Convert it to complex SPARQL constraint as for now.
  Comment We should rework UI to display "best" values first and "other values" should be collapsed.
Something similar should be done with long list of qualifiers (show first 10, provide an option to show all) d1g (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Of the ones you mention, the first constraints with the most exceptions seem to be the most appropriate (P225, P590). It's just that they have tons of uses and so even 1/1000 of exceptions start adding up. P374 should probably be solved with ranks instead. P373 can eventually be replaced with some Wikibase function, so we probably don't want to waste more time with it.
    Given the big progress you made developing Wikibase for constraints, I think we should be able to bear with the fact that for two properties another custom solution needs to be used and that eventually we will have to find a way to scale the system to properties with more uses. --
    --- Jura 23:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For the taxa is it possible to make another type of constraint that requires (Distinct values OR different from (P1889))? --99of9 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For P225 a work-around would be most welcome. My guess would be that this should take the form of 1) migrating the exceptions to separate pages (plural) or 2) like 99of9 suggests, some extra property/ies to be taken into account (that is, an item that holds such a claim will be taken to be an exception, even though not listed as such). In the case of separate pages of exceptions, these almost certainly have to be plural as the list of exceptions had been reduced quite substantially by leaving out many items (those including a P2743 claim) that should really be listed. Nevertheless, in spite of that reduction, the list of exceptions on the Talk page skirted the limits of what the editor could load, and now that it has been migrated to the property page cannot be loaded by the editor at all. - Brya (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Make the merge gadget a default option?Edit

This would help to cut down on the amount of requests at WD:RFD. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 01:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/06#Integrate_the_merge_function_into_the_default_UI and see also phab:T140124--GZWDer (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)